Again referencing Shlomit Yanisky-Ravid who state that in this digital era, employees' have a tremendous potential to risk the compromise of their privacy though exposure to future or present employers. The author informs us of the fact that the reading of private emails and tracking of web site post’s of its employee's is among the most common privacy violations. However, several other examples of privacy violations of employee's are perpetrated by employers (Yanisky-Ravid, 2013 p. 6). Later the author asserts “the Internet has blurred the borders between social contexts and mixed the different situations, creating a blend, and sometimes a clash, of rights and wrongs (Yanisky-Ravid, 2013 p. 13). Then asks the question if it is okay to be terminated for a picture of an employee at a costume party posted on the Internet, whereas if the very same picture was still taken however never posted on corrective actions would be taken? The author further states that individuals should be allowed adequate freedom to express and represent oneself. However, the limited concept of privacy enables one to conceptualize the loss of privacy to oneself (Yanisky-Ravid, 2013 p. 13).
The author of the Privacy within the virtual workplace: The entitlement of employees to a virtual “private zone” and the "balloon" theory, Shlomit Yanisky-Ravid, asserts that telecommuters nearly completely lost their rights to privacy in the virtual workplace under the new legislation within the United States (Yanisky-Ravid, 2013 p. 5). This article reasserts that public sector employee's nearly forfeit all of their reasonable expectation of privacy within the realm of the virtual workplace. The very same detriment to privacy has been verified within the private sector as implicit or explicit consent is provided by the employee through signing agreements resulting in the employee's waiving their privacy rights (Yanisky-Ravid, 2013 pp. 19 & 20).
The authors of our textbook expand on this topic by noting that privacy rights are addressed deferentially by the constitutions of the various governmental bodies and notes that neither the Constitution of the United States nor the Charter of Canadian have provisions explicitly defining data or personal information privacy rights which can leave employers open to the possibility being held liable for specific crimes. Most specifically in cases where policies were not disseminated or in instances in which managers “should have reasonably known” (Workman, Phelps, & Gathegi, 2013, p. 44).
Citing Shlomit Yanisky-Ravid again, he informs us of the fact that the United States Supreme Court ruled that Fourth Amendment rights were not violated when an employer read the private text messages of its employee's even if employee's had a reasonable expectation of privacy (Yanisky-Ravid, 2013 p. 7). The author Yanisky-Ravid asserts that communications transmitted electronically are perceived as having a more private nature by the...