10 min
Created using Black Forest Labs Flux 1.1
In a Nutshell:
In today’s increasingly digital workplace, the imperative to protect organisations against phishing, insider risk, and data exfiltration has driven rapid adoption of employee monitoring and digital surveillance tools. From email scanning and endpoint telemetry to session recording and AI-driven behavioural analytics, these capabilities promise earlier detection and faster response when human factors become attack vectors.
Yet as monitoring expands, employers face a dense legal and ethical landscape where privacy, proportionality, and transparency are not optional add‑ons but binding obligations. The central question is no longer whether to monitor, but how to do so in a way that measurably strengthens cybersecurity without eroding employee trust or breaching the law.
Who (is impacted)?
The issue of employee monitoring affects a range of stakeholders. Employees face direct scrutiny of their activities and communications, gaining indirect security benefits but risking eroded privacy, trust, and morale from overreach, especially in remote work.
Employers and cybersecurity teams benefit from better threat detection vis a vis insider risks and phishing signals, yet shoulder legal compliance burdens, ethical concerns, and potential employee or reputational backlash.
Regulators and data protection authorities are tasked with legislating and then enforcing privacy laws, balancing employee rights against legitimate security needs through guidance and fines.
Finally, “Bossware” providers themselves face market shifts as legislation and attitudes toward surveillance evolve, impacting product viability and demand.
Examples of Workplace Monitoring
- Presence and location tracking: Some companies use devices or apps to monitor employee presence and real-time GPS location beyond work hours. For instance, The Daily Telegraph installed presence-monitoring devices that tracked employee movement in offices, leading to resistance and eventual removal amid privacy concerns. Intermex tracked employee location 24/7 through a mobile app, causing a legal dispute when an employee objected to monitoring outside work hours.
- AI-powered communication monitoring: Companies like Starbucks, Nestlé, and AstraZeneca use AI tools such as Aware to monitor employee messages. This sort of surveillance raises concerns about transparency, accuracy, and privacy, as it can intrude deeply into employee interactions.
- Keystroke logging and screenshot capturing: Time-tracking software used in remote work can capture screenshots every few minutes and monitor keyboard/mouse activity and web usage. This is seen as overly intrusive and dystopian by many employees and can damage morale and trust.
- Algorithmic management and automated decision-making: Employers deploy algorithmic systems to track, evaluate, and schedule workers. These unaccountable systems make significant employment decisions with little transparency or recourse, raising ethical and legal doubts.
- Biometric recognition and surveillance: Automated monitoring of facial features, expressions, and use of biometrics for access control is controversial, especially in regions where legal frameworks about biometric data processing are unclear.
- Audio surveillance: Monitoring conversations at the workplace without clear consent or transparency remains contentious.
What (is at stake)?
At stake is a delicate balance between organisational security and employee rights and dignity. Switzerland’s Federal Act on Data Protection (FADP), for example, sets forth explicit requirements for lawful employee monitoring. It mandates that surveillance must have a clear, legitimate purpose related to organisational security or regulatory compliance, employees must be informed, and monitoring must be proportionate and limited in scope. Yet the law’s wording leaves room for interpretation. Employers may overreach by stretching what they consider a “legitimate purpose linked to organisational security,” risking encroachment on privacy rights under the guise of security .
Beyond the legal framework, the employee monitoring industry itself is at stake—a booming multimillion-dollar market that may reach a billion-dollar valuation as organisations invest heavily in digital surveillance tools to manage insider risks and productivity .
For employees, the issue is deeply personal: they risk erosion of privacy, autonomy, and workplace trust. This tension heightens as monitoring intensifies in remote and hybrid work environments.
Cybersecurity risks compound the stakes. Insider threats, which account for a large share of breaches (according to IBM as many as 83% of organisations reported at least one insider attack in 2024), drive organisations to rely more on monitoring to detect credential misuse, accidental or malicious data leaks, and phishing-driven compromises. The financial and reputational fallout from cyber incidents can be massive, increasing pressure on employers to bolster surveillance. However, employee tolerance for intrusive monitoring often lags behind, and fundamental privacy expectations may resist erosion, even in the face of potentially serious organisational harm.
Ultimately, what is at stake extends beyond compliance or security. It strikes at the heart of workplace culture, trust, and the evolving relationship between employer and employee in the post-pandemic digital age.
When (do these decisions come into play)?
We already do. GDPR has applied since 2018, and Switzerland’s revised FADP has been in force since 2023, tightening expectations around transparency, proportionality, and employee information duties in monitoring contexts . EU‑level work on algorithmic management and worker profiling is progressing, with additional constraints on opaque, high‑impact monitoring expected to crystallise into law over 2026–2027, further shaping how AI‑driven employee analytics may be deployed at scale . Given broader adoption of monitoring since the shift to hybrid work, organisations should align programs now to avoid retrofit costs and enforcement exposure later.
The Debate: Arguments For and Against Employee Monitoring
Arguments For Monitoring
Employee monitoring bolsters cybersecurity by enabling early detection of insider threats and compromised credentials—factors at the heart of many data breaches and phishing attacks. Comprehensive surveillance helps security teams investigate incidents swiftly, reconstruct attack vectors, and respond effectively, reducing operational disruptions and safeguarding business continuity. It also ensures regulatory compliance for sectors tasked with protecting critical infrastructure or sensitive data.
Furthermore, monitoring tools become especially valuable in remote work environments, where traditional supervision is impractical, providing crucial visibility to manage risk and maintain organisational resilience.
- Security and Risk Mitigation: Monitoring helps detect and prevent insider threats, data leaks, and fraudulent activity, preserving organisational security.
- Regulatory Compliance: Monitoring tools assist companies in meeting legal obligations, such as protecting sensitive data or ensuring workplace safety.
- Operational Efficiency: Data on employee activity can optimise workflows, resource allocation, and productivity.
- Remote Work Challenges: Increased work-from-home arrangements make visibility into employee activities critical for managing distributed teams.
Arguments Against Monitoring
On the other hand, excessive or non-transparent surveillance risks eroding employee trust—the foundation of an effective security culture. Intrusive monitoring can damage morale and engagement, inadvertently weakening phishing awareness and compliance. Ethical concerns arise particularly with AI-driven behavioral profiling, which may produce biased or erroneous risk assessments, raising issues around fairness and discrimination.
Legal risks also heighten as failure to comply with stringent data protection laws can lead to severe penalties and reputational damage. Over-monitoring may even foster a false sense of security or lead to increased staff turnover, undercutting long-term cybersecurity goals.
- Employee Privacy: Excessive or opaque surveillance infringes on employee dignity, trust, and legally protected privacy rights.
- Ethical Concerns: AI-driven profiling risks unfair discrimination, bias, and psychological stress, undermining workplace morale.
- Legal Risks: Non-compliance with data protection laws can lead to significant fines, litigation, and reputational loss.
- Effectiveness and Backlash: Over-monitoring may decrease productivity and increase employee turnover due to perceived micromanagement or mistrust.
Conclusion
Employers face a delicate balancing act: leveraging digital monitoring to enhance security and productivity while respecting employees’ legal rights and dignity. The evolving legal landscape in Switzerland and the EU intensifies this challenge, emphasising transparency, fairness, and proportionality. Organisations should implement clear policies, engage employees transparently, and remain vigilant for regulatory changes to navigate this complex terrain successfully.
Navigating employee monitoring in the age of digital threats requires organisations to craft policies that are security-smart, legally compliant, and ethically sound. By maintaining transparency, ensuring proportionality, and grounding surveillance within a human-centered security culture, businesses can harness the power of monitoring tools to combat phishing, insider risk, and data leakage without sacrificing employee dignity or privacy.
Thank you Joshua Bucheli for writing this insightful article💯😀
Interested in what workplace monitoring would mean for your company? Peter Kosel – cyberunity AG looks forward to hearing from you!
STAY TUNED FOR MORE – keep an eye out for our next cyberbyte issue!