Xref: utzoo comp.admin.policy:328 comp.unix.admin:2159 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!muvms3!rcbi12 From: rcbi12@muvms3.bitnet (Michael J. McCarthy) Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,comp.unix.admin Subject: Re: E-mail Privacy Message-ID: <50318@muvms3.bitnet> Date: 7 Jun 91 10:13:40 GMT References: Organization: Marshall University Lines: 58 In article , braun@dri.com (Kral) writes: > In article sbrack@bluemoon.uucp (Steven S. Brack) writes: >> Most employees >> expect that their employer would treat them as human beings, >> not as slaves to be constantly monitored. > > I don't see this as the latter. You seem to feel that if I have a right to > access your files/desk, then I will be constantly monitoring you by doing so. > I say this: any company that has nothing better to do than *monitor* it's > employees is going to fail in the marketplace by the results of its economic > inefficiencies. This does not, however, preclude the search through documents > in the course of conducting proper business. Oh good! I finally get to use my liberal arts degree! The point that the first poster made is still valid. While it is true that any company which frittered away its time monitoring its employees would soon be in Chapter 11, such constant monitoring is not necessary. It is only necessary for the company to convince its employees that it CAN, at any time and without their knowledge, watch their actions to achieve the effects of constant monitoring. The French philosopher and historian Michel Foucault, in his book DISCIPLINE AND PUNISH: THE BIRTH OF THE PRISON explains the prison model called a panopticon (I forget the original architect). The panopticon consisted of a ring of cells surrounding a central guard tower. The cells had glass walls on the outside and the inside of the ring, with the effect that light passing through these walls into the central tower rendered the inmates constantly visible. Conversely, they could not see into the guard tower, so they never knew when they were or were not being observed. Consequently, the inmates behaved as if they were constantly being watched, to the point where actual observation was almost unnecessary. They began to internalize the idea that they were constantly under the watchkeeper's eye, and thus modified their OWN behavier. The inmates became, therefore, their own jailers. For a more modern and personal example, ask yourself why you stop at a red light on a deserted street at 4:00am (assuming you do). It's because even though your eyes tell you that NOONE is there, you worry that maybe, just maybe, behind that billboard, is a police officer waiting to meet his or her ticket quota for the week. In THE AGE OF THE SMART MACHINE: THE FUTURE OF WORK AND POWER, Shoshana Zuboff shows that a computer network can easily create an electronic panopticon. This example, I think, is pertinant here. The company need not constantly monitor its employees; it need only show that it can and occasionally does for the effects of such constant observation to take hold. For this reason, in my opinion, the maitenance of personal privacy for employees is so important. Not only did Zuboff show that such an electronic panopticon can develop, but also that when it does, performance and productivity suffer. A feeling of animosity and distrust arise, and the employees often begin to spend valuable company time on developing ways not to follow but rather to CIRCUMVENT the system. Thus, the company which implements such a plan often witnesses a decrease in overall production. ------------- Mike McCarthy Robert C. Byrd Institute for Advanced Flexible Manufacturing Systems Marshall University, Huntington, West Virginia 25755 RCBI12@Marshall.WVNET.EDU RCBI12@Marshall