When the SEC used his own emails to build a case for fraud against Fabrice “Fabulous Fab” Tourre, a trader at Goldman Sachs during the financial crisis, the response from many on Wall Street wasn’t abhorrence of his deception but rather derision for his careless communications: everybody knows that you use encrypted chat programs on your personal phone for shady interactions! This type of reaction highlights the intractability of the task facing the SEC as it tries to curtail financial shenanigans, but the conflicts of interest it signifies – a version of what economists call “the principal-agent problem” – afflicts almost any firm. Companies walk a fine line between protecting themselves from liability resulting from their employees’ actions and alienating their workforces with too much surveillance.
As The Economist reports, technology firms are at the forefront of the surveillance culture, ostensibly using it anonymously to, for instance, adjust HVAC systems to the rhythms of employees’ comings and goings. Nvidia’s new headquarters apparently will use cameras to inspect food purchases in the campus cafeteria and automatically charge employee accounts. While this eliminates the need for cashiers (more jobs automated away…) and the inconvenience of waiting in line to pay, it raises the question of whether an employer might decide, as part of an effort to lower the costs of its group healthcare plan, to increase premiums for those regularly eating chocolate cake and cheeseburgers instead of salad.
Employees might be more than willing to sacrifice privacy for perks, though, and the benefits likely outweigh the potential costs for employers. Goldman Sachs paid a $550mn fine in relation to the Fabulous Fab episode, in addition to legal fees. While this is little more than a trifle when compared to the firm’s financial position – revenues were over $37bn in 2016 – the reputational damage is harder to measure, and surely shareholders would rather avoid liability entirely. Especially in a highly regulated industry like finance, the surveillance culture of the tech sector – without the privacy shields – seems a perfect fit, and firms in other sectors could watch and learn.
Exactly what form surveillance is likely to take – and how intrusive it will be – is an open question. In his brilliant short story “The Truth of Fact, the Truth of Feeling,” Ted Chiang introduces us to a world where “lifelogs” record every moment of people’s lives from a first-person perspective – sort of like a constant selfie in reverse. The story examines the impact of perfect recall on personal relationships, but there is an obvious corporate application. Law enforcement officers already are using body cams and dash cams to protect themselves against claims of excessive force or false arrest, and manufacturers of office furniture are apparently experimenting with sensors that can perceive the presence – or absence – of their intended occupant. Google Glass has largely been a failure as a consumer product, but perhaps it could be rebooted for corporate purposes: every employee could grab a pair from a box by the elevator on their way in each morning, with their daily recordings sent instantaneously to a central server for constant, AI-driven analysis. Or, the technology could be more intrusive, akin to the implantables explored in an earlier post.
A recent law in North Carolina brings up an important legal point, though: who do the recordings belong to? Currently, all communications and files on company-owned equipment are considered property of the company, so presumably this would extend to the recordings as well, as the North Carolina law posits. Once again, employees of highly regulated industries are already resigned to this, but even they might balk at recording devices in bathrooms. If devices were automatically disabled upon entering the toilet, that could then transform bathrooms into clandestine conversation spots – which, admittedly, probably wouldn’t be a particularly new development. However, would there then be an allotted time for each break, beyond which it was deemed “suspicious,” requiring further investigation – and investigation by whom? Compliance officers already are unloved by their coworkers – imagine how reviled they would be if it were part of their job to periodically patrol the toilets!
Of course, some firms already know how much time some of their employees spend in the bathroom. And how many steps they have taken. And the quality of their sleep. That’s because fitness trackers have become a popular freebie offered to employees, putatively without any strings attached. Many of these devices are synced with company computers, sometimes under the auspices of “team building.” This makes the question of data ownership extremely slippery. Body cams or other devices used to ceaselessly record could be introduced in a similar manner, establishing analogously ambiguous legal terrain.
Perhaps Millennials will resist, but the erosion of workers’ rights began before they were born, and they have only ever known “at will” employment contracts with forced arbitration clauses. Government regulation of personal data use is almost non-existent, and ethical standards are not always clear…especially in a world such as ours where return on investment for a company’s owners is the primary goal. For instance, if management decides to offer free fitness trackers (as an incentive to build a healthier workforce) but doesn’t track the data, can shareholders sue for negligent use of company resources?
The expansion of surveillance is probably inevitable, so, what should we do? As consumers, we should start by being skeptical of convenience, and this applies to employees as well. It’s annoying to go everywhere with two phones, but if you use your work smartphone to operate your internet-connected nanny cam, are you sure your boss isn’t going to get a report from HR indicating how much time you have spent watching your munchkins from afar instead of preparing presentations? Our modern lives are easier because we are more interconnected, but as the recent Wanna Cry ransomware attack showed, the convenience also leaves us vulnerable to exploitation, by both strangers and our employers.
The follow-on to this is to demand transparency, and consultants say this is also the best strategy for firms. Every employee orientation or welcome package should include a clear policy on how data gleaned from company-owned devices are monitored and stored. The guidelines should include the treatment of personal devices that are connected to a company network and should also stipulate what kinds of data are subject to the policy. If possible, it should be designed to anticipate the introduction of new sorts of gadgets. Employees may have lost bargaining power with the demise of the unions and the rise of automation, but at least well-defined guidelines give them the ability to tailor their actions to protect themselves and their privacy to the extent they can.
Of course, Fabulous Fab probably had explicit guidelines about the use of workplace email spelled out in his employee handbook. His downfall shows that no matter how beautifully crafted a corporate policy, the ultimate responsibility resides with individual humans. Even without automation, we already are navigating a world of work fraught with technological snares. Awareness and transparency may not transform the trajectory of a surveillance culture – we have abdicated a lot for convenience – but at least we can feel more like partners with our employers as things change.
Hi, sweetie pie! I understand the challenges of the modern world so much better through the prism of your writing! Thank you!!! xo