Keystroke Logging Declared Illegal in Alberta 310
Meshach writes "The Globe and Mail has a story about how
keystroke logging has been declared illegal in Alberta Canada. The ruling applies to companies using logging as a means to track employees." From the article: " The employee, who was not named, worked as a computer technician for six months in 2004. Ms. Silver said it was a job where productivity was hard to measure. 'We thought that using an objective check through the computer would be the most fair and objective way to do that,' she said Wednesday."
Fox news... (Score:2, Insightful)
What crackhead honestly thinks keystroke logging is "fair and objective"?
Odd. (Score:2, Insightful)
Can you track what programs your employees run? Can you track what websites they visit?
And does this apply to anyone who owns a computer, or just businesses with employees? Like what if you own a web kiosk in a public place, or you lend your personal computer to a friend? Can you log keystrokes from that?
Six Years Ago (Score:5, Insightful)
Now that weird scenario has become all too commonplace, and it's just as secret as I feared. FTA, "When the employee discovered that he had been monitored, he lodged a complaint with Alberta's information and privacy commissioner."
The guy didn't even know the software was there. Now it's one thing to tell people "We're watching you. This will go on your evaluation" It's another thing entirely to do it secretly.
In the present day, clients are modeling their business practices more and more, and would like a way to track metrics. I'm all for it: if I were a businessperson or employee, I wouldn't have a problem with my boss measuring how long it took to do my work. Where I surfed during my lunch hour? Forget it. But my productivity? Sure.
Welcome To My World [whattofix.com]
Re:Could be ok (Score:5, Insightful)
There in lies the rub.. (Score:5, Insightful)
It *will* be abused and there is no ifs, ands or buts about it. CS-
They claimed to not look at the content... (Score:2, Insightful)
If you try to determine productivity by simply counting keystrokes, someone who's chatting with a bunch of friends all day on AIM looks significantly more productive than someone, say, doing work-related data entry. You almost HAVE to look at the keystrokes to see what's going on, or failing that, monitor some other aspect of the computer use in conjunction with keystrokes to best determine what apps are being used and how frequently.
Hard to measure productivity? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds reasonable. Except for one thing. Why did they hire some one for this job? What problem needed to be solved? Did that problem get solved?
Presumably the problem was that not enough people were typing. So they hired some one to type, and measured the typing, right?
They should've hired some guys off of IRC. They type a lot.
As Ratbert says.... (Score:2, Insightful)
But to make this acutally substantive, I have a hard time imagining a job where keystroke logging, even just for counting purposes, is the ONLY way to track productivity. Productivity implies you are producing something, making progress somewhere. That has to be trackable somehow. If nothing else, make the guy account for his time in certain increments. I know that's not a great thing to do and not foolproof either, but what I'm saying is there have to be better, more objective, more thorough solutions that counting keystrokes. If not, I'll just jam down my Enter key and take a 3 hour lunch.
From An Administrator (Score:4, Insightful)
I believe that if a person cannot be trusted to perform the operations (s)he was assigned to, that they have no business working in the same company as me, in the first place. Maybe I'm too trusting. I don't know. But what I do know is that I am respected by my coworkers for being fair and not letting my power go to my head.
Having said that, I wish key logging were illegal in all states. IMHO, certain people need to lighten up.
Re:monitoring (Score:3, Insightful)
If I write an email to my wife that says "I love you snugglywugglykins!", my employer definately doesn't need to see that. You can say "It's the employer's equipment, they have a right to do what they want," but that isn't true. Your employer, for example, can't tap your phone without your knowledge. They CAN record your phone conversations, but they have to let both parties of the phone call know it is being recorded ahead of time ("This call may be recorded for quality purposes."). I don't see how secretly recording my keystrokes, which effectively taps all my email, is any different.
Perhaps if the library here had told their employee "We're going to start recording your keystrokes to measure your productivity," and the employee had agreed, that would be a different matter.
The Issue is Trust (Score:5, Insightful)
If you, as an employer, manager, etc, cannot trust the people below you to do the work you put before them, then why are they your employees?
When it comes to computers at work, I might need to fetch files from home, they'd log my personal passwords, and all other data; that's not only unnecessary, but unfair. I trust them to not snoop my personal data that may be transmitted through a work computer, and they trust me to get my work done.
Sounds foolish to log keys (Score:1, Insightful)
Hell, if all they were doing was looking at the size of the file, all the employee would have to do is mash the keyboard for an hour a day to make the log a few hundred kilobytes long. He'd probobly win an award for being so productive.
You should mind (Score:5, Insightful)
It's one thing to say "We'll read all your e-mail, and any files you save." That's reasonably "what you're doing on the company network."
On the other hand, suppose you get a phone call on your cell with fairly personal information. Your doctor's phoned you up to tell you the name of the clinic to get your AIDS treated at, for example.
It's not reasonable to say "employees shouldn't take calls like that during work," because doctor's offices run the same work hours as everyone else. So you take the call, you have to write down the name of the clinic. Ok, so you pop open notepad.exe to do it. You're going to write it down after, but the doc's talking fast enough, you don't have the writing skill to do it on paper.
You *know* it would be stupid to save this file on the company network, or e-mail it to yourself. But with a keystroke logger, even though you haven't saved it, it's recorded.
There are a hundred things like this. Who hasn't gotten a phone call from his or her boss, some extraordinarily irritating interference, and typed into his or her code "I would strangle this man if he weren't in charge of my paycheck..." then deleted it?
Finally, and most importantly, keystroke loggers intercept passwords. While it may be fine to check up on what your employees are doing at work, it is abhorrent to destroy their security on every single site they might visit.
Moreover, that information is not magically placed in the hands of "The Company." The Company is not a person. The administrator is a person, and while you as an employer may trust that administrator with corporate records, your employees have a right to have their bank account passwords kept out of that administrator's hands.
Computers are, at this point, far too much an extension of our minds to log every single keystroke. It's just too detailed, too internal. There are far too many easy ways to check employee productivity without resorting to this intimate spying.
In almost all cases, you can check employee productivity by watching out for sol.exe, checking the weblogs for things like slashdot or porn, and seeing whether the employee's work actually gets done.
The ends don't justify the means in this case. Keystroke logging is insane.
Re:Could be ok (Score:5, Insightful)
Keystroke logging means recording your keystrokes, not simply counting them. I would say that if company policy was "your computer use may be monitored", they should be able to do so -- if you won't like this clause, you don't have to work there. Persumably this will lead to a compromise, especially if workers negotiate their contracts jointly.
As a brother post says, this is more-or-less the situation in the US, but not in Canada. There, privacy is a constitutional right which even private businesses have to respect. However, note that the ruling doesn't say that all logging is wrong -- just that in this case, there were less intrusive ways to evaluate the performance of that employee. Government regulation is another way to balance the competing concerns of the company and the individual.
Re:There in lies the rub.. (Score:1, Insightful)
I know I work hard and work efficently and I am good at my job. But I'm also an introvert who doesn't drawn too much attention. Let an impartial work monitoring system demonstrate who's pulling the slack.
Re:US centric thinking? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Could be ok (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Performance (Score:3, Insightful)
Ownership doesn't have a fucking single thing to do with it. I assume that where you work, the land is privately owned. Is the owner of that property allowed to do things to you that are against the law? No.
This ownership bullshit is such a weak argument, especially since it appears that the extention of the argument is that the government apparently shouldn't be able to create laws that dictate the way people treat folks who use their private property. The law supercededs ownership rights, and thank for that, otherwise we'd have a tough time going after child pornographers, drug labs, etc on private property.
But hey, if you support the notion that the laws should be set around the singular wants of private owners, you're invited to my house for a beati - er, tea party.
You're not thinking about what privacy means (Score:5, Insightful)
In order to pay for that business lunch, might you have to log into your bank account?
In the perfomance of this work-related duty, is it fair that the network admin for your company now has your bank id and password, which would allow him, if he liked, to take your life savings and those of fellow employees who did the same, then run to Aruba?
Keystroke logging records passwords. No matter how scrupulous you are about not discussing your sex life on work time, any non-work passwords must remain sacrosanct. Keystroke logging goes over the line.
Keylogging is not objective. (Score:5, Insightful)
We need to understand that a productive worker is one who makes sure the job is done, and it doesn't matter what he or she does in their downtime. Want to measure the productivity of the tech at the library? Are the computers he is responsible for functioning properly? If yes, he is a productive worker. If it seems like he has too much free time, give him more resposibility. If he struggles with it, can him or lighten his workload.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You should mind (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:US centric thinking? (Score:3, Insightful)
A government, despite having many power hungry individuals, do have at least a few people who genuinely want to help people.
A corporation's only interest is money. There is noone there who's looking out for your interests.
Of the two, the government is the far elsser evil. Of course, I'd like checks and balances on both. WHich is basicly the governemnts job- to provide checks and balances on the powerful to protect the weak.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:US centric thinking? (Score:3, Insightful)
A corporation's only interest is money. There is noone there who's looking out for your interests.
The idea is the get the business to serve your interests. For example, they'll make you a car or build you a house or cook you a meal if you give them some money. They're actually helping you. And they do it because that money you gave them will come back to you when you do something for them. It's reciprocity. It's people helping people, although they rarely realize it.
Governments don't do that. They simply make demands on you or you go to jail.
Of the two, the government is the far elsser evil.
I suppose you think it's the lesser evil as long as it's doing your bidding. Most dictators agree with you.
Personally, I'm more afraid of a government that can drop a 500 lb bomb on me from 10,000 miles away. Most businesses can't do that.
The Issue is NOT Trust (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:US centric thinking? (Score:3, Insightful)
And there's no unintended consequences to going off after only money as a goal? Of course there are. But I'll trust someone who tries to do good over someone who doesn't care one way or the other any day of the week- they'll sometimes get it right.
Exactly. Money at all costs. Morality not an issue. No checks or balances on their pursuit of money. No way to vote them out of office, unless you're one of the richest people in the world yourself and can afford 51% of the stock. That scares me a hell of a lot more than an organization built aroun checks and balances with the ultimate check of the people being able to vote them out.
And when you deal with corporate drone X this differs how?
Fair and objective? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:EASY SOLUTION (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:US centric thinking? (Score:3, Insightful)
Rather than a corporation poison your groundwater, then conveniently go out of business before taking responsibility to clean it up (ie, the Acid pits of Glen Avon, in Riverside county california)? Or a thousand corporations collectively spewing particulates and precursors to ozone into the air that then lead to increased rates of childhood asthma (the plight of the south coast air basin in southern california right now)?
The point is, if you have a large society, you can not have either government or business, you need both. Personally I would rather have a government with a contract to provide me with certain liberties it swears to protect, even if it does not protect all of them all of the time. If the government is set up to be accountable to it's populace, the will of the people will prevail. Don't get me wrong, government sucks, but complex societies require it, especially when the main means to success in that society is to screw your neighbor for more money.
The problem with businesses is that they lack social forsight, which leads to muck, bullshit, and economic externalities in the future. Government at least attempts to have some social forsight to mitigate those that are lacking in a market that doesn't react completely in real time.
The idea is the get the business to serve your interests. For example, they'll make you a car or build you a house or cook you a meal if you give them some money. They're actually helping you. And they do it because that money you gave them will come back to you when you do something for them. It's reciprocity. It's people helping people, although they rarely realize it.
While the reality you're positing on is nice and dreamy with little flowers and frogs jumping from one lilly pad to another, that's not the actual reality of the situation. Most major governments are now slaves to their domestic corporate interests, which demand security in their foreign projects and opportunities in places their governments have no business entering. You want to see the reality of Corporate Globalism, go to south east asian gold mines run by US corporations, or go to oil works in Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan run by Exxon, Shell, and United Oil. The pursuit of money is not people helping people. It's government helping businesses expand their profit margins while marginalizing the individual. The trees in the forest no longer matter, my friend. All that matters is that their growth is maximized that harvest comes more frequently each year.
Re:You're not thinking about what privacy means (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, well that's a relief. I'm sure he'll think to himself "Well, I was going to take this credit card number, steal a bunch of money from him with it, break a number of laws, and bugger off to a tropical paradise, but darn it all, that would contravene my company's network policy"
Re:US centric thinking? (Score:4, Insightful)
I appreciate your impression that a Corporations only interest is money. This is often true if the company is actually trying to work. When they sink into Keylogging etc they have shifted from money to "power" and the frame of reference has shifted from the company to some individual within the company.
Actually there is a common misconception that money is the objective. It works pretty well in defining the interests of simple and mid to low range economic strata function. Higher than that the whole issue shifts to power and there even money will not buy the issue. The powerful will forego money to keep power. The sad reality is that the powerful rarely consider the "common good" or other values
I wish companies operated reliably looking for money. That way we could control them quite effectively. (Mods get a life if you disagree we are discussing here)
Re:Keylogging is not objective. (Score:3, Insightful)
There are much more effective methods of monitoring productivity. I've run many technology teams and projects, and I've had no trouble determining who was working and who wasn't. I would never need to even stop by the person's cube or office, and I would know who was producing. This isn't that difficult, and I certainly wouldn't need to invade the employees' privacy, waste money on software and then more time checking the logs.
1. This isn't a security issue.
2. There are far more effective ways to determine productivity.
3. This is an invasion of privacy. Most employers allow users to at least check bank accounts online once in a while, given that the employee is stuck at work during banking or office hours. What's the issue with checking a bank balance for 5 minutes instead of leaving work an hour early to do the same? Also, where is the logged information kept? Who looks at it?
4. Hire good people. Leave them alone.
5. If you happen to hire someone who isn't good. Fire them. It's good for the business and good for morale. Then go back to leaving your good employees alone to do their work. Who the hell cares if they browse or chat when all the work is done and delivered correctly, on time? Not me. That's how I get promoted and lunches with the CFO.
Re:Keylogging is not objective. (Score:4, Insightful)
That kind of attitude will all but guarantee you lose any quality employees. IT workers, like anyone else are human beings. This is not 1915, and this is not a coal mine.
I don't work in IT (anymore). But I do work on contracts for a number of organizations, many times hourly. Yes, I get downtime while I'm on the clock, and I'll use that downtime to talk with my friends on the Internet, look at webpages, or absent a computer play games on my cell phone. It usually turns out to be pretty good; being away from a particular issue for a period of time and goofing off often gives me a new perspective to approach it, and it usually pays off in the end.
About 2 1/2 years ago, I dealt with somebody like you. Seeing me in front of a computer terminal looking at CNN.com, my immediate supervisor told me to do some menial filing work. I explained to her that this is not what I do, and not why I'm here. She said that essentially she was "ordering" me to do it. I hate confrontations, so I walked out the door, went directly to her boss and told her flat out that I am here to do a particular job, which I'm doing quite well, on time and on budget. I am not a file clerk.
I didn't wait for her to try to rectify things. The job was only for a few days, and I saw no reason to get into a dispute. I left.
I had a lot of crummy, menial jobs while I was in college and grad school. Among other things, I bussed tables in a coffee shop. I did mindless data entry in front of a terminal all day. I've filed thousands upon thousands of documents. I even spent a summer pushing rocks around in a quarry. The reason I continued my education was so I wouldn't have to do that anymore. And I won't.
However, where I have seen your kind of management, where the "as long as you're on the clock you're our bitch" mentality rules supreme, was in the Army. For the most part, all this accomplishes is a "You're doing good as long as you look busy" mentality. One of the first things soldiers learn when it comes to doing drone labor is that you don't do it quickly. It doesn't matter if you do a bang-up job while buffing the floor. It can, however, get you in trouble if there's a sparkling floor you can eat off of and you've popped outside for a smoke. So, take forever to do it. Watch as your NCOs see you laboring over that floor buffer and say "He's such a hard worker!" despite the fact that you're purposely lagging.
Incidentally, I learned from a friend at the company I talked about that the particular woman I had the altercation with was sacked. Her department kept going downhill and the company received so many complaints about her from the employees they replaced her about a year after I had that experience. He told me that the employees in her department are a lot more relaxed now, and efficiency has increased dramatically.
Work should be fun. There's no law on the books that said it shouldn't. While the dot com companies failed miserably due to a lack of a solid business plan, I find it interesting that treating the employees like human beings and not worker drones compelled them to put in 80 hour work weeks without a fuss. A happy worker is a productive worker. A drone worker may be busy all the time, but he's hardly productive.
If my boss seriously asked me to rummage through the recycle bin for reusable paper, then demanded I send him an email chronicling it, I would in all honesty and sincerity tell him to go fuck himself. Life's too short to waste your life away working under a tyrant.
Re:monitoring (Score:3, Insightful)
If you're wasting company time and company resources writing personal emails, you deserve to be shit-canned. You don't have a 'right' to do anything with company property other than what the company decides you can do with it.
Max
Re:monitoring (Score:3, Insightful)
Only the owner gets to decide what you can and cannot do with his property. If that bothers you then perhaps you should consider moving to a country that doesn't recognize the concept of 'personal property' - like China, or in this case, apparently Canada.
Max