People's Newsroom

Developed News Story | AN INTERNATIONAL CHANGE TOWARDS KEYLOGGER EMPLOYEE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

Technological advances are helping many employers to monitor their workforce in increasingly sophisticated ways, while at the same time, public attitudes towards individual data privacy are hardening. Two important drivers of these changes came to a head in 2018 – the advent of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in Europe and the public’s changing perception of how certain social media outlets, such as Facebook, handle privacy.

The effects of these developments are coming into sharp focus in workplaces worldwide, indicating that employees are becoming less likely to accept unwarranted or unexplained intrusions than ever before. Our research analyses the rules on monitoring in the workplace in 41 countries and examines how the law is coping with the growing tensions between new technologies and the strengthening of privacy rights.

“Employees are becoming less likely to accept unwarranted or unexplained intrusions than ever before.”

KEY FINDINGS

There are differences in workplace monitoring rules in different parts of the world. Even within the EU GDPR bloc, there are noticeable variations that employers need to take into account.

  • In terms of restrictions on workplace monitoring, the general rules are that employers must tell their employees if they are going to be monitored and must do so before the monitoring starts.
  • Employers must also have a legitimate interest to monitor, which is balanced against the rights and freedoms of employees. The direct consent of the employee is not needed everywhere, but in some places it is, so it is important to know the local rules.
  • Employers need clear reasons to monitor employees outside of working hours, and it should be kept to the minimum level necessary to achieve their aims. It is far harder to justify than monitoring within working hours just about everywhere.
  • There is no substitute for having a good, clear policy about monitoring. It is also beneficial to set clear parameters for use of employer-owned devices for personal reasons and for the use of social media. The courts can come down heavily on those without a policy.

We see an emerging trend in some countries towards using new tech for the benefit of employees’ health and well-being under the umbrella of the keylogger employee management system. But in many places, employers need the specific consent of employees to do this, and in some countries, employers must avoid collecting or processing any health data that is generated. The best solution to this problem is to outsource this function to a suitable third party.

Additionally, the Internet has not only become a major conduit for placing and distributing malicious programs but also aids in their infection and execution. The enormous potential of the Internet has therefore led to an increase in keylogger attempts with a linear annual increase in unique keyloggers.

COUNTRIES MORE PROGRESSING IN KEYLOGGER EMPLOYEE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

Argentina, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Panama, Peru, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

WORLDWIDE DATA PRIVACY AWARENESS TOWARDS KEYLOGGER EMPLOYEE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

Over the last couple of years, global awareness of data privacy issues over keylogger employee management systems has grown immensely, in a way that impacts the workplace. In Denmark, for example, employees are increasingly interested in what data their employers hold about them. In Hong Kong, there is an increase in data access requests from employees, indicating growing awareness of their rights. The same is true in many larger EU countries, but also in smaller ones, such as the Czech Republic, Romania, and Hungary.

In Poland, although employees are used to having their emails and internet usage monitored, any more ‘invasive’ form of monitoring (such as biotech) would likely be questioned. In Cyprus, the advent of the GDPR has raised awareness, put privacy on board agendas, and changed the attitudes of employers toward employees’ privacy rights as a whole. In the UK, the GDPR has raised the risk profile and general awareness of privacy rights, but the fundamental approach to monitoring remains the same.

“The rise of remote or flexible working is putting pressure on employers to keep track of their staff.”

DATA PROTECTION LAW

When monitoring employees, employers need to consider data protection laws, human rights laws,  and specific monitoring legislation. All over the world, the challenge is to balance the possibilities offered by new types of technology with individual data privacy rights. Some countries are more at the sharp end of developments of keylogger employee management systems than others. In Germany, several employers have suffered ransomware attacks, forcing employers to increase data protection and establish suitable compliance and monitoring mechanisms. Other countries are more concerned with accommodating a shift in employee working habits.

BYOD POLICIES

In Ireland and Italy, we see a trend towards ‘bring your own device’ (BYOD), involving employers in introducing BYOD policies to manage how employees connect to their networks. The challenge for employers is essential to work out how to monitor personal devices used for work in the same way as they monitor company devices. In Italy, a consensus on how employers should do this is yet to be reached. In the Netherlands, more and more employees are working from home and this again leads employers to want to monitor productive activity. Technology is starting to enable this, with wearable tech, GPS trackers, etc., but balancing these developments with privacy is proving a challenge.

BIOMETRICS APPROACH

In France, the topic is arguably biometrics. The Data Protection Authority (the CNIL)  has just issued a new regulation – which is stricter than the GDPR: the purposes for which employers can use biometrics are strictly limited, as are the type of biometrics they can use. For example, biological sampling (e.g. of saliva or blood) is prohibited. Iris, fingerprints, and hand veins, for example, can be used, but the employer must justify why they are using them, including the reason for using one feature over another.

Interestingly, clocking on is an issue in Switzerland too, but from the opposite angle: the authorities are stepping up checks to ensure employers comply with their duty to record hours worked by employees and in consequence, employers are using ever-more sophisticated means of clocking people in and out keylogger employee management system (e.g. voice, fingerprints, and facial recognition) – and that seems to be accepted by workers, for now at least.

Constructed Sources | CERTAINTY OF LAW TOWARDS KEYLOGGER EMPLOYEE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM | MONITORING OUTSIDE WORK THROUGH KEYLOGGER EMPLOYEE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM | CASE OF LOCATION TRACKING THROUGH KEYLOGGER EMPLOYEE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM | CASE OF SOCIAL MEDIA BIOMETRICS THROUGH KEYLOGGER EMPLOYEE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM | KEYLOGGER EMPLOYEE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM MONITORING USING TECHNOLOGY | DATA CENTRIC APPROACH TOWARDS KEYLOGGER EMPLOYEE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM | CASE OF SURVEILLANCE CAMERAS IN KEYLOGGER EMPLOYEE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM | NEWAGE BENEFITS OF EMPLOYEE MONITORING THROUGH KEYLOGGER EMPLOYEE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

Back to top button