Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Privacy

Is Big Tech Pressuring Its Call-Center Workers to Install Cameras in Their Homes? (nbcnews.com) 95

NBC News reports: Colombia-based call center workers who provide outsourced customer service to some of the nation's largest companies are being pressured to sign a contract that lets their employer install cameras in their homes to monitor work performance, an NBC News investigation has found. Six workers based in Colombia for Teleperformance, one of the world's largest call center companies, which counts Apple, Amazon and Uber among its clients, said that they are concerned about the new contract, first issued in March. The contract allows monitoring by AI-powered cameras in workers' homes, voice analytics and storage of data collected from the worker's family members, including minors.

Teleperformance employs more than 380,000 workers globally, including 39,000 workers in Colombia. "The contract allows constant monitoring of what we are doing, but also our family," said a Bogota-based worker on the Apple account who was not authorized to speak to the news media. "I think it's really bad. We don't work in an office. I work in my bedroom. I don't want to have a camera in my bedroom." The worker said that she signed the contract, a copy of which NBC News has reviewed, because she feared losing her job. She said that she was told by her supervisor that she would be moved off the Apple account if she refused to sign the document. She said the additional surveillance technology has not yet been installed.

The concerns of the workers, who all spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media, highlight a pandemic-related trend that has alarmed privacy and labor experts: As many workers have shifted to performing their duties at home, some companies are pushing for increasing levels of digital monitoring of their staff in an effort to recreate the oversight of the office at home... "Surveillance at home has really been normalized in the context of the pandemic," said Veena Dubal, a labor law professor at the University of California, Hastings. "Companies see a lot of benefit in putting in software to do all kinds of monitoring they would have otherwise expected their human managers to do, but the reality is that it's much more intrusive than surveillance conducted by a boss."

An Uber spokesperson confirmed to NBC News that it Uber actually requested the monitoring of its workers, the article reports. Interviewed by NBC News, an Uber spokespreson "said that its customer service agents have access to private and sensitive user information, including credit card details and trip data, and that protecting that information is a priority for Uber.

"As a result, Uber requested Teleperformance to monitor staff working on its accounts to verify that only a hired employee is accessing the data; that outsourced staff weren't recording screen data on another device such as a phone; and that no unauthorized person was near the computer."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Is Big Tech Pressuring Its Call-Center Workers to Install Cameras in Their Homes?

Comments Filter:
  • Not USA but if in USA then I want 24/7 on clock for that.

  • they will be forced to do what their employers want.
    • by SeaFox ( 739806 ) on Sunday August 08, 2021 @11:16PM (#61671277)

      they will be forced to do what their employers want.

      If you say so. Those corporations making those demands might just find them in the same situation as my local Taco Bell. It's generally not open after 9pm nowadays because they can't find anyone to work that last shift.

      Can you imagine being a Taco Bell manager of a store that closes before most young people even go out for the night?

      • " Those corporations making those demands might just find them in the same situation as my local Taco Bell" I hope your right. All I was saying is having the option to walk open to you is your best protection.
      • by ghoul ( 157158 )
        Young people dont have much money anyway so not like they are missing out on a lot of sales.
        • Young people dont have much money anyway so not like they are missing out on a lot of sales.

          Every location is different, obviously...but my local Taco Bell seems busiest between 9PM and 2AM when they close. Part of this is likely due to them serving the retail workers; most big box retail stores close at either 9 or 10, as do many restaurants. Taco Bell is one of the few places that are open very late (Wendy's being the other reliable location), so it's pretty common to see a drive-thru with 10 cars pending after 9.

          To your point, not-having-lots-of-money is another reason Taco Bell is viable. It's

      • I imagine it's something like this [youtu.be], but with more robots.
      • by sjames ( 1099 )

        You have to expect such bad decisions from a company that chooses for it's spokes'person' an animal that must never for any reason be allowed to eat Taco Bell.

        • by cusco ( 717999 )

          an animal that must never for any reason be allowed to eat Taco Bell.

          I think that could be extended to pretty much all mammals and most birds, if only from the "cruelty to animals" aspect.

    • Modern day slavery (Score:5, Insightful)

      by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Sunday August 08, 2021 @11:19PM (#61671281)
      Companies buy up all their competitors and a few that are left around by the same handful of individuals for each sit on each other's board of directors. And we all pretend we have the freedom to go work for someone else ignoring they were all really still working for the same people at the end of the day. Or we pretend we can start our own businesses and that we won't just be crushed by anti-competitive practices.

      I think the problem is that things are getting so bad that if we actually acknowledge how bad they are we all have a mental breakdown. I hung around a lot of loser nerds back in the day and it always tell themselves that they were going to get some cert or another and then tell the boss to take this job and shove it. None of them ever did and it wouldn't have mattered if they had because by the mid-90s the certificates were pretty worthless. A lot of jobs that went overseas and a lot of jobs didn't exist anymore because software had gotten a lot better they just didn't need as many IT workers anymore. But facing that reality just too much for them.
      • Some certs are hard to get and worth a lot of money though.

        Unemployment in IT sector was bad first half of last year, but getting better. https://www.statista.com/stati... [statista.com]

        https://www.statista.com/stati... [statista.com]

        • oops, meant to post this as 2nd link, IT job growth should continue

          https://www.computerworld.com/... [computerworld.com]

        • but we're not talking about the to 10 or 20% even of workers. We're talking about the "bottom" 80%. Seems a bit much to call 80% of the population the "Bottom" but that's what we do.

          It's another trick. We tell everyone they're supposed to be able to hang with the top workers in capabilities and productivity and if they can't it's their fault and they deserve poverty.

          That's how you get things like that famous scene with Bush Jr where he's talking to a women in her 60s that works 60+ hours a week at f
          • We're talking about full time IT workers and college degrees are common and useful for getting in the door if nothing else, it's required. Mine has repaid itself many tens of times over and counting.

            Not sure what your tale of grandma burger squisher has to do with the interday price of yo-yo's on the shanghai market but I have college degree so I don't have to do that shit and it's working great.

      • A lot of jobs that went overseas and a lot of jobs didn't exist anymore because software had gotten a lot better they just didn't need as many IT workers anymore. But facing that reality just too much for them.

        Oh hey Deb, you forgot your thing at the end:

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

      • So, how exactly is that like being owned by someone else and forced to provide them with your unpaid labor? Because that's what slavery is, in any day, modern or not.

        That's a serious word with a serious definition, not to be tossed about lightly.

  • Oh come on, this isn't news. These people have a choice. They don't HAVE to work, they are perfectly free to starve and be homeless. If you don't want cameras in your home with people watching you that you can't see, then you have a choice. I mean, it's not like they have any other way to monitor productivity. This is the only way. They need to see you. I mean, what if what if your nipples are visible through whatever your wearing? If they don't have cameras, how would they ever know? Have you ever

  • by aerogems ( 339274 ) on Monday August 09, 2021 @12:51AM (#61671399)

    What is with this constant need to monitor every little thing people do? Are requests being processed in a timely manner? Are customers happy? Yes? Great, what the fuck do you need to monitor people for? I also don't buy Uber's excuse about preventing people from accessing sensitive info. This kind of monitoring won't do anything to address that specific problem and you should already have records showing who accessed what data and when that actually will help in the event someone does something they shouldn't.

    If someone can complete 8 hours of work in 6, let them have the extra two hours as paid time off as a reward. Basically, as long as they're getting their work done on time, there's no need to go all cyberstalker and monitor how long they take for bowel movements.

    • Yeah, some people miss the way things used to be in Las Vegas [youtu.be], similarly. You want to hear good customer support that's targeted at making the customers happy? Try calling Discover card support one day. Want to hear the opposite? Call pretty much any of the other credit card companies. If you get someone in the US, they'll probably lie to you about anything that's off-script.
  • by sonamchauhan ( 587356 ) <sonamcNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Monday August 09, 2021 @02:23AM (#61671515) Journal

    An Uber spokesperson confirmed to NBC News that it Uber actually requested the monitoring of its workers...

    Alone among its corporate peers, Uber comes across as an Ubermensch-wannabe: a self-centered person with a barely-repressed smirk telling a slack-jawed audience how it's done.

    "Yes, we'll dismantle the livelihoods of millions globally. Yes, we'll enroll anyone with a driving license. Yes, we'll profit during shortages. Yes, we'll harass employees that complain of harassment. Yes, we'll harass drivers and customers too. Yes, we'll hire track and deceive government regulators. Yes, we'll cut the number of safety drivers in autonomous vehicles. Yes, we'll hire a felon as a safety driver. Yes, we stack rank. Yes, Yes, Yes - we requested the monitoring of workers "

    • by vbdasc ( 146051 )

      Dear God, they're based. Perhaps that is the key of success in today's economy - basedness.

    • Yes, we'll hire a felon as a safety driver.

      Well, good. Unless it's a felony relevant to the job, we don't need to be barring people who sold a joint in 1990 or cheated on their taxes in 2005 from employment. Having an easily exploitable underclass banned from working any decent jobs is enabling much more abusive situations than Uber. Not a violent felony? Not a sex crime? You can drive someone around.

      • Yes, I support the reintegration of felons into society, including violent ones. But this must be sensitively handled and with caution. You got someone troubled and habituated to breaking rules? (This driver was jailed for attempted armed robbery). Sure, hire them: they are human like you or me. Just make sure you supervise them properly, especially when they are in a position to harm the public.

        Now here's the source of the problem - every other autonomous car startup has two safety drivers. (eg., see [theverge.com]). Ube

  • I see all kinds of technical and employer defending replies here, but this is straight up Orwell's 1984. This should be an absolute and no compromises "No".
    • I see all kinds of technical and employer defending replies here, but this is straight up Orwell's 1984. This should be an absolute and no compromises "No".

      So what do ya do? Declare war on Columbia?

      I'd boycott Uber, but I'd never use that service anyhow.

  • "to sign a contract that lets their employer install cameras in their homes to monitor work performance, "

    I hope the employer pays rent for the room, it's decoration, the furniture, computer, headphones, printer, internet, phone, heating, cooling, electricity ... so that their employees can judge their employer performance.

  • Because one thing is sure, I'll be sitting there in my dirty tighty-whities that I changed last time somewhere last week, in an un-airconditioned room so you can enjoy my 300 pound body in all its sweaty glory.

    Ok, I don't weigh 300 pounds. Yet. But there are worthy goals to be reached.

    You want me to suffer, I make you suffer.

    • Because one thing is sure, I'll be sitting there in my dirty tighty-whities that I changed last time somewhere last week, in an un-airconditioned room so you can enjoy my 300 pound body in all its sweaty glory.

      Ok, I don't weigh 300 pounds. Yet. But there are worthy goals to be reached.

      You want me to suffer, I make you suffer.

      Another thing that would work, at least in the USA. If an underage young lady were to show up naked on one of their cams, that would probably get that operation shut down quickly. Same for young guys, but people tend not to care as much.

      There's prior experience - a school district in Eastern PA had issued laptops to all it's students, and randomly monitored the cams https://www.computerworld.com/... [computerworld.com] If an outfit monitors like that, it will happen eventually.

      Way back in my day, there was a surprising

      • This. Do the companies really want this on their hands? All it will take is one enterprising guy to arrange for his wife to “accidentally” show up in the frame underdressed, and hes probably got grounds for a juicy lawsuit. And then theres the issue of underage kids winding up in the field of the camera.

        I would think that any company with more than two neurons to rub together would stay the hell away from this. Same issue with students taking tests with camera monitoring from home. Im quite
        • This. Do the companies really want this on their hands? All it will take is one enterprising guy to arrange for his wife to “accidentally” show up in the frame underdressed, and hes probably got grounds for a juicy lawsuit. And then theres the issue of underage kids winding up in the field of the camera.

          I would think that any company with more than two neurons to rub together would stay the hell away from this. Same issue with students taking tests with camera monitoring from home. Im quite surprised there havent been issues like this.

          Yeah - you would think. But it's been my experience that groups don't do a good risk/reward analysis. And damn, apparently they don't.

          A real cynic might think that they rather enjoy the experience of collecting kids pix.

      • I don't know about your country, but in mine, an underage child, even clothed, would already put them into mighty hot water.

        If the kid is naked, it's pretty much a bath in lava.

        • I don't know about your country, but in mine, an underage child, even clothed, would already put them into mighty hot water.

          If the kid is naked, it's pretty much a bath in lava.

          Not certain where you are located, but yeah. There was a local case where a guy tried to make a date with an underage girl in a chat room. After his arrest, it was found that he had pictures of girls on his computer. None were porn, they were all clothed, and not provocative either.

          But it was submitted as evidence in his trial.

  • I've no doubt companies will use this to further lock down and squeeze 'efficiency' out of call center workers (who are already amongst the most monitored and measured of employees). Companies with telephone customer service have the unfortunate intersection of needing many agents, the agents being generally low-skilled and replacable, and customer service not generating revenue for the company.

    However, there is an interesting point to consider, that clouds the waters of "this is really bad" stuff: PCI an
    • When you're in your own home, there's nothing to stop you putting a camera above your desk and a microphone near your desk, out of view of the company mandated survellience equipment. Remote clear desk is easily countered.

      • I'm not sure I follow you?

        It's the fact the company must reasonably ensure clean desk. They have to 'prove' it to avoid liability.

        Can you explain more what you mean?
        • by Hizonner ( 38491 )

          Something that does not actually work, and has no prayer of actually working, does not "reasonably ensure" anything. It's kind of the opposite of "ensure".

          Sometimes you're told to ensure things either can't or in fact won't be be ensured. That can happen because the people who create the standards are stupid, or because the people who create the standards don't understand obstacles created by how things actually work, or because their understanding is out of date, or because in their hearts they believe tha

  • ... cops playing Taylor Swift to screw up video uploads, you could have a two-year-old that was in the habit of jumping out of the bathtub and running around the house naked.

  • And you all thought the government was going to be the one to install cameras and viewer screens in people's homes. Bahahahaha

  • [quote]"As a result, Uber requested Teleperformance to monitor staff working on its accounts to verify that only a hired employee is accessing the data; that outsourced staff weren't recording screen data on another device such as a phone; and that no unauthorized person was near the computer."[/quote]

    I think that is perfectly understandable: each of those targets are critical.

    I don't care what the median income is for that employee area. Move the damned computer out of the bedroom. You don't need a dedic

    • by Hizonner ( 38491 )

      ... except that the cameras won't work and are basically being used as a token gesture.

      Well, OK, not really "except that", because in fact what you write shows you've never lived in crowded housing and don't have enough imagination to realize why your suggestions obviously aren't possible for most of these people. But even if your suggestions were possible, the cameras still wouldn't work. Uber can claim any reason it wants; that doesn't mean that the cameras will actually achieve it.

      To actually protect cus

    • by cusco ( 717999 )

      That's fine if you live in a three bedroom suburban home, try that in a 400 square foot one bedroom apartment that you share with a partner and possibly their offspring.

  • they all have webcams, and basically monitoring rats. Buy a sticker, if your brave disable the mic and hook up a hardware mutable external, and hope your boss doesn't suffer from autism.

  • Card handling requires a lot of extra security, including non-inconsiderable physical security measures that simply aren't compatible with working from home. At least not without having to point cameras all over the place.
  • Since the contract permits the "company" to surveil, does that mean that employees would be able to record what their co-workers/managers say too?

    Could this come back to bite the employer through ways that would have been less convenient whilst in an office. Since the new contract permits the company to record, then you as an employee can record things that could become evidence in a tribunal. In an office situation where you cannot so easily record conversations that would be hard to gather as the contract


  • It is unpopular and possibly unsuitable for people that do not have a dedicated work study/room BUT it does solve a lot of problems.

    The biggest problem it solves is the typical mistrust by the employer. You see there's an alarmingly amount of employers that simply believe cliche. Cliches like everyone working from home is simply watching TV, porn or sleeping on the job.
    It doesn't make sense, there's plenty of ways to mitigate such situations and most people are honest but that does not stop empployers f
  • We're living in a world completely out of control if mere corporations are pressuring their employees to do shit like this. They're verging on civil and basic human rights violations. Day of the rope for them, when?
    You're insane if you agree to shit like this.
  • I know a pharmacist who approves online based fulfillment prescriptions from her home. She had to get a secure room at her house that only she can enter and has cameras on the door and her. Her own kids can't enter the room. It's to ensure HIPPA compliance. She says its a pain but understands the reason and prefers it to having to drive to work somewhere.

    All that said, she makes a lot of $$ being a pharmacist vs the people in Columbia making $6k/year, so she's likely way more willing to deal with the extra

There has been a little distress selling on the stock exchange. -- Thomas W. Lamont, October 29, 1929 (Black Tuesday)

Working...