Respond to the following in a minimum of 175 words: As a leader in the United States, my stance is against the monitoring of employees' web access as a general practice. While maintaining network security is essential, monitoring employees' web access can infringe on their privacy and create a culture of mistrust within the workplace. It is important to acknowledge that employees have a reasonable expectation of privacy while using company-provided devices or networks. Instead, organizations should focus on educating employees about safe browsing practices, implementing strong security protocols, and developing a culture of trust and responsibility. A policy statement in the United States could be: "The organization respects the privacy of its employees and does not engage in the monitoring of web access except in extreme cases where there is a significant risk to network security or company reputation. Employees will be informed of any monitoring or restrictions in advance, and all monitoring will be conducted in accordance with applicable laws and regulations." In contrast, in countries like North Korea, the government exercises tight control over its citizens' personal lives, including online activities. As a leader in such countries, the government would likely support extensive monitoring and restrictions on web access to prevent subversive activities and maintain state security. This practice is often justified as necessary to protect the country's interests and security, but it can result in the infringement of citizens' privacy and freedom of expression. Sources: - "Employee Monitoring in the Digital Age: Good Idea or Big Brother?" by Pamela Gupta (The Journal of Business Inquiry, 2018). - "Ethical Issues in Employee Monitoring: What Should an Employer Do?" by Janine Berg (International Labour Office, 2001). - "Privacy and Employee Monitoring: A Comprehensive Review of Empirical Research" by E. Vance Wilson (Journal of Business Ethics, 2005).
Respond to the following in a minimum of 175 words:
As a leader in the United States, my stance is against the monitoring of employees' web access as a general practice. While maintaining network security is essential, monitoring employees' web access can infringe on their privacy and create a culture of mistrust within the workplace. It is important to acknowledge that employees have a reasonable expectation of privacy while using company-provided devices or networks. Instead, organizations should focus on educating employees about safe browsing practices, implementing strong security protocols, and developing a culture of trust and responsibility.
A policy statement in the United States could be: "The organization respects the privacy of its employees and does not engage in the monitoring of web access except in extreme cases where there is a significant risk to network security or company reputation. Employees will be informed of any monitoring or restrictions in advance, and all monitoring will be conducted in accordance with applicable laws and regulations."
In contrast, in countries like North Korea, the government exercises tight control over its citizens' personal lives, including online activities. As a leader in such countries, the government would likely support extensive monitoring and restrictions on web access to prevent subversive activities and maintain state security. This practice is often justified as necessary to protect the country's interests and security, but it can result in the infringement of citizens' privacy and freedom of expression.
Sources:
- "Employee Monitoring in the Digital Age: Good Idea or Big Brother?" by Pamela Gupta (The Journal of Business Inquiry, 2018).
- "Ethical Issues in Employee Monitoring: What Should an Employer Do?" by Janine Berg (International Labour Office, 2001).
- "Privacy and Employee Monitoring: A Comprehensive Review of Empirical Research" by E. Vance Wilson (Journal of Business Ethics, 2005).
(Please type answer no write by hand)
Step by step
Solved in 3 steps
