5 ms·

Only if the employee is informed upfront. Otherwise it's a privacy issue.

by lodovic 7y ago

gambiting 7y ago
Let's assume they were informed upfront - there's nothing illegal about it then, is there?
- Silhouette 7y ago
  That isn't necessarily true either. IIRC, there was a case not so long ago of a school that was using quite aggressive surveillance measures, and obtained some degree of prior consent. It was still penalised under the GDPR, because all processing of personal data must be justified. Even consent is not carte blanche to do whatever you want, and that's probably a good thing for the same reason that inalienable consumer rights when you shop or employment rights when you take a job are probably good things. Edit: Apparently there are now at least two examples of this. In Sweden, relating to facial recognition: https://www.gamingtechlaw.com/2019/09/fine-gdpr-sweden.html https://www.gamingtechlaw.com/2019/09/fine-gdpr-sweden.html In Poland, relating to fingerprints: https://venturebeat.com/2020/03/06/polish-school-hit-with-gdpr-fine-for-using-fingerprints-to-verify-students-lunch-payments/ https://venturebeat.com/2020/03/06/polish-school-hit-with-gd...
  - gambiting 7y ago
    Right, but both of these examples are about using personal data(facial recognition data and then fingerprints) for purposes where it's not needed. Again, I would see the issue if the employeer was taking pictures with the webcam every 30 seconds - that is definitely a privacy problem because you neither expect your employeer to be photographing you every 30 seconds, nor is it necessary for your job. But pictures of the screen? Screen that's meant to be used for work and where no reasonable expectation of privacy should exist?
    - Retric 7y ago
      It’s a common practice at most companies to allow some minimal use of company equipment to check private email etc while on break. As soon as that’s allowed a reasonable expectation of privacy exists.
    - Silhouette 7y ago
      You keep saying there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, but there is no basis in law for that position, at least not in the EU or UK. I've edited my earlier comments to add some sources, including a reference to the official guidance from the UK's national data protection authority that directly states that just because someone is at work it does not mean they have no expectation of privacy. You can also find lots of public commentary from employment lawyers on the Web where they have interpreted the GDPR similarly, similar statements from other national regulators, etc. Some of these highlight tricky situations like the need to respect personal email as well.
- simias 7y ago
  It needs to be proportionate and justified. Putting an employee under an unreasonable amount of monitoring for no discernible reason could be a problem. Of course weather taking screenshots of one's monitor every 30s is or isn't reasonable would be left to the interpretation of the court. See the link I have posted in a sibling comment: https://gdpr.report/news/2017/11/17/5383/ https://gdpr.report/news/2017/11/17/5383/ >The ECtHR held that the employer had breached B’s right to privacy because they didn’t inform him of the monitoring in advance and nor did they tell him that they may access the content of his communications. The previous courts had also failed to determine the reasons justifying the monitoring and whether these were proportionate to the purpose or whether the employer could have used less intrusive measures to achieve the same result. If I read this correctly even if the person had been informed of the monitoring the evidence wouldn't have been receivable because the monitoring wasn't deemed "proportionate".
- novok 7y ago
  What kind of informed? Buried in hundreds of pages of policy documents, that they make you 'acknowledge'? A separate network use agreement when employed giving cart blanche? Or something specific and upfront?
  - gambiting 7y ago
    I don't know, the company I work for(in the EU) you get an email on your first day saying that the company has a private certificate installed on every machine, so they are intercepting and inspecting all of your network traffic including encrypted websites. So while allowed, please refrain from browsing your own email, bank accounts etc, as the company software can and will see the contents of those. Like, it's pretty explicit. I don't know how different that is from just sending an email saying "hey your screen is being monitored every 30 seconds".
stronglikedan 7y ago
There's an expectation of privacy on company owned hardware?
- simias 7y ago
  In the EU there is. For instance the company can't normally access directories or emails clearly labelled as "private". Monitoring can occur but it's pretty tightly regulated. See for instance https://gdpr.report/news/2017/11/17/5383/ https://gdpr.report/news/2017/11/17/5383/ > * Employers can monitor employees’ emails at work but need to approach this with caution and careful consideration. > * Follow the ICO Code and 29 WP opinion, including conducting a DPIA prior to undertaking any monitoring, considering whether it is possible to achieve the objective through less instructive means and ensuring policies clearly notify employees that monitoring takes place, why and that the content of emails may be viewed. > * If emails are identified as or are clearly “personal” do not open unless there is a real risk of serious harm to the business and, where possible, inform the employee in advance that the content may be viewed. I find that perfectly reasonable IMO. You're not your company's property. Your boss can't put a camera in the corporate bathroom's stall just because he owns it.
  - stronglikedan 7y ago
    Thanks for the answer. TIL. However, I must say that's just weird to me, because you're not required to use company resources for private matters. The bathroom analogy doesn't really hold in my mind, since it's reasonable to expect privacy in any bathroom, but I see where you're going with that.
    - majkinetor 7y ago
      You might be required to use company resource for private matters depending on what you do. You can't really choose when some of the private things will happen that need immediate reaction.
    - simias 7y ago
      I think it's reasonable that if you're going to be in front of a computer for ~8hours a day from time to time you're going to do personal stuff on it. This was especially true a few years ago when smartphones and unlimited data plans weren't quite as common. I mean sure, if it's the PC controlling some industrial machine you're probably not expected to browse Facebook on it. But if you're some temp working the reception you might have some time to kill even if you do your work properly... There's also the situation where you're traveling and don't want to carry two laptops from instance.

Only if the employee is informed upfront. Otherwise it's a privacy issue.

gambiting 7y ago

Let's assume they were informed upfront - there's nothing illegal about it then, is there?

Silhouette 7y ago
That isn't necessarily true either. IIRC, there was a case not so long ago of a school that was using quite aggressive surveillance measures, and obtained some degree of prior consent. It was still penalised under the GDPR, because all processing of personal data must be justified. Even consent is not carte blanche to do whatever you want, and that's probably a good thing for the same reason that inalienable consumer rights when you shop or employment rights when you take a job are probably good things. Edit: Apparently there are now at least two examples of this. In Sweden, relating to facial recognition: https://www.gamingtechlaw.com/2019/09/fine-gdpr-sweden.html https://www.gamingtechlaw.com/2019/09/fine-gdpr-sweden.html In Poland, relating to fingerprints: https://venturebeat.com/2020/03/06/polish-school-hit-with-gdpr-fine-for-using-fingerprints-to-verify-students-lunch-payments/ https://venturebeat.com/2020/03/06/polish-school-hit-with-gd...
- gambiting 7y ago
  Right, but both of these examples are about using personal data(facial recognition data and then fingerprints) for purposes where it's not needed. Again, I would see the issue if the employeer was taking pictures with the webcam every 30 seconds - that is definitely a privacy problem because you neither expect your employeer to be photographing you every 30 seconds, nor is it necessary for your job. But pictures of the screen? Screen that's meant to be used for work and where no reasonable expectation of privacy should exist?
  - Retric 7y ago
    It’s a common practice at most companies to allow some minimal use of company equipment to check private email etc while on break. As soon as that’s allowed a reasonable expectation of privacy exists.
  - Silhouette 7y ago
    You keep saying there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, but there is no basis in law for that position, at least not in the EU or UK. I've edited my earlier comments to add some sources, including a reference to the official guidance from the UK's national data protection authority that directly states that just because someone is at work it does not mean they have no expectation of privacy. You can also find lots of public commentary from employment lawyers on the Web where they have interpreted the GDPR similarly, similar statements from other national regulators, etc. Some of these highlight tricky situations like the need to respect personal email as well.
simias 7y ago
It needs to be proportionate and justified. Putting an employee under an unreasonable amount of monitoring for no discernible reason could be a problem. Of course weather taking screenshots of one's monitor every 30s is or isn't reasonable would be left to the interpretation of the court. See the link I have posted in a sibling comment: https://gdpr.report/news/2017/11/17/5383/ https://gdpr.report/news/2017/11/17/5383/ >The ECtHR held that the employer had breached B’s right to privacy because they didn’t inform him of the monitoring in advance and nor did they tell him that they may access the content of his communications. The previous courts had also failed to determine the reasons justifying the monitoring and whether these were proportionate to the purpose or whether the employer could have used less intrusive measures to achieve the same result. If I read this correctly even if the person had been informed of the monitoring the evidence wouldn't have been receivable because the monitoring wasn't deemed "proportionate".
novok 7y ago
What kind of informed? Buried in hundreds of pages of policy documents, that they make you 'acknowledge'? A separate network use agreement when employed giving cart blanche? Or something specific and upfront?
- gambiting 7y ago
  I don't know, the company I work for(in the EU) you get an email on your first day saying that the company has a private certificate installed on every machine, so they are intercepting and inspecting all of your network traffic including encrypted websites. So while allowed, please refrain from browsing your own email, bank accounts etc, as the company software can and will see the contents of those. Like, it's pretty explicit. I don't know how different that is from just sending an email saying "hey your screen is being monitored every 30 seconds".

stronglikedan 7y ago

There's an expectation of privacy on company owned hardware?

simias 7y ago
In the EU there is. For instance the company can't normally access directories or emails clearly labelled as "private". Monitoring can occur but it's pretty tightly regulated. See for instance https://gdpr.report/news/2017/11/17/5383/ https://gdpr.report/news/2017/11/17/5383/ > * Employers can monitor employees’ emails at work but need to approach this with caution and careful consideration. > * Follow the ICO Code and 29 WP opinion, including conducting a DPIA prior to undertaking any monitoring, considering whether it is possible to achieve the objective through less instructive means and ensuring policies clearly notify employees that monitoring takes place, why and that the content of emails may be viewed. > * If emails are identified as or are clearly “personal” do not open unless there is a real risk of serious harm to the business and, where possible, inform the employee in advance that the content may be viewed. I find that perfectly reasonable IMO. You're not your company's property. Your boss can't put a camera in the corporate bathroom's stall just because he owns it.
- stronglikedan 7y ago
  Thanks for the answer. TIL. However, I must say that's just weird to me, because you're not required to use company resources for private matters. The bathroom analogy doesn't really hold in my mind, since it's reasonable to expect privacy in any bathroom, but I see where you're going with that.
  - majkinetor 7y ago
    You might be required to use company resource for private matters depending on what you do. You can't really choose when some of the private things will happen that need immediate reaction.
  - simias 7y ago
    I think it's reasonable that if you're going to be in front of a computer for ~8hours a day from time to time you're going to do personal stuff on it. This was especially true a few years ago when smartphones and unlimited data plans weren't quite as common. I mean sure, if it's the PC controlling some industrial machine you're probably not expected to browse Facebook on it. But if you're some temp working the reception you might have some time to kill even if you do your work properly... There's also the situation where you're traveling and don't want to carry two laptops from instance.