"Monitoring email: management or thought police"
This is the title of a CNN.com article I found about how companies monitor employee email, who monitors the emails, and how often they are monitored. Check it out below. I was surprised to learn that about 2/3 of "major American firms" use some type of email-monitoring system. What's interesting is that the article focuses on a small company of about 40 employees. This company does not use any type of email monitoring system simply because they are relying on professional work ethic and good judgment. Because of the size and type of company, this laissez-fair policy has worked. However, according to the article, "when intellectual property and sensitive corporate information pass through email on a regular basis, it is essential to have clear policies about what information may or may not pass via the Net, and you must have the software to back up those policies." I think the difference between the security and privacy needs of a smaller business and a large corporation is what we all needed to take into account during the debate on Wednesday. Furthermore, had we not been assigned definitive positions on this argument, I believe many of us would have noted this key difference in our argument papers.
The last point I would like to make is about the purpose of these monitoring systems in general. While in some ways it may seem this way, I don't believe businesses are simply trying to spy on their employees for the sport of it. The monitoring systems are in place protect both the business and the employees and act as a safeguard from offensive emails and websites; and as stated earlier, to protect sensitive corporate information from competitors. Anyway, go ahead and check out the article. It covers all the bases, and then some, from our debate on Wednesday.
"Monitoring email: management or thought police"
The last point I would like to make is about the purpose of these monitoring systems in general. While in some ways it may seem this way, I don't believe businesses are simply trying to spy on their employees for the sport of it. The monitoring systems are in place protect both the business and the employees and act as a safeguard from offensive emails and websites; and as stated earlier, to protect sensitive corporate information from competitors. Anyway, go ahead and check out the article. It covers all the bases, and then some, from our debate on Wednesday.
"Monitoring email: management or thought police"
posted by Anonymous at
6:05 PM
1 Comments:
I was surprised to see that companies lose an estimated $5.3 billion a year from internet surfing. That's a huge amount of money, but put to scale against the actual earnings of all companies per year I bet it's pretty miniscule. If employees weren't spending time surfing the net, they would probably be doing something else. I forget who said it during class but I totally agree with them that people are not machines. I think companies, especially large companies that can most afford to do so, must absorb a certain amount of unproductive time from their employees. Whether that be in the form of making conversations by the copier, scheduling doctor's appointment, or writing personal emails, I don't see much of a difference. I think employers have always had to and will always have to take small bouts of unproductivity as a necessary evil when employing people.
In regards to internet monitoring in general though, I think I see it mostly as something that seems like a pain in the butt until you think of the reprocussions that could be suffered without it. Kind of like having to speak with customs when you have 10 minutes to get on your next plane - it seems like such a hassle but in reality it is there for your safety and the safety of the country you live in (or company you work in).
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home