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 cour

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".