Op-Ed: Workplace surveillance — The marriage of paranoia and idiocy

Image: © Digital Journal

There is a truly ancient Chinese saying – “If you don’t trust someone, don’t employ them. If you employ someone, don’t distrust them.” This ancient theory hasn’t penetrated the modern workplace, particularly in China, the country with the most surveillance on Earth.

Workplace surveillance reflects a culture of almost psychotic distrust. The old “hate the employees” thing is also pretty obvious. It is a culture and a very destructive type of culture.

Seems that all those street-smart savvy middle-management boys and girls are really down with surveillance. They’re experts on organized crime, gangs, ransomware, daily fraud, and all that stuff. Surveillance is therefore at plague levels.

Also at plague levels are the figures for white-collar corporate crime. If you’re paying someone $7.50 an hour, you should spend millions on surveillance, right? If your executives are in business for themselves at your expense that’s not a problem, obviously

Most employees don’t have access to anything financially important. Just about all executives do have access. Your checkout chick or packing room guy can’t really cost you a lot of money. Your management can send you broke with a phone call.

…So, who should be under surveillance? Is someone on a bathroom break or someone sending your security codes to people who might be interested?

Modern surveillance can monitor keystrokes (30-year-old technology) in remote locations. CCTVs (70-year-old technology) can track every move. Biometrics (20-year-old technology) can identify anyone. Yet the fraud continues blissfully year after year.

Could it be that after all these decades people know the workarounds? Like as if you could find those workarounds online anytime? Could be.

Somehow this too-elegant logic hasn’t got into a meeting yet. The “back to the office” mantra has to have something to do with having more surveillance in the workplace. Otherwise, it’s just an expensive waste of time.

There’s also an inherent dishonesty in this farcical obsession with surveillance. Fraud is one of the most common, and most commonly caught, crimes. Nobody else is dumb enough to leave an entire audit trail for investigators, but these guys do. One number in the wrong place is enough for any competent accountant. The same applies to any real threat.

Meanwhile, you’re spending a fortune on putting the least dangerous people under surveillance. I use the expression “least dangerous” with a caveat. In 2008, Wall Street had one of its regular purges of workers. Those workers walked out with every bit of valuable information they could carry or send somewhere. This was retaliation for trashed careers and punishing workloads. Other sectors can do the same thing in different ways.

The trouble with surveillance and the paranoia that goes with it is that everything and everyone is seen as a non-specific threat. If everyone in the workplace is seen as the enemy, that doesn’t make them feel secure. They feel threatened. They are threatened. Their crime is being employed.

Does this sound like a productive workplace to you? Is it just possible to antagonize the entire workforce with this all-too-obvious total distrust?

Most people prefer to get on with their lives. They don’t want added risk. They’re trustworthy because it’s in their interests. Create a defensive workforce who will resent the added threats, and they become much less trustworthy in self-defense. They know as little as possible about any actual issues. Sound familiar?

If someone working for the cartels works in your office, they’re not going to be conspicuous. They’ll be model workers, and probably in some other country with a respectable amount of your money in about six months. The guy that set up the cyberfraud attack will also be basking happily elsewhere. The cute girl who changed all your algorithms will be back home browsing on Fifth Avenue.

Meanwhile, you’re counting KPIs and doing performance reviews on the people who are actually doing their jobs. (Again, I ask – Why does it take six months to find out if someone’s doing their job or not?)

This is not security or anything like security. Not only is your surveillance targeting the wrong people, but it also can’t target the right people. Even if it can, it might take days, weeks, or months to find what you need to know. You may be looking for one line of code or a dud transaction among thousands or millions.

Criminals generally don’t hang around waiting for applause. They’re not going to wait for you to find out. (Well, maybe the incredibly stupid ones.)

You’re almost certainly using the wrong surveillance techniques. There are no one-size-fits-all all surveillance options. They’re all custom fits for a particular role. Use your in-house experts to design the right surveillance and stop wasting a fortune on stuff that doesn’t work.

______________________________________________________

Disclaimer
The opinions expressed in this Op-Ed are those of the author. They do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of the Digital Journal or its members.