Ethical implications of internet monitoring: A comparative study
- 556 Downloads
Organizations have become increasingly concerned about employee use of the Internet for personal reasons while at work. Monitoring Internet usage has become more and more prevalent in the workplace. While there may be legitimate business functions such as employee performance appraisal that are served by monitoring, poorly designed and communicated monitoring practices can have negative effects on employee morale and may be considered an invasion of privacy. Universities are another venue where Internet monitoring occurs. This paper explores whether there was a significant difference in attitude towards Internet usage and monitoring at the university as compared to the workplace. It is the result of a comparative study.
KeywordsInternet monitoring Autonomy Fairness Workplace University
The authors would like to thank Matthew North for his helpful comments.
- Grodzinsky, F., & Gumbus, A. (2005). Internet and productivity: ethical perspectives on workplace behavior. Journal of Information Communication and Ethics in Society, 3, 249–256. supplement.Google Scholar
- Hall, L. (2004). Where to draw the line. Personnel Today. Sutton: June 1, 2004. p. 16.Google Scholar
- Introna, L. (2001). Workplace surveillance, privacy and distributive justice. In Spinello and Tavani (Eds.), Readings in cyberethics (pp. 418–429). Jones and BartlettGoogle Scholar
- Soat, J. (2005). Spamming the globe, surfing at work. Information Week, (1039), 76. Manhasset: May 16, 2005.Google Scholar
- Tavani, H. (ed) (2004), Readings in cyberethics, Jones and Bartlett, p. 418–429.Google Scholar
- Taylor, J. S. (2000). Big business as big brother: is employee privacy necessary for a human-centered management organization? Business and Professional Ethics Journal, 19(3), 13.Google Scholar
- Van Slambrouck, P. (2000). E-mail ethics: you’ve got pink slip. Christian Science Monitor, 92(193), 1. 08827729.Google Scholar
- Wakefield, R. (2004). Computer monitoring and surveillance. The CPA Journal, 74(7), 52. New York: Jul 2004.Google Scholar