Skip to main content

Workplace Privacy


Photo by Philipp Birmes
Americans who believe that our rights are unalienable would be surprised to learn how limited in scope they are at their place of employment. At work, our liberties are second to the need for business to monitor their assets, including their greatest asset, their people. While it is not unreasonable for businesses to be secure, they must tread carefully to avoid violating the rights of their employees.

The story of Theranos, the now defunct blood testing company which has since been revealed to be a total fraud, is not new, but many new details are now emerging. Theranos was a silicon valley wunderkind because it was poised to revolutionize the blood testing industry under the leadership of its charismatic leader, Elizabeth Holmes. Holmes made many unethical business decisions, but how was this massive fraud initially discovered?

One detail about Theranos that has recently emerged is how paranoid senior leadership was. Holmes had made a connection to a former Secretary of State and had convinced his grandson, Tylyer Shultz, to work with her at Theranos. George Shultz, the former Secretary of State, was also an investor in Theranos. After an explosive piece in the Wall Street Journal about the company, Theranos was eager to find out who the leak was. The WSJ piece made mention of a specific string of text, "42.7 percent." Theranos combed through all staffers' emails until finding that specific string. Once discovered, she sent that employee, Tyler Shultz threatening letters. The Schultz family wound up paying about half a million dollars in legal fees dealing with the threats.

The misdeeds at Theranos don't stop with merely threatening an employee based off an email search of questionable ethics. In order to work at Theranos, it was required to drink the Kool-Aid. Employees who questioned the methods of their employer, which included farming out blood testing to third party labs to cover up the fact that their famed Edison blood testing machine didn't work, were often shown the door. Employee dissent can be very challenging to discover, unless you bend the rules as Theranos did.

It would naturally arouse suspicion if someone replied to an email thread when they were not included on it. Holmes, or her COO Sunny Balwani, would routinely engage in such this practice at Theranos. In order to essentially spy on their employees, two tactics were used. First, a "culture of silos" was encouraged, which meant that employees from different departments were discouraged from communicating with each other. In most other workplace cultures, silos are a bad thing, as they hinder progress. At Theranos however, it is easy to see the benefits of such a culture.

The other tactic that Theranos employed is even more incredulous. Without her knowledge, a keylogger was installed on the receptionist's computer. A keylogger is simply an undetectable piece of software which records all keystrokes on its host. It is possible keyloggers were used on other employee computers at Theranos, but even the presence of only one indicates the level of paranoia in which they operated.

Technology has created new concerns for both employers and employees regarding privacy. We must find a way to balance the needs of business and the needs of the individual. Perhaps the best approach is to keep work and personal items on entirely separate systems, but that is idealistic. Realistically, there will always be a need to receive personal phone calls at work and there will often be a need for the needs of work to interrupt personal time. Flexibility needs to be maintained without the rights of one being overridden by the rights of the other.

--Jay E. blogging for digitalinfinity.org

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Growing Disruption Of Artificial Intelligence

Photo by Frank Wang Artificial intelligence may be as disruptive as the computers used to create it once were, and it could be even bigger. Given the disruption that social media has proven to be, one has to wonder if we are fully prepared for the life altering consequences we are building for ourselves. IBM has been a key player in the artificial intelligence arena for over two decades. Deep Blue was their first tour de force in 1997, when its team of developers received $100,000 for defeating chess champion Gary Kasparov in a game of chess. That watershed moment has its roots all the way back in 1981 when researchers at Bell Labs developed a machine that achieved Master status in chess, for which they were awarded $5000. In 1988, researchers at Carnegie Melon University were awarded $10,000 for creating a machine that achieved international master status at chess. Deep Blue, however, was the first machine to beat the world chess champion. Google has entered the fray as well,

Operator Overload

Photo by Oliver Sjostrom Life has changed dramatically since the start of the personal computer revolution in the late 1970s. We have seen computing go from the realm of military to industry, then to the home and now to the pocket of our pants. Connected computers have followed the same path, as the Internet has forever changed the landscape of computing, including how people interact with it. Along the way, we've seen computing go from being rather anti-social to being a completely mainstream component of popular culture. Let's pause for a moment and examine how technology migrated into being chic. In the late 1970s there was a lot of optimism around what computing technology could someday do for us and while many people were eager to learn, that number was still small. Computers were essentially souped up calculators and most people weren't eager to learn an arcane programming language or spend their free time noodling around with calculations. One pivotal use ca

An Algorithmic Life

Photo by sk Data is the most valuable commodity of the 21st century. Algorithms are what transform data into information. Algorithms have become like a trusted friend whose recommendations we seek, and that we adhere to. Perhaps what isn't known is how these pieces of code are able to derive such useful information for us, which is the part of algorithms that are unseen to many. An algorithm is ultimately only as good as the data that is fed into it, and we are all feeding vast amounts of data into code we did not author, that we don't control, and that is only visible to us in its outputs. The convenience provided by algorithms is certainly welcome, but according to a recent Pew Research Center report , the public doesn't have such a welcoming opinion of them when used for decisions that can be life-changing. Algorithms represent far more than recommendations on which media to consume. There is an innate desire for humanity in decisions that could dictate, for examp