Re: [privacy] 20 inspectors suspended over GPS

["Jarrod Frates" <jfrates.ml () gmail com>]

On 7/11/06, Brian Loe <knobdy () gmail com> wrote:
> On 7/11/06, Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu <Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu> wrote:
> > It's one thing if it's used to double-check "Did this inspector go to all
> > the sites on his visit list?" - that you can do with GPS resolution down
> > to several hundred feet.  It's when you start using it to measure how much
> > time the guy spends in his office versus when he's down the hall in the
> > bathroom that it becomes an issue....
>
> I don't get the difference - I'm sure they're allowed bathroom breaks.

The phones wouldn't be able to track that level of granularity unless
GPS assistance antennae were placed inside the building.  However,
loss of signal showing that the inspectors last entered the facility
at, say, 9:15am and the signal didn't pick up again in the parking lot
until noon when they should have been in the field by 10am could be
used to show that they were slacking in their offices when they should
have been out working.

Privacy in the workplace is and should be limited.  The company
doesn't need to know what an employee is doing in the bathroom, so
long as it's not illegal.  Even then, it should only be discovered by
someone witnessing or finding evidence of the act.  When on company
time, though, if someone is expected to be somewhere, a GPS phone is
not an unreasonable method of assurance that the employee is
undertaking that part of the job.  The GPS function should not be used
when off-hours, though, as it's not the company's business where the
employee eats lunch or goes after or before work.  It's a very easy
balance to strike.


Jarrod
_______________________________________________
privacy mailing list
privacy () whitestar linuxbox org
http://www.whitestar.linuxbox.org/mailman/listinfo/privacy