Several years ago I was hired to assist with an internal investigation. The client, a large company had some concerns about an employee and wanted to covertly gather information and data on what this employee was doing while at work. For about a week, I sat passively on the network, monitoring the subjects connections to servers, internet systems, e-mail, instant messaging and any other network connection. There was not the selection of automated software there is today to accomplish this, so most of it was done with packet sniffers. I would gather the data, use scripts to extract specific types of data and run it through statistical analysis, look for data that was ‘different’ or ‘suspect’ in some way. Basically the goal was to profile the user, compare his activities to other users. Then using this profile, identify and focus on things that didn’t fit. Personally, I found it a little creepy. Looking into the details of someone’s private life is not really fun, a part of me felt like I was being invasive, not respecting their privacy — and technically that is true. But it was the job, what I was asked to do. Sometimes doing things one would prefer not to do is necessary.
One thing I had identified to the client was that the subject was using a type of VoIP software. They asked if it was possible to listen in on the voice conversations. I told them it was, and that I could probably get them a copy of the voice conversations the subject previously had during the time I was monitoring. I had packet captures, most non-encrypted so it was just work and time. At the clients request, I extracted the VoIP conversations into wmv files using date and time of the call as a file name.
At the end of the job, I was having a conversation with the CTO. He was wondering if there was an automated way to keep audio conversations of all the employees. At the time, this technology was not as prevalent, cheap, and available to the general public as it is today. I asked him if he thought that was really appropriate. I explained that I had just listened in on someones private conversations. Maybe it wasn’t any of the companies business. Maybe there were legalities if they were to do that (yes, I was annoyed). His response was very quick. “The company has a right to view all data, monitor activity that its equipment or network is used for, period”. He told me all the employees know this and sign a document to that effect. I said that made sense. I asked him what he would think if he was in a confidential conversation on the phone with someone in a different province and Bell had listened in on his conversation? I said that I assume he didn’t have problem with it, after all it is their network, their devices. Aside from the angry facial expression, he said that was ‘different’ and they shouldn’t be allowed to do that.
Fast forward to now. Everyone has a video camera or picture camera on them as a result of mobile phones. If you are serious about it, you can find all kinds of tiny spy cameras. Rob Spence has implanted a camera in his eye. It amuses me when law enforcement gets all concerned about citizens taking their picture and video taping them. I guess they feel that they should be able to watch and monitor us, but we shouldn’t be able to watch and monitor them. Of course if they are not doing anything wrong, then they should have nothing to worry about right? (that statement is an entire topic in and of itself).
Everyone has reasons why a particular person or group of people should or should not be monitored. It really comes down to the basic premise that we as humans don’t want to be monitored, but we want the ability to monitor others, especially if we deem them as a threat. Government wants the ability to covertly monitor their citizens but do not want organizations covertly monitoring them. Police want cameras everywhere so they can monitor what is going on and use it to assist with their job, but they don’t want to be video taped in case they get caught doing something controversial, such as Robert Dziekanski being killed by officers at Vancouver airport. The video once released on the Internet, forced police to change their story. Businesses feel they have a right to monitor their employees, but would have concerns if employees were monitoring some of their activities.
Personally, I think it is futile to attempt to stop one group from monitoring another, especially in public places. It will never be successful. Who do you feel should be able to monitor who? Under what circumstances and conditions is video or audio surveillance appropriate?
