Many employees do not realise how much is being tracked until it is too late. What used to be informal management is now automated judgment which concerns control, data, and power dynamics sadly. The fact that legal systems are only now reacting shows how quickly employers adopted these tools without accountability. We need more conversations like this, especially from a worker-first perspective. Thanks for this article.
What troubles me most is that the 'normalization' of surveillance happens so subtly, and usually they are framed as harmless efficiency. In fact, once data becomes the basis for judgment, every action appears as a liability. We are redefined by metrics that we never agreed to. Thanks for raising this.
What you point out is precisely why this conversation cannot remain niche. The current trajectory of workplace surveillance reflects a deeper institutional failure; a willingness to prioritise efficiency over ethics, and control over trust. What should alarm us is not just the scale of monitoring, but actually the normalisation of it under the guise of "digital transformation". The legal system is indeed late to the table, but so are policy makers, HR professionals, and even some labour advocates. Surveillance is not neutral in that it reinforces hierarchies, discourages autonomy, and to an extent erodes the very fabric of inclusive workplace culture. Until human-centred transparency that becomes the norm, we just have to continue to examine these practices with precision and urgency. I deeply appreciate your comments. It strengthens the need for more rigorous public scrutiny and policy action.
You are absolutely right to highlight the unchecked speed of adoption. The troubling part is not just that monitoring exists, but that it has developed behind closed doors, without regulation, without consent, and often without awareness. Employers have embraced these tools as default management practices, sidestepping ethical review and legal scrutiny.
Many employees do not realise how much is being tracked until it is too late. What used to be informal management is now automated judgment which concerns control, data, and power dynamics sadly. The fact that legal systems are only now reacting shows how quickly employers adopted these tools without accountability. We need more conversations like this, especially from a worker-first perspective. Thanks for this article.
What troubles me most is that the 'normalization' of surveillance happens so subtly, and usually they are framed as harmless efficiency. In fact, once data becomes the basis for judgment, every action appears as a liability. We are redefined by metrics that we never agreed to. Thanks for raising this.
What you point out is precisely why this conversation cannot remain niche. The current trajectory of workplace surveillance reflects a deeper institutional failure; a willingness to prioritise efficiency over ethics, and control over trust. What should alarm us is not just the scale of monitoring, but actually the normalisation of it under the guise of "digital transformation". The legal system is indeed late to the table, but so are policy makers, HR professionals, and even some labour advocates. Surveillance is not neutral in that it reinforces hierarchies, discourages autonomy, and to an extent erodes the very fabric of inclusive workplace culture. Until human-centred transparency that becomes the norm, we just have to continue to examine these practices with precision and urgency. I deeply appreciate your comments. It strengthens the need for more rigorous public scrutiny and policy action.
You are absolutely right to highlight the unchecked speed of adoption. The troubling part is not just that monitoring exists, but that it has developed behind closed doors, without regulation, without consent, and often without awareness. Employers have embraced these tools as default management practices, sidestepping ethical review and legal scrutiny.