Invasion of one's privacy is something that has taken a sizable amount of concern among Ugandans, especially since the passing of the (in)famous "phone tapping" bill. The main argument is that, an individual, according to the constitution, has a right to some reasonable degree of privacy. However, how much of that privacy do do individuals retain while at their respective places of work?
Most employers will often monitor their employees' activities using cameras, or record employees' activities while using computers or telephones. Using sophisticated software, hidden cameras, phone-tapping devices, smart card security badges and global positioning systems technology; employers may electronically snoop employees'computer key strokes, internet and email usage, locations, movements and activities, phone conversations and job performance.
Employers argue that this is necessary because among other things, they have a right to protect their property from theft, sabotage and violence. It is their responsibility to prevent potentially damaging behavior like sexual harassment and above all monitor employee productivity.
In a majority of private organisations, employee surveillance is the norm, however, the ethical challenge is, should should they first warn employees before cameras and other surveillance paraphernalia are turned on?
Legal suits where employers are respondents are on the rise even in Uganda where unemployment statistics are rather miserable, it would therefore be safer if employers developed well- defined monitoring and surveillance policies, document them and get written acknowledgement from employees. Where computer and email monitoring policies exit, they should clearly state this at the time of job offer and/or acceptance.
