Human_Tracking_and_Geoslavery

Human_Tracking_and_Geoslavery - 1 Copyright(c 2006 The Ohio...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
1 Copyright (c) 2006 The Ohio State University I/S: A Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society Spring / Summer, 2006 2 ISJLP 409 LENGTH: 29193 words OTHER RESEARCH: No Direction Home: Will The Law Keep Pace With Human Tracking Technology to Protect ndividual Privacy and Stop Geoslavery? NAME: William A. Herbert* BIO: * Senior Counsel, CSEA Local 1000 AFSCME, AFL-CIO, Albany, New York, [email protected] . An earlier version of this article was presented at the 2006 Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in St. Louis. SUMMARY: ... Due to the propensity of American labor law to give greater weight to employer property interests over most employee privacy expectations, there are currently few limitations on the use of human tracking in employment. . .. The Katz reasonable expectation of privacy test has led to a series of federal court decisions that have determined that, in most cases, the use of a tracking device to monitor the location of vehicles and containers are not subject to the Fourth Amendment. . .. Professor of Cybernetics, Kevin Warwick, had an RFID tracking device implant placed in his arm that enabled him to monitor his movements on campus for one week. . .. The Supreme Court's conclusion in United States v. Knotts, that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to one's location while driving, led a United States District Court judge to dismiss an employee's intrusion upon seclusion claim against his employer for monitoring him through the installation of a GPS device in the company vehicle that the employee used during work and during non-work hours. . .. For example, the Supreme Court's Karo decision may form the basis for a successful challenge to a public employer utilizing certain RFID and other internal tracking technology that allows for location surveillance in private areas, such as employee bathrooms and break rooms, where employees have a reasonable expectation of privacy. . .. HIGHLIGHT: Abstract
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
2 Increasingly, public and private employers are utilizing human tracking devices to monitor employee movement and conduct. Due to the propensity of American labor law to give greater weight to employer property interests over most employee privacy expectations, there are currently few limitations on the use of human tracking in employment. The scope and nature of current legal principles regarding individual privacy are not sufficient to respond to the rapid development and use of human tracking technology. The academic use of the phrase "geoslavery" to describe the abusive use of such technology underscores its power. This article examines the use of such technology under current federal and state law and suggests potential means for developing greater legal protections against the abusive use of the technology and the intrusion into personal privacy. TEXT:
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 56

Human_Tracking_and_Geoslavery - 1 Copyright(c 2006 The Ohio...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online