There is no faith: 73% of employers admitted that they follow the employees - voila! Of money

The employer's right to know? (Photo: ShutterStock)

A few days ago, the web was stormed after it was published that an accountant was ordered to return money to the company that employed her for "time theft", after a tracking software operated by the company determined that the employee was performing personal tasks while she claimed she was working.

Quite a few surfers resented the invasion of privacy, but a new survey that was recently conducted reveals the percentage of Israeli businesses that have installed software on their employees' computers that monitors their activity in real time.

According to the survey data conducted by the Forum for Digital Rights among 856 companies and businesses in various sectors of the economy, no less than 73% responded that surveillance software was installed on employees' computers. This is a significant increase in the scope of the installation since in a previous and identical survey conducted in 2019, 61% 'only'.

What programs are these?

In the forum, it is noted that these systems usually allow spying on emails, messages and messenger chats on cell phones and desktop computers, along with constant monitoring of live screen activities of employees on the company's computers.

In addition, some software measures mouse movement and typing speed to ensure high productivity levels.

Also, some of them monitor minute by minute every application or website that the employees see and classify them according to their relevance to the employee's activity.

Also the corona virus, but not only

The increase in the use of these programs is not accidental - they are a consequence of the Corona epidemic, which forced most of the employed in the economy to work from home, which created among employers a fear of losing the ability to control and supervise.

But the explanation does not end there.

"Let's call the child by his name, employers like to follow employees and monitor their activities at the click of a button. It's very tempting," the forum notes.

According to them, under the auspices of the epidemic, a new norm of invasive and incessant surveillance has emerged - without a real discussion about the limits of the surveillance revolution in the digital age." The

reality in which any employer can monitor the employee - is complex: "On the one hand, the employees who are aware of the incessant surveillance and rating strive to meet the goals, to function Better than others and always perform well.

On the other hand, this has decisive negative consequences, such as high levels of stress and anxiety, which often lead to burnout," the forum adds.

You see (Photo: ShutterStock)

Along with the ethical issue of the invasion of privacy, there is also a significant legal implication.

In order to understand the limits of the decree, what is allowed and what is not allowed for employers, when it comes to maintaining the privacy of employees in the workplace, we spoke with

.

Does the employer have the green light to hack into the employee's computer and regularly monitor the activity?

"Several years ago, a seminal ruling was given on the issue in which the 'Iskov rule' was established, that the king's way is an application by an employer with the prior approval of the labor court to monitor or penetrate an employee's computer and e-mail, using the relevant data for the purpose of evidence in a legal dispute the material he found. This permission is given sparingly, and that too only if it is a professional e-mail box that the employee used during his employment with the employer.

When it comes to a personal email box provided by the employer for the benefit of the employee, he must not access the content of the employee's personal correspondence, except in exceptional cases."

Does the employee's role have meaning?

"Definitely. In 2017, the Regional Labor Court in Tel Aviv allowed the monitoring of an e-mail box due to the employee's senior position in the company, the nature of the work and the definition of his position. The court added that an employee in a senior position is expected to take into account that at some point he will have to deal with this matter, certainly when it comes to about damages that can be caused to his employer".

What is the employer not allowed to do when it comes to the employee's privacy?

"Maintaining the employee's privacy is mandatory and a violation may lead to compensation, as well as the right to resignation, which provides full severance pay. The employer is prohibited from accessing the employee's private e-mail box, accessing the employee's Facebook/Twitter/LinkedIn account, etc. (even if the entry was made from In fact, even using a biometric clock or an employee's fingerprint requires the employee's free consent. It is not enough for the employee's consent in principle to be given in person, but the employer must obtain the employee's prior written consent."

And what about installing a tracking device in a car?

"About a year ago, the Authority for the Protection of Privacy published an opinion according to which the systematic collection of location data has a regime effect, which creates in the employee a feeling of constant surveillance and violates his right to privacy, even when the surveillance is done of his actions during the work day. When it comes to drivers, this is usually Anchored in a written contract which enables effective monitoring on the one hand and adherence to the required caution on the other.

Attorney Shlomo Yaakovovich (Photo: Mor Badihi)

"In two rulings, the Supreme Court ruled that location data receives special protection, due to its great sensitivity and the potential harm it can cause to a person, if disclosed. Therefore, it determined that an employer will be allowed to use a system that collects an employee's location data only when it is a matter of collecting Data for a legitimate and vital purpose for the workplace, which meets the requirement of proportionality, in the absence of another alternative that does not collect location data, and after verifying that they meet the conditions specified in the disclosure.

"In light of this, the Authority stated that, for example, it would be difficult to point to an employer's interest that could justify the continuous collection of location data, when it comes to an employee whose main job is normal office activity, or when the data is also collected beyond working hours. It was also stated in the opinion that The employer is not allowed to make any use of the information that deviates from the initial purpose for which it was collected, and that he must behave with complete transparency towards the employees. In this framework, he must bring to their attention in detail, clearly and clearly, before the beginning of the collection of the information and its use, the rules of the customary policy regarding the scope of use of the location data that will be collected , including the purposes for which they will be used, the range of hours in which the collection system is activated, the duration of the retention of the information, and when officials will be authorized to view the information."

If we're talking about invasion of privacy, what about installing hidden cameras?

"The language of the ruling states that the legitimacy of the location of the camera installation is affected by the employee's reasonable expectation of privacy in the various areas of the workplace. In fact, there are places where the employee's reasonable expectation is that they will not be photographed, but in certain circumstances such as a large public purpose or an extremely essential purpose, cameras may be installed there , and in any case only with the knowledge of the employees and with their consent. For example, with regard to the installation of a camera in the kitchen - it was determined that a camera can be installed in any area used by the employees, provided that this is intended to achieve a most essential goal, such as protecting the peace of the employees or classified material, and in a limited format." .

Is it possible to offset an employee who is observed canceling or the data shows that he cancels while working?

In general, Attorney Yaakovovitz points out that the employment contracts do not sufficiently specify the output required of the employee. In addition, there is an understanding that each employee does not work at optimal output all the time but takes breaks from time to time. In the State of Israel this is not common and employers who make such offsets are exposed to lawsuits related to privacy or other rights whose management cost is not worth it.

• Of money

Tags

• Tracking

• digital

• Hidden Camera

• Corona