4 ms·
Your counterexample is a straw man argument where the example approaches abuse. My reasoning of why employee surveillance is fine is that there's a genuine pur
by kevindong 6y ago
Your counterexample is a straw man argument where the example approaches abuse.
My reasoning of why employee surveillance is fine is that there's a genuine purpose/need (measuring employee productivity) while personal privacy is retained (e.g. don't import personal information into the corporate 365 environment and personal privacy is retained). I'm not saying the metrics provided by 365 are correct, but I don't see the legal argument against it.
- fdiskl 6y agoRead the GDPR or national equivalents in the EU and that will show the legal argument - literally that there are a group of laws defining that this isn't allowed in those jurisdictions. Whether or not you're convinced or not is of no consequence to the laws.
- kevindong 6y agoCan you point to a particular clause or section that indicates this wouldn't be a compelling usage (e.g. performance management of employees) of personal data? You along with all of the other commenters have just responded with the generic assertion of "European privacy rights aka GDPR, duh." But then you don't actually support your assertion whatsoever. GDPR is not a blanket prohibition on collecting data.