KEY POINTS:
More New Zealand workers are under the watchful gaze of surveillance cameras and tracking devices at work as employers crack down on dishonesty and time-wasting, experts say.
Technology such as social networking sites, online dating, music downloads and travel or gossip websites - even internet pornography, for the truly shameless - provide ever more opportunities to waste time at work, likely costing businesses millions.
Also, the more money New Zealand businesses make, the more opportunities there are for theft and the more companies are turning to surveillance, covert or otherwise, to keep tabs on employees.
Alan Watt, managing director of Computer Forensic Investigations, said he had built a business out of people stealing company information and wasting time at work.
"One guy was spending 80 per cent of his time at work looking at internet porn, Trade Me, personal email and banking, and there are plenty more people mucking about," he said.
"You get people who are moonlighting, using the company's computers for outside work, or taking data with them when they leave to set up their own companies, and that's a big deal for companies with a lot of intellectual property."
Watt said some companies tried to monitor data flow by placing snooping devices on computer servers that tracked internet and email usage.
Surveillance included traffic monitors that kept tabs on the internet sites visited and the number of emails sent and received, a key logger which monitored a worker's keystrokes, and "packet sniffers" that could scan all a company's computer activity, isolate anything unusual and identify the culprit.
Watt said he often dealt with companies seeking to protect highly sensitive information and those were the ones more likely to take pre-emptive action rather than respond to theft once it had happened.
A PricewaterhouseCoopers report in October said 66.7 per cent of the New Zealand businesses it surveyed had experienced some form of economic crime such as fraud or embezzlement, compared with a global average of 42.9 per cent and 39.1 per cent in the Asia-Pacific region. PwC said a fifth of the New Zealand businesses that reported fraud or theft suffered losses of between $1.35 million and $13.5 million. In total, New Zealand businesses lost $69.54 million from economic crime in the two years from 2005 to 2007.
Ron McQuilter, managing director of Paragon Investigations, said it was a simple case of more business being done in New Zealand, resulting in more money, therefore more theft and more surveillance.
Many businesses took a reactive approach to suspected theft and typical surveillance for investigating such cases were covert cameras.
He said legislation allowed cameras to be used without the knowledge of staff if there was reasonable suspicion that a crime was being committed, it was used for the specific purpose of investigating that crime and was removed immediately once the crime had been solved.
McQuilter said surveillance was a lot simpler and more effective with the advent of digital technology, which allowed significantly more information to be stored, far longer recording times and specific incidents or times to be found quickly.
Anthony Drake, a senior associate at Bell Gully solicitors, said workplace surveillance was "absolutely" more prevalent than ever.
He said Bell Gully has seen some "classic cases", including one where a sales rep was given a company car but wasn't achieving sales targets or satisfactorily accounting for his time so the employer covertly installed a GPS tracking device in his car to monitor his movements, and discovered that most of his days were spent at golf courses around Auckland.
The employee was dismissed and he challenged his sacking by appealing to the Privacy Commissioner, claiming the company had been underhand in installing a GPS device in his car without his knowledge.
The commissioner expressed some disquiet with the surreptitious surveillance but upheld the employer's right to use it since the company had reasonable grounds to suspect that the employee was behaving dishonestly.
New Zealand's Privacy Act includes some provisions for workplace surveillance but Drake said those tended to be "reactive".
"The broader the legislation is, the harder it is to account for the nuances that occur," he said.
"I'm not sure the law has kept pace with the technology and, going forward, I envisage perhaps there will be problems for employers."
He said the exceptions to privacy laws came into play when information couldn't be obtained with less invasive means, but companies "must exercise that right very carefully".
Drake said modern swipe cards could be fitted with a chip to track employees around the city or within floors of their building.
He said large and small businesses were very conscious of employees' use of computer systems and needed to be because of the potential for serious liability.
"There have been wonderful examples of cases in the employment courts like one where a young man decided to download music from the internet and make CDs that were sold at the Avondale markets. He breached all sorts of copyright laws and left the employer liable for those breaches."
Drake said internet pornography wasn't as big a problem as it was when the internet first started, and wasn't a novelty for workers any more, who were more aware of the likelihood they'd get caught and lose their job.
Psychologist Sara Chatwin said employers had a fine balance to achieve between monitoring business activity and respecting employees' rights.
"I think most people today, if they're employed in small to medium-sized businesses, will know there are certain expectations placed on them by their employers, and those are outlined in employment contracts," she said.
"There will always be situations where you're staying late at work and need to make a personal call or fire off a quick email. But most often there's an understanding that work is for work and nothing else."
She said employers were justified in watching activity if there had been inappropriate conduct in the past that reflected badly on the business.
However, if people felt "spied on", there was a danger that monitoring could have the opposite effect to what employers intended.
"There's a danger that you just make them feel uncomfortable rather than promoting greater productivity, and it's not the best atmosphere to be in if you constantly feel like you're walking on egg shells.
"But, at the end of the day, it's a place of work and I think it speaks volumes about people who are really concerned about their employer knowing what they are doing at work."
