E-mail Privacy

[Michael J. McCarthy]

In article <TG13D3L at dri.com>, braun at dri.com (Kral) writes:
> In article <Nk13311w164w at bluemoon.uucp> sbrack at bluemoon.uucp (Steven S. Brack) writes:
 
>>	 Most employees
>>        expect that their employer would treat them as human beings,
>>        not as slaves to be constantly monitored.
> 
> I don't see this as the latter.  You seem to feel that if I have a right to
> access your files/desk, then I will be constantly monitoring you by doing so.
> I say this: any company that has nothing better to do than *monitor* it's
> employees is going to fail in the marketplace by the results of its economic
> inefficiencies.  This does not, however, preclude the search through documents
> in the course of conducting proper business.

	Oh good!  I finally get to use my liberal arts degree!
	The point that the first poster made is still valid.  While it is
true that any company which frittered away its time monitoring its employees
would soon be in Chapter 11, such constant monitoring is not necessary.  It is
only necessary for the company to convince its employees that it CAN, at any
time and without their knowledge, watch their actions to achieve the effects of
constant monitoring.
	The French philosopher and historian Michel Foucault, in his book
DISCIPLINE AND PUNISH:  THE BIRTH OF THE PRISON explains the prison model
called a panopticon (I forget the original architect).  The panopticon consisted
of a ring of cells surrounding a central guard tower.  The cells had glass
walls on the outside and the inside of the ring, with the effect that light
passing through these walls into the central tower rendered the inmates
constantly visible.  Conversely, they could not see into the guard tower, so
they never knew when they were or were not being observed.
	Consequently, the inmates behaved as if they were constantly being
watched, to the point where actual observation was almost unnecessary.  They
began to internalize the idea that they were constantly under the watchkeeper's
eye, and thus modified their OWN behavier.  The inmates became, therefore,
their own jailers.  For a more modern and personal example, ask yourself why
you stop at a red light on a deserted street at 4:00am (assuming you do).  It's
because even though your eyes tell you that NOONE is there, you worry that
maybe, just maybe, behind that billboard, is a police officer waiting to meet
his or her ticket quota for the week.
	In THE AGE OF THE SMART MACHINE:  THE FUTURE OF WORK AND POWER,
Shoshana Zuboff shows that a computer network can easily create an electronic
panopticon.  This example, I think, is pertinant here.  The company need
not constantly monitor its employees; it need only show that it can and
occasionally does for the effects of such constant observation to take hold.
	For this reason, in my opinion, the maitenance of personal privacy for 
employees is so important.  Not only did Zuboff show that such an electronic
panopticon can develop, but also that when it does, performance and
productivity suffer.  A feeling of animosity and distrust arise, and the
employees often begin to spend valuable company time on developing ways not to
follow but rather to CIRCUMVENT the system.  Thus, the company which implements
such a plan often witnesses a decrease in overall production.

-------------
Mike McCarthy
Robert C. Byrd Institute for Advanced Flexible Manufacturing Systems
Marshall University, Huntington, West Virginia 25755
RCBI12 at Marshall.WVNET.EDU
RCBI12 at Marshall