> Does that not lend at least tacit assent by ambivalence, if not outright assent? Welcome? Not at all. It reads like pure sarcasm. > The next 750 words are g

> Does that not lend at least tacit assent by ambivalence, if not outright assent? Welcome? Not at all. It reads like pure sarcasm. > The next 750 words are given over to normalising the "lot's of valid reasons" to surveil workers, and lending value to an emerging surveillance industry This is a rhetoric device to underline that you understand the incentive of those employing it in preparation to offer a better alternative, e.g. actually capable management. Or just to explain why managers want to use it. An employer has of course the right to check your work to know why he is paying you. I firmly condemn management employing crapware like this, I think the developers offering these solutions are very likely shady characters. Defining a goal a worker has to reach is exactly what surveillance management isn't capable of. Employees will optimize the metric not the business goal and honestly I would help them cheat it in any way possible. > It would be improved by actual productivity studies, the psychological literature on workplace surveillance Not needed to reject it as an employee at all.