E-commerce

In this era of information technology there has been increase in use of communication through networked channels of communication. Apart from telephone communication, internet use has become the most commonly used means of communication. Communications around the world has been enhanced by the development and use of technology. According to Lim (2002), internet is a double-edged sword that should be used by organizations with a lot of caution. It is a very crucial tool for communicating as well as conducting e-commerce. On the other hand, internet has become a very strong tool for criminals and terrorist to easily conduct their activities (Schneider 2006). Organisations are adapting to monitoring their employees telephone, e-mail and internet use at a very high rate. There efficiency in monitoring is also made possible by the development of technological tools for monitoring. This possibility of using the internet for perpetrating crime, terrorism and waging war has become a rationale for the law to allow governments and employers the right and need to monitor the e-mails, telephone calls and Internet access of their people. The governments and employers are concerned with the safety of the state, the people and businesses (Bauknecht, Madria and Pernul, 2000). The paper is an investigation of the legal and ethical implications of allowing governments and employers to monitor the e-mails, telephone calls and Internet access of their employees.

People have come to rely on internet for communication than any other form of communication. They are involved in very many forms of communication including private communication through the internet. Being at work most of the time, they tend to interact through the organisations communication lines. Employees have tended to feel that the increase in monitoring their communication is an infringement of their privacy. It is reasonable that employees at times feel like their right to privacy is infringed in cases where their private communications are intercepted and accessed without their consent (Bauknecht, Madria and Pernul, 2000).
The opponents of the move to monitor employees communications argue that it is possible for some managers or government officials to access employees communications maliciously. There are certain individuals who have the tendency of misusing power. In cases where they are given the legal freedom to intercept employees calls and messages, they can tend to use this right for all the wrong reasons. According to many of the ethical theories, employers are supposed to be loyal agents of consumer interests. The clients in this case include employees who are the inside clients. This is the reason why the managers should take into consideration the feelings of the employees before they unethically intercept their communications.

Monitoring communications in an organisation can have negative impact on the employees. According to Schulman (2001), it is likely to produce suspicion and hostility in the organisation. Monitoring communications might work positively in preventing crime but it can be counterproductive. It is likely to cause dislike in the workers for being handled like immature people who cannot think for themselves. Monitoring can reveal a sense of lack of trust towards the employees. The culture of monitoring communication has tended to be one of distrust and resentment work situation where the workers fail to see the reason for monitoring (Elliot 2004).

It is well known that interception of communication is very intrusive and that it should be applied in restriction and under much specialised situations. The right of people to be protected from unjustifiable invasive watch is almost universal and is observed by almost every international treaty. Almost every nation around the world has implemented legislations that allow interception of communication. This is an obvious threat to the right of individuals as well as the democracy that people have fought for so long to gain. However in most of the democratic nations, interceptions can only be approved by a court of law or high ranking officials and only in situations where there is danger of a serious crime. This is because the freedom of any person or organisation to intercept communication can cause employers and government officers to misuse the right (Schneider 2006).

In considering communication monitoring in organisations, it is important to evaluate from ethical theories point of view to better comprehend the ethics and ethical predicaments that are facing the workers and the management. There are two issues that are in consideration in this case ethics from the rationale of monitoring perspective and ethics from the possible behaviour of the employees perspective. Utilitarian theory of ethics would argue that the organisations should carry out the tasks that give the best results to the majority of the stakeholders (Elliot 2004).

Ethics in decision-making should always comprise respect for the fundamental rights of people and should also consider the disparities in ethnically hereditary and independently held ethical principles. In this case, it is possible for decisions for communication monitoring to conflict with the personal or communal ethics. When such a situation arises, it is important to understand the misunderstanding and evaluate the implication of the decision on other peoples standards. Imposing decisions concerning monitoring is unethical and should be discouraged no matter the reason (Lubbock and Louise 2000).

Immanuel Kant asserts that every person has a value and dignity that must be well respected. Thomas Abbott has adapted from Kants work the idea that humankinds morality has value. By considering every persons ethical and moral principles in decisions, it is possible to come up with unbiased, fair and just deliberations. Kant observed that a decision that is right for one person is right for all (Lubbock and Louise 2000).  This is based on the presumption that human beings are rational thinkers and would properly evaluate a situation and see whether it is for their own good. This can also be viewed from the Deontological theories perspective. This theory evaluates the morality of an action by observing the procedure of the decision. This is by looking at the means of reaching that decision. Back to the situation at hand, in cases where the employers decide to access telephone, e-mail and internet communications of their workers without their proper  knowledge, then in this case, they are acting unethically. Where the decision to monitor communications is reached in consensus with the employees where the policies and procedures are agreed on, then the action in this case is ethical (Muhl 2003).

Ethics is based on the sincere consideration of the basic intention to potential damage, and to congruency with the developed principles and regulations. With this argument in mind, some people will argue that monitoring of private communications is unethical. This could be true depending on the intention of the employer and the damage that the move is likely to cause. If monitoring communication is aimed at deterring crime that has become so rampant in the society, then it has an ethnical justification (Elliot 2004).

There is a dilemma in legal issues related to communication monitoring. The law has for a long time been protecting the privacy of its subjects. With the development in technology, there is need for the same law to allow invasion of this privacy to protect people and the country from possible threats. As a result, there have been various law suits and court cases concerning the issue of invasion of privacy. This comes up due to the reason that both the employers and their people have not fully understood the legal issues tied to this matter. Any unethical act in communication monitoring costs organisations a lot. This is in terms of lawsuits, negative impact on workers motivation, and possible damage to the public image of the organisation (Muhl 2003).
Many are times when organisations have exposed themselves to lawsuits. This in most cases happens where monitoring policies are not clearly communicated to and properly understood by the workers. It is the right of the employees to realise that their communications are being monitored. It is not only unethical but also illegal for organisations to begin monitoring employees communications without letting them know that they are doing so. Striking a balance between the workers right to privacy and the need for the employer to ensure security and that the communication channels in the organisation are not misused is likely to be one of the hottest debates in technology in the next decade. Researches have proven that the number of people who have access to the internet range from 600 to 700 million. The numbers have continued to rise steadily, in an estimate of one million people every month. About half of the people who use the internet do so from their workplace. These results reveal the nature of problem that is facing the employers in internet related insecurity (Tokson 2009).

The problem that faces the management of many organisations is related to the failure to monitor. They cannot fail to monitor communication without the possibility of facing detrimental consequences. In some situations like in government agencies, it a legal requirement that employers monitor communications. This is because such organisations are the most common targets for terrorism and espionage. These and any other organisation that is likely to be a target of criminal activity requires being properly monitored (Elliot 2004).  
With the development of sophisticated software, it is possible to interject communication without the knowledge of the employer. Phone calls can also be interjected where there are devices attached by the employer to the employees telephone line. When such cases are taken to court, the judgment is based on whether there exist a justification for interjecting and whether the employer was inline with the procedures and policies for monitoring (Muhl 2003).

Many counties around the world control the interception of communications by the state and private organisations. These regulations are basically founded on the constitutional rights of privacy and expression. However, there have not been proper guidelines that regulate communication monitoring by the government and the employers and the privacy issues of the people (Turban, Lee and Vienland 2003).

Most countries for example, France and UK, have established specialised commissions that monitor interceptions and possible abuses of the legislation. The commissions are supposed to keep watch over the organisations that engage in unreasonable monitoring of communications.              

In the recent past, courts have started to rule in favour of communication monitoring. This however does not rule out the fact that organisations are wasting a lot of time and resources in court battles. This provides a wide array of potential defences. However law suits decided by the European Court of Human Rights offer very little direction on the defences that are applicable on different situations. One of the most prominent legal battles in the United Kingdom is the case of Alison Halford (Tokson 2009). His case was argued effectively that his right to privacy had been infringed. However, it could be argued that the decision in this case was reached due to the fact that the law enforcement officers had her telephone line without her knowledge because of a legal battle she was fighting against them. Allowing communication intrusion could lead to such and many other kinds of legal battle. What is not yet clear is the extent that the Human Rights Acts will contradict the policies of communication monitoring especially in private organisations. There will be a necessity for the communication interception to be interpreted according to the human rights laws (Tokson 2009).      

Despite the fact that there are legal and ethical issues related to communication monitoring, the need for it is undeniable. Following the terrorism attacks of the Twin Towers in the United States on September 11, 2001, many countries around the world started to adapt policies for protecting their countries.  One of the key areas that are targeted by these policies is the area of communication. Organisations have been given the authority by law to intercept communications as a protective measure against crime and terrorism. Many countries came up with legislations that would allow organisations to intercept communication without warrant. Many people are afraid for their lives, families and businesses due to the ease by which perpetrating crime has become due to the increase in use of technology for communications (Tokson 2009).  

Communication monitoring can be viewed as a policing tool to avoid misuse of the internet to destroy the organisation or cause harm to people. In this case, it can be supported slackly by the ethical theory that the move has the ultimate results into consideration. Monitoring from this point of view ensures that the organisation is at par with the law, ensures that its employees are not plotting anything that is harmful to the country of its people, and that the companys resources and information are safe (Lubbock and Louise 2000).

There is need for organisations to ensure that security is preserved within the organisation. In cases where the organisation carries out monitoring to flush out possible danger, then their acts are not unethical within reason. Workers need to act competently and morally in the work place. Where there is a possibility that this is not the case, then communication monitoring is justified. It is not fair for some people to misuse technological communication and end up jeopardising the organisation and the welfare of the honest ones. It has been argued that the protection of the right to privacy and the right to communication is not absolute. This means that the right can be overridden if monitoring is essential to defend the public, avoid crime from being perpetrated, or for the protection of rights and freedoms of other people (Turban, Lee and Vienland 2003).

With the rationale behind interception given, there is need to develop legal guidelines for regulating communication interception. There are some sensitive issues that need to be tackled in order to uphold the culture of the business even in the need to preserve security of data and people. People need to be enlightened on the need for monitoring their communication. It is thus important that every worker who is affected by the interception is aware of it. The exception comes where there are foolproof reasons for not disclosing. Lack of understanding is what is likely to cause problems for the organisation (Zwillinger and Genetski 2007). They should also be told of the procedures and mechanisms that are employed in monitoring. In a situation where they are caught by surprise, they are likely to be disappointed thus derailing the morale of their operations. Use of monitoring in an organisation is a process that should be considered with a lot of care. It requires proper planning, policies and processes. All the policies and procedures must be adequately communicated to the employees. Many organisations have lost court battles for monitoring communications without proper knowledge of the affected (Turban, Lee and Vienland 2003).

Before installation or commencement of any kind of communication monitoring, it is crucial for the organization to read and interpret the laws that allow them to intercept communication, as well as the laws that protect individuals rights. This will ensure that they are not at loggerheads with the law and the employees. It is also necessary that the companies have reasonable justification for wanting to start intercepting communications of their employers. The organisations are not to start monitoring communications for no justifiable reason (Elliot 2004).  

There are however debates in many countries on whether to inform the employees or not. It is important to note that without coming up with a proper policy to direct monitoring, there is a possibility that the employers will have the right to access any information on the employers and even misuse it. The problem with the law in most countries is that employees should not expect to enjoy privacy with the organisations resources. The employers should be required to tell their employees at the time of selection, what monitoring measures are taken in the company as well as the kind of information that they will be interested in. they should also be notified in case of any changes in monitoring policies and practices (Turban, Lee and Vienland 2003).

Proper notification of communication monitoring will eradicate misunderstanding between the employers and the employees. The employees will always be on their toes to ensure that there is no situation where they are caught communicating in a way that is a threat to the public or the organisation. Notification will also make it possible for the employers and the employees to maintain their boundaries. This will create an ethical working environment because none of the two will risk acting unethically. This will help in preventing problems and legal battles between the employer and the workers. While this is made a regulation in some countries, it is the ethical duty of the employers to be transparent with their employees Zwillinger, M.  Genetski, C. 2007,

Due to the fact that in many countries, there is no legal protection on resources owned by the organisation, it is vital for the people to take it upon themselves to learn and understand the kind of monitoring policies and practices that are being used by the organisation Zwillinger, M.  Genetski, C. 2007,

Communication monitoring is likely to have detrimental effects on productivity within an organisation. This is in case it is performed without transparency. It is unethical for workers to fail to deliver to the organisation. Failure to deliver should never be fully blamed on the workers. It is also the ethical duty of the employers to ensure that their workers are fully motivated in order to perform. In as much as it is communication interception is important in this era of networking to avoid crime and terrorism, it is important for employers to be accountable. In e-commerce where workers are very involved in telephone and internet communication, there is a higher probability of misusing these services to perpetrate crimes, terrorism or even incitement. This is the rationale behind the move to intercept communication. However as already discussed in the paper, there are various legal and ethical implications of this move. To avoid negative effects of communication monitoring in organisations and businesses, there is need for openness. This is why notification is very crucial. Where the employees are aware that they are being monitored, they will tend to operate ethically and responsibly. On the other hand, where the employers know that their employees are aware of their rights as far as communication monitoring is concerned they will act ethically towards their employees. It is therefore important to monitor communications, but accountably.