Literature Review from Naushin, page 1/5Recent advances in wireless location tracking technologies (such as that found in cell phones and radiofrequency identification (RFID) chips, BLE etc) present unprecedented opportunities for monitoringindividuals’ movements. While such technology can support useful location-based services (LBS), butdisclose of individual’s current location seriously hampers privacy issue and makes a negative impact onuser acceptance.LBSs can be further classified into three types: position awareness, sporadic queries, and location tracking.Position awareness is used in the devices that monitor an individual’s position, such as in-car navigationsystems or GPS-enabled PDAs, but that only use such information internally. Sporadic queries refer toservices in which an individual initiates the transfer of position information to an outside service provider.These queries contain only the user’s current position—as in point-of-interest queries to find the nearesthotel, for example.Finally, location-tracking services receive frequent updates of an individual’s position and as a result,continuous location-tracking applications exacerbate privacy problems because individuals’ desired levels ofprivacy could be situation-dependent, person dependent and also culture dependant. Even if users consent tohaving certain second parties track their locations, it is believed that few would be comfortable revealingtheir position in every situation 1. Thus, the continuous disclosure of location data to service provider andfriends introduces a huge privacy risk; as a result privacy preserving location based services or privacyaware location services are widely explore in the literature. (Most of the recent research works extensivelyfocus on this, rather then exploring the feelings of people, because it is already revealed that locationtracking or monitoring violates individual’s privacy) Besides this, existing research concentrate on variousdirections on location tracking, such as, the regulations, legal laws and ethical implication of tracking ormonitoring, the studies of different technologies and their performance in monitoring, and very few onresponses of user on monitoring.People’s preference on Location based serviceBarkhuu and Anind provided an experimental case study and compare privacy concerns between locationtracking service and position aware services for mobile telephony 1. Their results suggested that, peoplewere more concerned on location tracking service then position based one. Their findings also indicated thatpeople were positive towards the location-based services as long as they perceive to be useful.Similar observation is also depicted in 2 that says that people are willing to provide their locationinformation to providers, but are hesitant to provide the same information to another entity. For LBS,consumers are inclined to forgo privacy if they consider the resulting services received sufficiently useful.As an example the E911 emergency service is an instance of where the value of the service should overrideprivacy concerns.Impact of Continuous Monitoring in WorkplaceRecent advances in electronic monitoring technology present a disputable issue in the field of HumanResource management as employers have huge technologies available to monitor telephones, computerterminals, location, voice mail of employee in workplace 3.Now a day, several types of employee monitoring systems are available. For example, computer monitoring,which measures employee keystroke speed and accuracy; video surveillance, which detects employee theft,horseplay, and safety; spying, which uses detective techniques, when there is suspicious activity within theworkplace; eavesdropping and phone tapping, which tracks incoming, outgoing, and the frequency ofemployee phone calls; and the active badge system, which tracks an employee’s location and interactionwithin the workplace and so on.The issue of employee monitoring has emerged recently because of concerns for employee privacy rightsdue to huge advances in monitoring technology. Although employers want to monitor employees’performance for the betterment of the organization, employees don’t appreciate every sneeze, restroombreak, or personal activity watched and recorded. Even in some culture, there is no legal protection law toprotect privacy of employee in workplace, as an example, American workers have almost no legal protectionLiterature Review from Naushin, page 2/5from employers who want to poke or prod into their personal lives” (4, p. 6). “Few workers realize thatthere is no federal law that protects their privacy on the job” (5, p. 31). The different scenario is alsoapparent, it is in Japan, where teamwork is evaluated rather individual’s activity. Thus, monitoring isoffended for both managers and workers. (15, p. 10).Employees generally consider monitoring in the workplace as the violation of their privacy and create anunwanted stress in a workplace but still monitoring continues because of employers view it as means toincrease productivity and quality and also lack of privacy protecting laws. The debate over the use ofmonitoring lingers on because of the absence of privacy protecting law and existence of pros and cons ofboth employee and employers.While a few advantages and disadvantages have been presented, several additional ones are worthmentioning.Electronic monitoring offers a distinct advantage to the employee: It provides a way for unbiasedperformance evaluation and prevents the interference of managers’ feelings in an employee review. Inaddition, employee can judge their own performance against the objective rules and standards established byviewing their own performance. In this case, monitoring is used as a tool to show employees their workhabits and what they need to change to improve their performance.Besides few positive insights of monitoring, there are huge objections from the employee sight because ofprivacy issues. For example, private data banks in the computer, telephone conversion andvideo monitoring, active badges for location tracking, and other monitoring techniques make the privatelives of workers public to the head of organization. Data concerning employees’ security clearance,computer applications preferred, right/left handedness, and “even how the user takes his coffee” can bemaintained — which go beyond how an employee is performing on the job (6, p. 3). In addition, how themonitoring system is implemented, whether the information gathered is work-related and necessary, whohas access to it, and, finally, the effects on employees’ quality of work life 6 are the sparkling questions atthe centre of the debate. Technology has made it too easy to gather private information and it can be easilyused against the employee.Responses from employeeThe continuous monitoring in the workplace creates unwanted employee pressure and stress. It creates atension and uncomfortable condition with heavy workload, repetitive tasks, social isolation, fear of job loss,and a lack of job involvement and personal control 6. In a study of worker stress for the CommunicationWorkers of America, Smith (1992, p. 21) indicated “the monitored employees reported higher workload,less workload variation and greater workload dissatisfaction than the unmonitored employees. Themonitored employees also reported less control over their jobs, less fairness of their work standards andmore frequent interactions with difficult customers.” Most of time it gives a feeling that employees are in apanopticon.This undesirable pressure and stress in the workplace leads as a major contributor to employee’spsychological and physical health complaints. From the study (Smith 1992), it is indicated that monitoredworkers have more somatic health complaints, such as stiff/sore wrists; pain/stiffness in the shoulders, arms,legs, neck, and back; racing heart; acid indigestion and stomach pains; headaches; depression; severefatigue/ exhaustion; extreme anxiety and high tension. It was observed that, 25% workers in AT&T wereinvolved in job counselling for work-related emotional disorders as a result of monitoring 7. Similarcondition is also observed on a TWA reservation agent who has worked for 30 years in same company. Sheinformed that things have drastically changed after monitoring and her work and health has suffered a lot fortracking every step in workplace. She commented that, “I suffered nausea, severe sleep disturbance,weakened eyesight, mental confusion, headaches, muscle aches, exhaustion, and lymph node pain” (8, p.1025).Literature Review from Naushin, page 3/5In addition, a study by the University of Wisconsin’s Department of Industrial Engineering concluded,”electronic monitoring was seen as a major cause of physiological and physical health complaints amongworkers” (8, p. 1025). “Monitoring makes us feel like prisoners hooked up to a computer; mistreated,guilty, paranoid, enslaved, violated, angry, and driven at a relentless pace” (8, p. 1025). Even sometimesthe workers stress become unbearable because they cannot take bathroom break out of fear of termination. Atelephone service worker suffered a nervous breakdown as a fear of bathroom break harassment. In anotherexample, a United Airlines’ employee was threatened with firing when her supervisor told her she want overher allotted time while she was in the bathroom and co-workers had to take extra calls to make up for her”abusive” work habits (flight reservationists are permitted 12 minutes for bathroom breaks during a 7.5 hourperiod) (9 to5, 1986). The National Association of Working Women summed it all up by saying, “the worklives of monitored employees can be characterized by three words: invasion, stress, and fear” (8, p. 1013).Thus, there is an open question for discussion whether the statistics gathered by these monitoringtechnologies really represent employee’s ability and performance? Does counting the number of line of codeindicate how good a programmer is? Many employees are monitored in such a way that only speed and timeis recorded, regardless of the quality of their work 7.To protect privacy in workplace monitoring, Senator Paul Simon and Pat Williams proposed legislation in19991 that severely restricts and sometimes proscribe employers and federal government from electronicallymonitoring employees (Pai, 1997). This bill is known as “The Privacy for Consumers and Workers Act”(HR 1900 and 1984) and applies to “the collection, storage, analysis, and reporting of any information onemployees, transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photo-electronic, or photoopticalsystem” (9, p. 37).According to this regulation, employees and customer will be informed in advance about electronicmonitoring with specific time and duration of monitoring, in addition specification and use of personal datashould be inform to the employees. Monitoring and tracking should be prohibited in rest room, dressingroom and locker room facilities also 6, 10. Additionally, this Act would require the following:! Employers would not be allowed to monitor workers with five or more years of experience on thejob.! Employees who have worked between 60 days and five years could be monitored only if chosen atrandom and notified in writing at least 24 hours in advance of the date and time of the monitoring,which would be limited to two hours a week.! Workers employed for less than 60 days would not be covered by the legislation.! Data collected could not be used as the “sole basis” for evaluating employees or setting productiongoals.! Employers who violate the act would be fined $10,000 for each violation.Literature Review from Naushin, page 4/5Unfortunately, this bill is never passed and based on expert’s opinion it is unlikely to be passed (6 10-12).A recently published online article 13 (on 4th October 2017) discuss about the pros and cons of employeesurveillance at workplace. The report first concentrates the reasons for putting the employee intosurveillance. According to the report productivity and creation of hostile work environment is the prominentreason for employee monitoring. However, it is also consider that, there are strong reasons why anemployer might not want to use electronic surveillance of employees in workplace, as example, electronicsurveillance of employees can affect the relationship between an employer and an employee, can damageemployee’s commitment and motivation of work etc. The final reason why employers may not want to useelectronic surveillance of employees is employee privacy. According to Eric J. Sinrod, a partner in the SanFrancisco office of Duane Morris, where he specializes in technology and litigation matters, confirms thatemployee’s concern about electronic surveillance are legitimate. Another online report 14 deliberates thedangers of staff surveillance by utilizing wearable technologies to track how long staffs spend at their desk.The staffs conveyed that they feel very discriminated and always have a fear in mind that their personalinformation can be misused. It is also recommended that employees should involve in the process of dataformulation and there should be a well-define guideline for the purpose of data capture and use.1. Barkhuus, Louise, and Anind K. Dey. “Location-Based Services for Mobile Telephony: a Study of Users’ Privacy Concerns.”Interact. Vol. 3. 2003.2. Junglas, Iris A., and Richard T. Watson. “Location-based services.” Communications of the ACM 51.3 (2008): 65-69.3. Mishra, Jitendra M., and Suzanne M. Crampton. “Employee monitoring: privacy in the workplace?.” SAM AdvancedManagement Journal 63.3 (1998): 4.4. Privacy Invasions. (1993, December). USA Today, 6.5. Alderman, L. (1994, December). Safeguard your secrets from your boss. Money, 31-32.6. Levy, M. (1994). Electronic monitoring in the workplace: Power through the panopticon. Available Internet:http://bliss.berkeley, edu/impact/students/mike/mike -paper, html.7. Pai, R., Underwood, G., Wobbrock, J., Nelson, L., & Chong, P. (1997). Monitoring in the workplace. Available Internet:http://www-cse.stanford.edu/class/ …electronic-monitoring/8. Worsnop R. L. (1993, November 19). Privacy in the workplace. CQ Researcher, 1011-1025.9. Warner, D. (1993, December). The move to curb worker monitoring. Nations Business, 37-38.10. Aftab, P. (1996, September 30). Monitoring communication on the internet: Big brother or responsible business? The NewYork Law Journal. Available Internet: http://www, ljx.com/internet/borther, html.11.Casser, K. L. (1996). Employers, employees, e-mail and the internet. The Internet and business: A lawyer’s guide to theemerging legal issues. Computer Law Association, Inc12. Johnson, D. & Patterson, S. (1994). Access to the use and disclosure of electronic mail on company computer systems: A toolkit for formulating your company’s policy. Arlington, VA: The Electronic Messaging Association13. https://www.thebalance.com/electronic-surveillance-of-employees-1919262 (last access on 1st January 2018)14. Wearables in the workplace and dangers of staff surveillance https://www.ft.com/content/089c0d00-d739-11e6-944be7eb37a6aa8e15. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. (1987, September). The electronic supervisor: New technology, newtensions. (OTA-CIT-333).Literature Review from Naushin, page 5/5A Study of Bluetooth Low Energy performance for human proximity detection in the workplaceThe performance of BLE to identify different interactions in the workplace is investigated in this paper.Previously, survey and questionnaires were used to detect interactions, which were time consuming and didnot scale well. As a result, Bluetooth low energy as wearable device is employed for precise and improvedetection of interactions. Since, all collected interactions are anonymous and there is no reference to thesingle participants, thus there is no violation of individual’s privacy.Detecting Emerging Activity-Based Working Traits through Wearable TechnologyThis paper concentrates the activity based working characteristics of a space and human interaction in theagile workplace by using wearable technology. Since AWB concept provides dynamic and agile workingenvironments, thus, there is no fixed timing and seating arrangement in work environment. The purpose isto examine when, which, and how different places (workstation, kitchen, meeting room etc ) are mostfrequently used among different teams (Architecture, Interior Design, Workplace Consultancy, ProjectManagement and Administration) in the organization. Participants and different locations are equipped withBLE technology and before the data collection all participants are informed and also collected data areanonymised at the source, thus I believe there is no violation of individual’s privacy in this investigation andthis research is out of scope of our concentration.Tracking Serendipitous Interactions: How Individual Cultures Shape the OfficeThe interaction among different groups from different culture is investigated by utilizing RFID tags to trackserendipitous communication in a workplace. Their experiments conclude that, in a multi-cultural officeenvironment, the possibility of the employees engaging in serendipitous interactions are greatly reducedbecause of the cultural disambiguities. It is also visible that certain spaces in the workplace are widely usedfor spontaneous communication and different locations are used for different groups.