Ethical Considerations

In his recent contribution to the debate on the ethics of surveillance, Introna (2003) argues that the principled use of these technologies is impossible due to the subjective nature of interpreting surveillance data and the exclusion of the voices of those who are surveyed in the interpretive process. Yet, existing privacy-enhancing legislation has done little in the way of protecting the rights of individuals within the workplace. Instead, it remains an area where there are no common understandings about the ethics of surveillance practices, where the legal phrase a reasonable expectation of privacy is continually debated, and where considerable threats exist without any social or legal safeguards (Charlesworth, 2003). Funtime employees have their own ideas of the appropriate use of surveillance technologies, and they bring these ethical considerations with them into the workplace. At the same time, their work experiences also shape their views regarding the ethics of surveillance. These understandings can be grouped into two broad categories. The first class is the consideration of what employees believe to be morally acceptable uses of technology.

Most of the employees we spoke with believe there are situations in which the use of video cameras is ethical, or even desirable. However, many of the same employees are careful to point out those situations that they consider out of bounds. For example, most of the employees we spoke with feel it is inappropriate to have cameras in the restrooms. In discussing the issue with Carl, he told us that if they would have put them in the bathroom, I would have ripped them out of the wall. Victor feels that a surveillance system would be an invasion of his privacy. If you put it in the bathroom, probably, but other than that, no. David, however, seemed to be trying to balance a concern for store losses due to shoplifting and his own personal privacy when we asked him if their were areas of the store he thought should not be under the eye of the cameras. Yeah, and the bathrooms, I m kinda torn between cameras in the bathroom. I think they should be for the fact that people go in there and steal all kinds of stuff, but at the same time, I don t want some pervert in there watching me pee.

A majority feels it is unsuitable to have cameras in the break room. When Victor was trying to explain how he viewed the use of video surveillance, he began discussing where he would have a problem with cameras being located. We asked him, What if a video camera was in the break room?

I have two different positions on that. I can see why they would, but that would show a lot of distrust to employees if there was actually a camera in the break room. The break room is a personal area that they allow us to have. They give us this space to sit down and eat our food, play cards, that kind of thing. What we re doing isn t breaking any of their rules, so I don t see why they should have it. I think it would show distrust and it would be in very poor taste to put one in the break room.

By contrast, when asked if there was any situation where it would be unethical for cameras to be used, David told us, No, not cameras. Microphones maybe, because I really don t want . . . management to hear me running them down. Employees stances on the use of video surveillance on the sales floor are more mixed. None of those interviewed had a problem with the idea of surveillance in this area, but again, their acceptance was situational. A few said that they would be upset if they were to find they were under surveillance, because it would show a lack of trust from management which they feel they do not deserve. One employee, Evan, believes that the actual recording of video feed would show distrust and reported he would confront management if he ever found out they were doing so.

I have no problem with it as long as it s like the police. They have to have a reasonable cause. If I found out that they taped me for three or four shifts at any time and I found out about it . Even though I m not the kind of person that s going to do anything. I would want to know what would lead them to believe I needed to be taped.... If John or a manager is sitting up there and watching if you re working, that s OK. But videotape, no. To me, it s like they don t trust the employees enough on the honor system. I would want to know why it is being videotaped.

One of the apparent reasons why most employees view the use of video surveillance in the workplace as ethical, at least under certain circumstances, is that they do not share the view held by Introna (2003) that it is inherently subjective. Hi-tech surveillance cameras, like new computerized management systems, collect data that appear to be objective and portray a true account of reality (Zuboff, 1988). Employees typically believe that even if the cameras are used, they will clearly show managers that the employees do not need to be watched after all. As Jay, a storeroom worker, describes:

The truth will always be told, especially if you re monitoring that [the behavior of workers]. And I find it rather comforting, being an honest person. I don t care if they see me and think, Well, he s probably a thief , because once you get to know me, you ll realize that I m not. I think the surveillance in that way is good, because you ll always find out later if that person is honest or not.

In relatively few instances is the subjective quality of interpreting surveillance data apparent to employees. As Lisa mentions:

Yeah, it kind of bothers me. Not because I m doing anything wrong, it s just... what if they re watching the tape and they think you re not working hard enough? Or what if it looks like you were putting something in your purse that you shouldn t be putting in your purse back there by the safe? This whole paranoia thing sets in.

In this situation, employees are isolated and dealing with large volumes of money. The increased stress of this situation makes them more aware of their behaviors while they work and how others might interpret them.

If one conceives of surveillance as recording an objective reality, the question of ethics is relegated to issues of privacy and trust. Expectations of privacy itself are constrained by notions regarding the rights associated with the ownership of property. Several employees feel that since Funtime, Inc. owns the store, they have a considerable amount of freedom to do what they want. As a result, employees have limited expectations of privacy, usually limited to either the restrooms or the break room as areas of personal space. As previously described, these boundaries of expected privacy have not been violated by the placement of video cameras. Thus, employees notions that management shares their views about the appropriate use of video surveillance are reinforced.

Beyond issues of privacy, another recurrent theme in the accounts provided by workers is the notion of trust. From the excerpts provided above, it is clear that employees expect to be trusted by management, and that the unwarranted use of video surveillance is a sign of distrust. Evan, Victor, and others all note that their acceptance of surveillance is dependent on their belief that management trusts them, and if they found out otherwise , they would confront managers about it. Their acceptance, then, is based on the assumption that management shares their ethical sensibilities. These assumptions are likely reinforced by the implicit agreement between the two groups regarding issues of privacy. However, there is little evidence that a mutual trust exists between management and workers, as John never brought up the issue of trust in our interview with him. In fact, John s skepticism is clearly evident when he argues, There are people who normally wouldn t steal, but put in a situation where it s easy to do it, they might think about doing it. So while employees assume that management trusts them, and therefore does not use the cameras, management is more hesitant and tries to use the cameras as a deterrent.