Panoptic Employment

B. Hewitt
{"title":"Panoptic Employment","authors":"B. Hewitt","doi":"10.52214/stlr.v24i2.11631","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Remote workers are subjected to constant and intrusive surveillance by employers and health technology companies. Working from home became commonplace as a result of COVID-19, and increasingly employers use health and location tracking software, as well as webcams and facial recognition, to monitor their employees. This surveillance exacerbates risks of discrimination based on health data and other lifestyle factors that have no bearing on work performance, implicates the privacy rights of family members and roommates, and sharpens the power asymmetry between employers and employees. Particularly as States seek to criminalize women seeking abortions following the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade, the safeguarding of health data on fertility-tracking applications has never been more important. \nGiven the novelty and rapidity of this transition, state and federal laws fall short of adequately protecting remote workers from incessant surveillance, particularly of their health data. Although several federal laws and agencies appear to address certain aspects of this threat, in practice laws such as HIPAA at the federal level and BIPA and CCPA in Illinois and California, respectively, do not sufficiently regulate the collection of health data from remote workers. In addition to these practical issues, U.S. privacy law generally places undue exclusive emphasis on the individual, relying on notice-and-consent provisions and anonymization. However, the case of remote worker surveillance highlights the deficiencies of this individualized focus. This Note details the prevalence and harm of remote worker surveillance, discusses how the current data privacy legal regime falls short, and offers proposals for strengthening privacy protections for remote workers and their health data.","PeriodicalId":87208,"journal":{"name":"The Columbia science and technology law review","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Columbia science and technology law review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.52214/stlr.v24i2.11631","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Remote workers are subjected to constant and intrusive surveillance by employers and health technology companies. Working from home became commonplace as a result of COVID-19, and increasingly employers use health and location tracking software, as well as webcams and facial recognition, to monitor their employees. This surveillance exacerbates risks of discrimination based on health data and other lifestyle factors that have no bearing on work performance, implicates the privacy rights of family members and roommates, and sharpens the power asymmetry between employers and employees. Particularly as States seek to criminalize women seeking abortions following the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade, the safeguarding of health data on fertility-tracking applications has never been more important. Given the novelty and rapidity of this transition, state and federal laws fall short of adequately protecting remote workers from incessant surveillance, particularly of their health data. Although several federal laws and agencies appear to address certain aspects of this threat, in practice laws such as HIPAA at the federal level and BIPA and CCPA in Illinois and California, respectively, do not sufficiently regulate the collection of health data from remote workers. In addition to these practical issues, U.S. privacy law generally places undue exclusive emphasis on the individual, relying on notice-and-consent provisions and anonymization. However, the case of remote worker surveillance highlights the deficiencies of this individualized focus. This Note details the prevalence and harm of remote worker surveillance, discusses how the current data privacy legal regime falls short, and offers proposals for strengthening privacy protections for remote workers and their health data.
展示全景的就业
远程工作者受到雇主和医疗技术公司持续的侵入性监视。由于2019冠状病毒病,在家工作变得司空见惯,越来越多的雇主使用健康和位置跟踪软件,以及网络摄像头和面部识别来监控员工。这种监视加剧了基于健康数据和其他与工作表现无关的生活方式因素的歧视风险,涉及家庭成员和室友的隐私权,并加剧了雇主和雇员之间的权力不对称。特别是在最高法院推翻罗伊诉韦德案(Roe v. Wade)后,各州试图将寻求堕胎的妇女定为刑事犯罪,保护生育跟踪应用程序的健康数据从未像现在这样重要。鉴于这种转变的新颖性和快速性,州和联邦法律未能充分保护远程工作者免受不间断的监视,特别是他们的健康数据。尽管一些联邦法律和机构似乎解决了这一威胁的某些方面,但在实践中,诸如联邦一级的HIPAA以及伊利诺伊州和加利福尼亚州的BIPA和CCPA等法律并没有充分规范远程工作人员健康数据的收集。除了这些实际问题之外,美国隐私法通常过分强调个人,依赖于通知同意条款和匿名化。然而,远程工作人员监控的案例突出了这种个性化关注的缺陷。本说明详细介绍了远程工作人员监控的普遍性和危害,讨论了当前数据隐私法律制度的不足之处,并提出了加强对远程工作人员及其健康数据的隐私保护的建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信