Challenges
Faced by ICT Professionals: Uberveillance

Introduction

Michael and Michael (2007) state that uberveillance uses cutting-edge surveillance technology to identify, locate, and track individuals. It is omnipresent and based on pervasive electronic devices such as computer chips that are implanted into the body. The idea of uberveillance brings up various concerns about privacy, ethical, and human rights. This is because these devices monitor individuals and compel them to provide detailed information about themselves, their likes, dislikes, habits, behaviours, and preferences (Chirgwin, 2015). This could lead to abusive or dangerous situations if such information falls into the wrong hands.

Privacy and uberveillance

Several issues come up concerning uberveillance at the workplace. Michael (2012) states that electronic and monitoring surveillance practices have significantly increased in the last years to encompass all aspects of life, including the workplace. Emails, social networking, and LinkedIn are some examples of communication flows in and out of a workplace. This e-communication comes with some potential risks to the employers and employees because of the need for extended permissible authority for surveillance, the growth of relational databases, and a business that is committed to filling them (Michael & Michael, 2014). ICT professionals use these sites and media forms to communicate with clients and colleagues. If they are under uberveillance, their activities and actions could be tracked and exploited to get information from them that could potentially harm them and their company.

As Michael and Michael (2009, p.4) state, these
surveillance technologies are used mainly on the common people and not on
rulers, leaders, or people of influence. It is only used on the leaders in
cases of blackmail or industrial espionage. At the place of work, it is mostly
the employees who are subjected to uberveillance; by their superiors. Everyone
needs some privacy (Michael & Michael, 2009 p.4), but uberveillance makes
this privacy obsolete. The ICT employees need to have a modicum of privacy even
if they are on work premises and using work equipment and resources. However,
working for someone or a corporation means that the employees should also
accept that their privacy will be invaded. The use of uberveillance at work
would invade employee privacy completely and subject them to unnecessary
scrutiny on their private and public lives. Uberveillance would enable
employees to follow an employee’s life even when they are not at work.
Information gathered could be used negatively or positively against them.
Kurkovsky et al. (2011) shows how employers could use an RFID tracker to keep
track of employee location. This can be beneficial if the tracker helps to
improve job productivity. However, it should not be used to monitor the
employees in order to micro-manage their time and activities, as this could
discourage them.

Impact of uberveillance on work productivity and
efficiency

Uberveillance devices such as microchips can
enable the ICT professionals to access work-related technologies like printers
or scanners, log onto their computers, and open secure doors (Mazanov, 2017).
It can also be used as a cure or remedy for forgetfulness even in the workplace
when an employee forgets where they placed a project or how they performed a
certain task. A microchip would enable employees to swipe their security and ID
cards into the work building, and to pay for food and other services in the
work space (Astor, 2017). Michael and Michael (2014) however see the need for
more research on the use on uberveillance at the workplace. Even though micro
chipping aids in automating payroll systems and the effective use of online
commerce practices, it could be costly and unhealthy to embed microchips in
employees and other individuals (Mazanov, 2017).

Widespread use of uberveillance and its
associated devices could change the way employees work, perform tasks, and even
enter the profession (Joint Workshop, 2012). When employees are aware that they
are being monitored, they could either become more motivated to work, or feel
stifled in their environment. This can limit their imaginations and place
limits on their natural impulse to act spontaneously and to freely use their
imaginations for company and personal benefit. They also become constrained in
the use of words and expressions. Their creativity and relaxation levels
reduce, causing them to work below optimum and with a lot of anxiety that could
bring negative results for the company. However, uberveillance devices, if used
properly, could help to monitor their levels of stress and the onset of
work-related illnesses and ultimately facilitate earlier return to work after
an illness (Joint Workshop, 2012 p.5).

Uberveillance and health issues

Many ICT professionals are nervous about having
a device implanted into their bodies because they still do not know much about
them and their effects and capabilities. According to experts, micros chips and
other devices do not have tracking abilities (Sheppard, 2017). However, they
are aware that these devices will be a major part of everyday life in the
coming years and will be fully integrated into their personal and professional
realms. Health issues and injury lawsuits could arise if the implant migrates
to another part of the body or if it becomes infected (Astor, 2017). This could
lead to absenteeism at work as employees require treatment or hospitalization
for corrective measures to be performed.

The U.S Food and Drug Administration (2014)
states that it is unaware of any side effects from RFID implantation in human
beings, although there are concerns about their effect on medical devices.
Michael and Michael (2014 p.281) state that research has shown how microchips
have caused cancer in animals, and further recommendations and research is
needed for use in human beings. If employees get such implants and they end up
with adverse effects, then their productivity and ability to work becomes
compromised.

Uberveillance and security

Implants and chips are usually encrypted, and
are thus susceptible to hacking or reading by third-party scanners. Individuals
could secretly access information from these devices and clone the signal to
gain access in order to impersonate the chipped individual (Byles, 2006). This
could affect ICT employees as they often deal with sensitive company
information that could be hacked by competitors or blackmailers for company
espionage. It is thus not secure to use uberveillance on employees who deal
with sensitive business data as their lives could be put at risk. Byles (2006)
also states that such a breach of security could result in problems for
building or computer access by locking individuals out of their work place,
secure rooms, or their designated work areas.

Uberveillance will lend individuals to even
greater scrutiny and surveillance, resulting in a total loss of freedom. The
electronic and technological world are fragile, therefore uberveillance could
increase the insecurity of data and information used on such devices at the
workplace. Michael (2017) states that uberveillance is impelled by the need for
control from superiors in order to scrutinize their juniors’ lives and
thoughts. This could apply in the workplace as employer’s desire to control all
the activities of their employees, regardless of whether this could harm the
employees. Employers might believe that uberveillance increases security at
work (Michael, 2017), but this could be the opposite if the technology breaks
down or is used for criminal activities.

Legal and ethical implications of uberveillance

Employees should be made aware of and freely
consent to uberveillance, and if they so wish, they can withdraw this consent
(Sheppard, 2017). Pressure to comply can make employees resign, claiming
constructive dismissal. Monitoring practices should be under the laws of data
protection and human rights policies, with employers conducting careful impact
assessments prior to introduction of uberveillance. The ICT employees need to
be informed why it is valid and justified to monitor their movements, logs, and
activities at the workplace.

In addition, there could be religious or
personal beliefs that prevent employees from being implanted with uberveillance
devices (Sheppard, 2017). If these are violated, the business could face a
lawsuit. To mitigate this, data protection regulations should be prepared and
signed by employees prior to implantation to ensure their decision is informed
and consent is free (Michael & Michael, 2010 p.10). Although employee monitoring
systems are commonplace in businesses, uberveillance can be seen as crossing a
moral, political, and legal threshold.

Employers and others who require their staff to
use uberveillance devices must differentiate between active and inactive
implants, reversible and non-reversible ones, and offline and online ones
(Michael & Michael, 2010 p.10). They should ensure that employee dignity is
maintained so that the employees are not manipulated or controlled remotely as
a source of information. Uberveillance should be permitted if there is
justification and necessity for its use at the workplace and there are no
better methods of acquiring information without invasion of privacy. Such
surveillance methods must thus be specified in legislation, and approved and monitored
legally (Michael & Michael, 2010 p. 11)

Conclusion

Research shows that there is various security,
privacy, ethical, health, and legal implications for the use of uberveillance
at the workplace. Even though it can make the work of employees easier in some
ways, its use can also be detrimental in their wellbeing and productivity. If
not properly inserted, health problems could arise and make the employees
unable to work. The uberveillance devices must be kept secure to prevent system
hacking and even espionage at the workplace, because ICT professionals tend to
deal with sensitive and classified information. Care must however be taken to
ensure that employees being surveilled have given consent and are aware of the
implications of the practice.

Uberveillance is still developing, it is an
inevitable part of the future that will be quickly embraced. It will become
more incorporated into the workplace and help to improve productivity and
employee retention if used appropriately. Technology and uberveillance however
must be used ethically and humanely because they ultimately convey the
intentions of the creators, who might have created them for their personal
gain.

References

Astor, M
2017, “Microchip Implants for Employees? One Company Says Yes”, Nytimes.com,
viewed 20 August, 2017, <https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/25/technology/microchips-wisconsin-company-employees.html?mcubz=3>.

Byles, I
2006, “Health-care chips could get under your skin”, Medicalxpress.com,
viewed 20 August, 2017, <https://medicalxpress.com/news/2006-06-health-care-chips-skin.html>.

Chirgwin, R
2015, “Welcome to ‘uber-veillance’ says Australian Privacy
Foundation”, Theregister.co.uk, viewed 20 August, 2017,
<https://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/01/13/its_already_too_late_for_privacy/>.

Joint Workshop 2012, Human enhancement and the future of work, Joint
Workshop, pp. 43-45, viewed 21 August, 2017,
<https://acmedsci.ac.uk/file-download/35266-135228646747.pdf>.

Kurkovsky,
S, Syta, E & Casano, B 2011, Continuous RFID-enabled authentication:
Privacy implications, IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, vol.30, no.3, pp.34-41

Mars, C 2014, ICT staff ‘losing sleep’ over
work pressures, Public Technology, viewed 21 August 2017,
<https://www.publictechnology.net/articles/news/ict-staff-losing-sleep-over-work-pressures>.

Mazanov, J 2017, ‘Intersecting performance
enhancing smart technologies, health and social science’, Science Direct,
vol.5, no.3, pp.87-88

Michael, K 2012,
“Workplace Privacy”, Uberveillance, viewed 22 August, 2017,
<http://uberveillance.com/blog/2012/11/18/workplace-privacy.html>.

Michael, M.G & Michael, K 2007, A note on “uberveillance”. In K. Michael
& M.G. Michael (Eds), The Second Workshop on the Social Implications of
National Security: From Dataveillance to Uberveillance and the Realpolitik of
the Transparent Society, pp.9-25 Wollongong: University of Wollongong

Michael, M 2016, The
Paradox of the Uberveillance Equation, IEEE, viewed 22 August, 2017, <http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7122&context=eispapers>.

Michael, M &
Michael, K 2009, Uberveillance: Microchipping people and the assault on
privacy, viewed 23 August, 2017,
<http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1716&context=infopapers>.

Michael, M &
Michael, K 2010, Toward a state of Uberveillance, IEEE Technology and
Society Magazine, viewed 23 August, 2017,
<http://ro.uow.edu.au/infopapers/2535/>.

Michael, M.G & Michael, K 2014,
Uberveillance and the social implications of microchip implants: Emerging
technologies.IGI Global, Hershey, PA.

Sheppard, D 2017, Microchipping workers: What
are the moral, practical and legal implications? Personnel Today, viewed 22
August 2017, <http://www.personneltoday.com/hr/microchipping-workers-moral-practical-legal-implications/>.

U.S. FDA 2014, Radio Frequency Identification
(RFID), viewed 22 August 2017
<https://www.fda.gov/radiation-emittingproducts/radiationsafety/electromagneticcompatibilityemc/ucm116647.htm>.