A third of UK employers use “bossware” technology to track employee activity with the most common methods including email monitoring and web browsing.
Private companies are the most likely to deploy industrial surveillance at work, with one in seven employers recording or reviewing screen activity, according to a British survey that estimates the extent of office snooping.
The findings, shared with the Guardian by the Chartered Management Institute (CMI), are based on responses from hundreds of UK managers and suggest that there has been a recent increase in computerised work monitoring.
In 2023, less than a fifth of people thought they were being monitored by their employer, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has revealed. The finding that around a third of managers report that their organisations monitor employees’ online activities on employer-owned devices is likely an underestimate, as around the same proportion said they were unaware of what their organisations were tracking.
Many surveillance systems are designed to prevent insider threats and protect sensitive information, as well as detect productivity declines. But the trend appears to be causing concern. A large number of managers are against the practice, saying it undermines trust in staff and invades their personal privacy, the CMI found.
One of the executives at an insurance company developing AI systems to monitor staff screen activity to track performance said it was “disturbing.”
“Do they not trust their employees to do their jobs and do they want to replace them with AI?” they said.
One employee monitoring provider offers reporting on employee “downtime,” “employee productivity tracking,” and unapproved AI or social media usage, as well as “real-time insights into employee behavior, including screenshots, screen recordings, keystrokes, and app usage.”
In response to the findings, the ICO said bosses should “make employees aware of the nature, extent and reasons for surveillance” and said excessive surveillance “can undermine people’s privacy, particularly if they are working from home”. It warned it would “take action where necessary”.
Last year, the ICO stopped outsourcing company Serco from using facial recognition technology and fingerprint scanning to monitor staff attendance at the leisure centre chain.
Monitoring is often done to ensure that inappropriate content is not accessed, the CMI said. But it warned: “There are long-term implications if you feel like it’s big brother and you’re watching.”
“If it is used, it is incredibly important for employers, otherwise it will create significant problems in terms of data privacy and protection,” said Petra Wilton, director of policy and external affairs at CMI.
Other recent examples of surveillance technology at work include HSBC installing a large number of security cameras – 1,754 by one estimate – and biometric readers that use handprints as one way to access areas in its new London headquarters.
After newsletter promotion
Accounting firm PwC recently implemented a “traffic light” system using data from Pass Swipes and WiFi connections to check whether employees are meeting the requirements to visit the office at least three days a week. A PwC spokesperson said it has been “adopted by the vast majority of our people.”
A former senior employee for the public transport authority, who asked not to be named, called the surveillance they faced, including their online diary, “intrusive and downright harassing.”
“It started with the monitoring and ended with me leaving because I was so upset,” they said. One of the six managers also told CMI researchers that they would consider looking for a new job if their organization started monitoring employees’ online activities on work devices.
Among executives who knew their organizations were monitoring, 35% monitored emails. Overall, the most popular type of monitoring was tracking logins and login times and system access.
The study found that 53% of managers supported monitoring employees’ online activities on employer-owned devices, while 42% opposed it, primarily because it undermines trust, but also because they believe it does not improve performance and could be misused or lead to unfair judgments or disciplinary actions.
