{"id":45632,"date":"2024-01-09T08:01:14","date_gmt":"2024-01-09T08:01:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/essays.homeworkacetutors.com\/2024\/01\/issues-of-uberveillance-in-the-workplace\/"},"modified":"2024-01-09T08:01:14","modified_gmt":"2024-01-09T08:01:14","slug":"issues-of-uberveillance-in-the-workplace","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/us\/issues-of-uberveillance-in-the-workplace\/","title":{"rendered":"Issues of Uberveillance in the Workplace"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Challenges
\nFaced by ICT Professionals: Uberveillance<\/h3>\n

Introduction<\/h3>\n

Michael and Michael (2007) state that uberveillance uses cutting-edge surveillance technology to identify, locate, and track individuals. It is omnipresent and based on pervasive electronic devices such as computer chips that are implanted into the body. The idea of uberveillance brings up various concerns about privacy, ethical, and human rights. This is because these devices monitor individuals<\/a> and compel them to provide detailed information about themselves, their likes, dislikes, habits, behaviours, and preferences (Chirgwin, 2015). This could lead to abusive or dangerous situations if such information falls into the wrong hands. <\/p>\n

Privacy and uberveillance<\/h3>\n

Several issues<\/a> come up concerning uberveillance at the workplace. Michael (2012) states that electronic and monitoring surveillance practices have significantly increased in the last years to encompass all aspects of life, including the workplace. Emails, social networking, and LinkedIn are some examples of communication flows in and out of a workplace. This e-communication comes with some potential risks to the employers and employees because of the need for extended permissible authority for surveillance, the growth of relational databases, and a business that is committed to filling them (Michael & Michael, 2014). ICT professionals use these sites and media forms to communicate with clients and colleagues. If they are under uberveillance, their activities and actions could be tracked and exploited to get information from them that could potentially harm them and their company. <\/p>\n

As Michael and Michael (2009, p.4) state, these
\nsurveillance technologies are used mainly on the common people and not on
\nrulers, leaders, or people of influence. It is only used on the leaders in
\ncases of blackmail or industrial espionage. At the place of work, it is mostly
\nthe employees who are subjected to uberveillance; by their superiors. Everyone
\nneeds some privacy (Michael & Michael, 2009 p.4), but uberveillance makes
\nthis privacy obsolete. The ICT employees need to have a modicum of privacy even
\nif they are on work premises and using work equipment and resources. However,
\nworking for someone or a corporation means that the employees should also
\naccept that their privacy will be invaded. The use of uberveillance at work
\nwould invade employee privacy completely and subject them to unnecessary
\nscrutiny on their private and public lives. Uberveillance would enable
\nemployees to follow an employee\u2019s life even when they are not at work.
\nInformation gathered could be used negatively or positively against them.
\nKurkovsky et al. (2011) shows how employers could use an RFID tracker to keep
\ntrack of employee location. This can be beneficial if the tracker helps to
\nimprove job productivity. However, it should not be used to monitor the
\nemployees in order to micro-manage their time and activities, as this could
\ndiscourage them. <\/p>\n

Impact of uberveillance on work productivity and
\nefficiency<\/h3>\n

Uberveillance devices such as microchips can
\nenable the ICT professionals to access work-related technologies like printers
\nor scanners, log onto their computers, and open secure doors (Mazanov, 2017).
\nIt can also be used as a cure or remedy for forgetfulness even in the workplace
\nwhen an employee forgets where they placed a project or how they performed a
\ncertain task. A microchip would enable employees to swipe their security and ID
\ncards into the work building, and to pay for food and other services in the
\nwork space (Astor, 2017). Michael and Michael (2014) however see the need for
\nmore research on the use on uberveillance at the workplace. Even though micro
\nchipping aids in automating payroll systems and the effective use of online
\ncommerce practices, it could be costly and unhealthy to embed microchips in
\nemployees and other individuals (Mazanov, 2017).<\/p>\n

Widespread use of uberveillance and its
\nassociated devices could change the way employees work, perform tasks, and even
\nenter the profession (Joint Workshop, 2012). When employees are aware that they
\nare being monitored, they could either become more motivated to work, or feel
\nstifled in their environment. This can limit their imaginations and place
\nlimits on their natural impulse to act spontaneously and to freely use their
\nimaginations for company and personal benefit. They also become constrained in
\nthe use of words and expressions. Their creativity and relaxation levels
\nreduce, causing them to work below optimum and with a lot of anxiety that could
\nbring negative results for the company. However, uberveillance devices, if used
\nproperly, could help to monitor their levels of stress and the onset of
\nwork-related illnesses and ultimately facilitate earlier return to work after
\nan illness (Joint Workshop, 2012 p.5). <\/p>\n

Uberveillance and health issues<\/h3>\n

Many ICT professionals are nervous about having
\na device implanted into their bodies because they still do not know much about
\nthem and their effects and capabilities. According to experts, micros chips and
\nother devices do not have tracking abilities (Sheppard, 2017). However, they
\nare aware that these devices will be a major part of everyday life in the
\ncoming years and will be fully integrated into their personal and professional
\nrealms. Health issues and injury lawsuits could arise if the implant migrates
\nto another part of the body or if it becomes infected (Astor, 2017). This could
\nlead to absenteeism at work as employees require treatment or hospitalization
\nfor corrective measures to be performed. <\/p>\n

The U.S Food and Drug Administration (2014)
\nstates that it is unaware of any side effects from RFID implantation in human
\nbeings, although there are concerns about their effect on medical devices.
\nMichael and Michael (2014 p.281) state that research has shown how microchips
\nhave caused cancer in animals, and further recommendations and research is
\nneeded for use in human beings. If employees get such implants and they end up
\nwith adverse effects, then their productivity and ability to work becomes
\ncompromised. <\/p>\n

Uberveillance and security<\/h3>\n

Implants and chips are usually encrypted, and
\nare thus susceptible to hacking or reading by third-party scanners. Individuals
\ncould secretly access information from these devices and clone the signal to
\ngain access in order to impersonate the chipped individual (Byles, 2006). This
\ncould affect ICT employees as they often deal with sensitive company
\ninformation that could be hacked by competitors or blackmailers for company
\nespionage. It is thus not secure to use uberveillance on employees who deal
\nwith sensitive business data as their lives could be put at risk. Byles (2006)
\nalso states that such a breach of security could result in problems for
\nbuilding or computer access by locking individuals out of their work place,
\nsecure rooms, or their designated work areas. <\/p>\n

Uberveillance will lend individuals to even
\ngreater scrutiny and surveillance, resulting in a total loss of freedom. The
\nelectronic and technological world are fragile, therefore uberveillance could
\nincrease the insecurity of data and information used on such devices at the
\nworkplace. Michael (2017) states that uberveillance is impelled by the need for
\ncontrol from superiors in order to scrutinize their juniors\u2019 lives and
\nthoughts. This could apply in the workplace as employer\u2019s desire to control all
\nthe activities of their employees, regardless of whether this could harm the
\nemployees. Employers might believe that uberveillance increases security at
\nwork (Michael, 2017), but this could be the opposite if the technology breaks
\ndown or is used for criminal activities. <\/p>\n

Legal and ethical implications of uberveillance<\/h3>\n

Employees should be made aware of and freely
\nconsent to uberveillance, and if they so wish, they can withdraw this consent
\n(Sheppard, 2017). Pressure to comply can make employees resign, claiming
\nconstructive dismissal. Monitoring practices should be under the laws of data
\nprotection and human rights policies, with employers conducting careful impact
\nassessments prior to introduction of uberveillance. The ICT employees need to
\nbe informed why it is valid and justified to monitor their movements, logs, and
\nactivities at the workplace. <\/p>\n

In addition, there could be religious or
\npersonal beliefs that prevent employees from being implanted with uberveillance
\ndevices (Sheppard, 2017). If these are violated, the business could face a
\nlawsuit. To mitigate this, data protection regulations should be prepared and
\nsigned by employees prior to implantation to ensure their decision is informed
\nand consent is free (Michael & Michael, 2010 p.10). Although employee monitoring
\nsystems are commonplace in businesses, uberveillance can be seen as crossing a
\nmoral, political, and legal threshold. <\/p>\n

Employers and others who require their staff to
\nuse uberveillance devices must differentiate between active and inactive
\nimplants, reversible and non-reversible ones, and offline and online ones
\n(Michael & Michael, 2010 p.10). They should ensure that employee dignity is
\nmaintained so that the employees are not manipulated or controlled remotely as
\na source of information. Uberveillance should be permitted if there is
\njustification and necessity for its use at the workplace and there are no
\nbetter methods of acquiring information without invasion of privacy. Such
\nsurveillance methods must thus be specified in legislation, and approved and monitored
\nlegally (Michael & Michael, 2010 p. 11)<\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/h3>\n

Research shows that there is various security,
\nprivacy, ethical, health, and legal implications for the use of uberveillance
\nat the workplace. Even though it can make the work of employees easier in some
\nways, its use can also be detrimental in their wellbeing and productivity. If
\nnot properly inserted, health problems could arise and make the employees
\nunable to work. The uberveillance devices must be kept secure to prevent system
\nhacking and even espionage at the workplace, because ICT professionals tend to
\ndeal with sensitive and classified information. Care must however be taken to
\nensure that employees being surveilled have given consent and are aware of the
\nimplications of the practice. <\/p>\n

Uberveillance is still developing, it is an
\ninevitable part of the future that will be quickly embraced. It will become
\nmore incorporated into the workplace and help to improve productivity and
\nemployee retention if used appropriately. Technology and uberveillance however
\nmust be used ethically and humanely because they ultimately convey the
\nintentions of the creators, who might have created them for their personal
\ngain. <\/p>\n

References<\/h2>\n

Astor, M
\n2017, \u201cMicrochip Implants for Employees? One Company Says Yes\u201d, Nytimes.com<\/em>,
\nviewed 20 August, 2017, <https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2017\/07\/25\/technology\/microchips-wisconsin-company-employees.html?mcubz=3>.<\/p>\n

Byles, I
\n2006, \u201cHealth-care chips could get under your skin\u201d, Medicalxpress.com<\/em>,
\nviewed 20 August, 2017, <https:\/\/medicalxpress.com\/news\/2006-06-health-care-chips-skin.html>.<\/p>\n

Chirgwin, R
\n2015, \u201cWelcome to \u2018uber-veillance\u2019 says Australian Privacy
\nFoundation\u201d, Theregister.co.uk<\/em>, viewed 20 August, 2017,
\n<https:\/\/www.theregister.co.uk\/2015\/01\/13\/its_already_too_late_for_privacy\/>.<\/p>\n

Joint Workshop 2012, Human enhancement and the future of work<\/em>, Joint
\nWorkshop, pp. 43-45, viewed 21 August, 2017,
\n<https:\/\/acmedsci.ac.uk\/file-download\/35266-135228646747.pdf>.<\/p>\n

Kurkovsky,
\nS, Syta, E & Casano, B 2011, Continuous RFID-enabled authentication:
\nPrivacy implications,\u00a0IEEE Technology and Society Magazine<\/em>,\u00a0vol.30, no.3, pp.34-41<\/p>\n

Mars, C 2014, ICT staff \u2018losing sleep\u2019 over
\nwork pressures, Public Technology, viewed 21 August 2017,
\n<https:\/\/www.publictechnology.net\/articles\/news\/ict-staff-losing-sleep-over-work-pressures>.<\/p>\n

Mazanov, J 2017, \u2018Intersecting performance
\nenhancing smart technologies, health and social science\u2019, Science Direct,
\nvol.5, no.3, pp.87-88<\/p>\n

Michael, K 2012,
\n\u201cWorkplace Privacy\u201d, Uberveillance<\/em>, viewed 22 August, 2017,
\n<http:\/\/uberveillance.com\/blog\/2012\/11\/18\/workplace-privacy.html>.<\/p>\n

Michael, M.G & Michael, K 2007, A note on \u201cuberveillance\u201d. <\/em>In K. Michael
\n& M.G. Michael (Eds), The Second Workshop on the Social Implications of
\nNational Security: From Dataveillance to Uberveillance and the Realpolitik of
\nthe Transparent Society, pp.9-25 Wollongong: University of Wollongong<\/p>\n

Michael, M 2016, The
\nParadox of the Uberveillance Equation<\/em>, IEEE, viewed 22 August, 2017, <http:\/\/ro.uow.edu.au\/cgi\/viewcontent.cgi?article=7122&context=eispapers>.<\/p>\n

Michael, M &
\nMichael, K 2009, Uberveillance: Microchipping people and the assault on
\nprivacy<\/em>, viewed 23 August, 2017,
\n<http:\/\/ro.uow.edu.au\/cgi\/viewcontent.cgi?article=1716&context=infopapers>.<\/p>\n

Michael, M &
\nMichael, K 2010, Toward a state of Uberveillance<\/em>, IEEE Technology and
\nSociety Magazine, viewed 23 August, 2017,
\n<http:\/\/ro.uow.edu.au\/infopapers\/2535\/>.<\/p>\n

Michael, M.G & Michael, K 2014,
\nUberveillance and the social implications of microchip implants: Emerging
\ntechnologies.IGI Global, Hershey, PA.<\/p>\n

Sheppard, D 2017, Microchipping workers: What
\nare the moral, practical and legal implications? Personnel Today, viewed 22
\nAugust 2017, <http:\/\/www.personneltoday.com\/hr\/microchipping-workers-moral-practical-legal-implications\/>.<\/p>\n

U.S. FDA 2014, Radio Frequency Identification
\n(RFID), viewed 22 August 2017
\n<https:\/\/www.fda.gov\/radiation-emittingproducts\/radiationsafety\/electromagneticcompatibilityemc\/ucm116647.htm>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Challenges Faced by ICT Professionals: Uberveillance Introduction Michael and Michael (2007) state that uberveillance uses cutting-edge surveillance technology to identify, locate, and track individuals. It is omnipresent and based on pervasive electronic devices such as computer chips that are implanted into the body. The idea of uberveillance brings up various concerns about privacy, ethical, and […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[8411,5803,8396],"tags":[5676,5686,5780,5294,5674,5677,5678,6403,4639],"class_list":["post-45632","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-do-my-homework-employment","category-employment","category-paper-writing-service","tag-1500-words-assessment-task","tag-ace-homework-tutors","tag-assignment-homework-help-answers","tag-bishops-writing-bureau","tag-create-a-2-4-page-resource","tag-create-powerpoint-include-harvard-referencing","tag-i-need-completed-essay-in-300-400-words","tag-write-a-3-5pg-paper","tag-write-a-page-assignment"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/45632","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=45632"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/45632\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=45632"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=45632"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=45632"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}