Dr. Krystle Shore (PhD '23)
Faculty of Arts, Department of Sociology and Legal Studies
> Postdoctoral research fellow, Lupina Foundation
Have you ever felt like you are being constantly watched over your shoulder at work? Digital surveillance technologies have become increasingly high-tech and complex, leveraging advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) to monitor both our physical movements on-site and online activities on company devices. These technologies, while sometimes beneficial in high-risk environments for safety purposes, often undermine worker autonomy and well-being, raising serious ethical concerns about their widespread use in modern work and environments.
Dr. Krystle Shore (PhD '23), postdoctoral research fellow in the Department of Sociology and Legal Studies, examines how digital surveillance technologies are used to address social problems like police and public health surveillance. Her particular interest lies in how these technologies are justified by different companies, how they function in practice and the socio-cultural values that shape their use.
We asked Dr. Shore to share some of her research on the impact of digital surveillance and the privacy concerns created by emerging technologies in the workplace.
What are some of the known impacts of today's employee surveillance systems?
Employee monitoring isn't new, and concerns about its impact on privacy have been around for a long time. These concerns still stand, but with recent advancements in AI, current forms of employee monitoring are more sophisticated - and intrusive - than ever before. Today's monitoring systems go far beyond tracking on-the-job performance; they can monitor employees' online reputations, physical health, patterns of movement and even their thoughts and emotions.
What's more, monitoring is no longer confined to traditional workspaces. Many of these systems extend into employees' homes, personal devices and private communications - especially with the rise of remote work. And while these systems are often justified in the name of improving workplace efficiency and security, the actual evidence supporting these claims is limited. In fact, these systems can create a culture of micromanagement and distrust rather than productivity.
What we do know is that these invasive surveillance practices come with serious downsides, including increased stress for those being monitored, increased workplace discrimination and power imbalances, and broader concerns around privacy rights, personal autonomy and social equity. Plus, because these systems are relatively cheap and widely available, they've become a normalized part of modern work life - sometimes without employees even realizing the extent to which they're being watched.
Which workplace groups do you believe would benefit the most from incorporating digital surveillance into their daily operations?
The idea that surveillance "benefits" a workplace is complicated. There are situations where digital monitoring could be beneficial to employees - if implemented ethically and with strong worker protections.
For example, in high-risk environments, like jobsites with heavy machinery, tracking employee movement could serve as a safety mechanism rather than a disciplinary tool. However, for this to be genuinely beneficial, workers would need to have a say in how and when they are monitored and what happens with the data that's collected.
Most tracking technologies are implemented to boost things like productivity or security. However, if any group stands to benefit, it would be upper management and corporate decision-makers who gain greater oversight and control over employees. Ultimately, though, the question isn't who benefits from workplace surveillance, but who bears the cost.
Digital monitoring systems can infringe on employee privacy rights. Constant and invasive monitoring practices also raise serious ethical concerns as they erode worker autonomy and well-being. More importantly, these negative impacts are disproportionately felt by employees from racialized communities, who tend to face heightened scrutiny under workplace surveillance systems compared to their non-racialized co-workers.
Can you share some examples of power imbalances caused by emerging surveillance technologies in the workplace?
Surveillance systems are rarely neutral; they typically reflect and amplify existing social inequities. In the workplace, these systems reinforce existing power hierarchies. We can see this with the monitoring of individuals who are in precarious employment positions - delivery drivers, homecare workers, and contract employees, for instance. These individuals are more likely to be subjected to intensive tracking and to greater effect.
One of the clearest examples of this is algorithmic management in gig work. Companies like Uber and Amazon use automated tracking and AI-driven decision-making to monitor workers' every move - from location tracking to biometric scanning - and even determine pay rates, shift allocations and disciplinary actions.
This creates an extreme power asymmetry where workers remain hyper-visible to their employers while being managed through opaque, often unchallengeable algorithms. At the same time, those in more senior or white-collar positions often remain exempt from similar scrutiny, further reinforcing existing labour inequalities.
Join Dr. Shore at the next Antagonism and Intimidation in Academia Speaker Series
On February 28, the University of Waterloo will host the "Surveillance, Privacy and Algorithmic Power in the Workplace" panel discussion as part of the Antagonism and Intimidation in Academia Speaker Series. Dr. Shore and her colleagues will share their research and experience in power imbalances created by emerging technologies in the workplace.
