Are you being watched?

Do you feel safe in your home? Your exterior is probably pretty well defended against intruders with metal doors and deadbolts, locking windows, and maybe an alarm system. How about intruders from within?  “…The call is coming from inside the house”, an oft repeated quote from the 1979 movie, When a Stranger Calls, can still make your skin crawl when you’re all alone, think you heard a noise, and then the phone rings. Just the thought of an intruder with you in your home can be terrifying. There may not be physical intruders inside your home at this moment, but someone may be listening or quite possibly watching.

Internet of things

Kevin Ashton of Procter & Gamble first coined “Internet of things” in 1999. It is defined as network of devices, appliances, vehicles, etc. that connect and exchange data through the Internet. It is estimated the Internet of things will be populated with 30 billion devices by 2020.

Technology has always invaded our homes as we excitedly open the boxes to the latest modern conveniences. In the early days of the 1900’s telephones began appearing in homes. The 1950’s saw televisions showing up in living rooms. People started bringing home desktop computers in the 1980’s. Those computers were connected to the Internet in the 1990’s.  Phones went on our belts and into our pockets in the 2000’s and then became handheld computers. The first Internet connected appliance was a LG refrigerator released in 2000. According to Statista.com, there were nearly 36 million smart home devices sold in the U.S. in 2017. Over 40 million smart TV’s were sold in the U.S. in 2016 and 244 million worldwide.

Privacy

The remote accessibility of household devices creates new security issues everyday. As appliances get “smarter” their vulnerability also increases. Smart devices only work to their full capability if they are connected to the Internet. Once that occurs they are searchable and hackable. When the device reaches out to the web it declares itself open for business. Hackers are always looking for unsecure networks and devices to exploit. If not for gain then just because then can.

We first heard about these types of intrusions in 2015 two years after consumers starting bringing home smart TV’s.  Samsung released TV’s in 2013 that could listen to voice commands from their owners. The problem? The TV has to be listening all the time to pick up the commands. What was “heard” was being transmitted via the Internet. Samsung warned consumers, through privacy policies, that spoken words are being captured and transmitted through the voice recognition system. Consumers were further warned not to hold personal conversations in front of the television. But who read or reads the privacy policies, right?

Another popular device entering our homes are web accessible cameras. We set these up to watch the nanny, housekeeper, or house in general. There are even petcams available that not only allow owners to watch their pets but speak to them and deliver treats remotely. The first cameras imbedded in teddy bears, sold as a “nanny cams”, began appearing on the market in 1992. The first cameras to transmit remotely via IP were sold by Axis Communications in 1996. Today, the market is flooded with cameras and phone apps that allow web transmission of live video. It’s fun to watch Mr. Snugglekins romp around the house. But if you can access your webcam remotely, so can someone else.

Hacking

The device most people have heard stories about and are aware is the camera on your computer. Yes, they can be used against you. Unlike the movies, your home computer usually has to be “infected” with malware that you allowed in my clicking on a link or visiting a sketchy website. As with all of your devices, locally, you have to let someone in for them to be monitored. Not to say that you and your devices could not be specifically targeted and intruded. With the effort it could be done. Hackers and, yes, governments have the capability to access the television microphones, computer and remote cameras, turning them on and off and recording at will. However, most likely you’ve been the victim of malware.

The privacy and security issue with smart appliances is the collection and transmission of data. First, your viewing habits, conversations, actions are being collected. Second, the data is being transmitted to the Internet and held on third party servers. All of which can be hacked. So no matter the security measures you take at home, your personal data is vulnerable once it hits the WWW.

The thing is, you allow them into your home with the purchase, unpacking, and setup to connect to your network. Data transmissions you are unaware of because you have most likely allowed the device to set itself up per the manufacturer’s settings. Any warning or setup recommendations were clicked through and unread. Admit it. You’ve done it. Who reads the privacy settings on a new device? Or whenever you allow an update? That’s what the manufacturers are counting on. The key word in the previous paragraph is “allow”. You’re inviting the snooping by purchasing the device, bringing it into your home, and allowing self setup.

Your appliances aren’t the only ones listening. There’s been conspiracies floated the last couple of years that Facebook is listening to your conversations to better target ads. While feasible it is unlikely and has been debunked by several sources. Facebook may not be overhearing conversations but they, as is Google, “listening” by recording your search habits and even communications in messaging and emails apps to better address advertising. Netflix was recently caught by tweeting about the number of times a few viewers had watched one of its programs, trying to be funny. Netflix admitted that it did track viewing habits of subscribers.

Security

When you invite smart appliances into your home you give up your privacy. You have to consider these devices as other persons and guard your privacy accordingly. Take the time to read the manufacturer privacy policies. Read the manual setup instructions and adjust the device settings accordingly. Block cameras in sensitive areas or turn them towards the wall when you’re home.

This reads like an Orwellian or tinfoil hat conspiracy. It wasn’t meant to be or to keep you from enjoying the conveniences of technology. Just be aware of the surroundings you’ve created. Any smart device has to be considered to be listening or watching. Alexa, Siri, Google, they all have to be listening all the time to be able to pick up your commands.

Please feel free to share. Read other posts about security in the blog archive.

Time Expired on parking meters November 2017

Cleaning up online presence September 2017

Skimmers August 2017

Public WiFi for dummies July 2017

If you ever want to see your files again… August 2016

What did you say? August 2015

Keys to the vault August 2015

Social media checks

Background checks use to be associated with financial institutions during applications for loans. Now they are performed during job applications, college admissions, even dating sites. One of the most important parts of the background check is the character reference. References were historically performed by field investigators interviewing the person’s friends, neighbors, associates, coworkers, etc. This is still an integral part of checking someone’s references, but in today’s online all the time society, social media is fast becoming the standard.

Who’s looking?

Private employers are. Social media checks are now on the checklist during candidate research. HR hiring surveys estimate that more than half of employers search an applicant’s social media during the hiring process. The New York Post reported on January 29, 2016, that at least 40% of college admissions officers report they check applicants’ Facebook pages and other social media when weighing who should get accepted. A third say they Google applicants. Even professional sport franchises do their due diligence when deciding on draft picks. As part of the vetting process, social media of potential draftees are reviewed. With the media attention on football players gone wild in recent years, franchises are doing every thing they can to determine the character of the player they are drafting.

Now the federal government is getting into the game. Investigators will now be probing social media as part of background checks for security clearances. Seems far-fetched that federal investigators didn’t perform these checks in the past, but now it’s official. On May 13, 2016, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper signed a policy directive that allows investigators to collect publicly available social media information pertaining to the person whose background is being investigated. In a press release, Bill Evanina, Director of ODNI’s National Counterintelligence and Security Center stated, “We cannot afford to ignore this important open source in our effort to safeguard our secrets—and our nation’s security.” While federal investigators are prohibited from requiring or requesting applicants’ password information, they will be searching for publically accessible accounts.

Privacy concerns

States and the Federal government have responded in a challenging effort to protect citizens’ privacy and rights. Twenty-three states have enacted laws that prevent employers from requesting passwords to personal accounts to either apply for or keep a job. Maryland was the first state to enact such a law, which took effect on October 1, 2012. Maryland’s law states that employers may not require employees or applicants to disclose a user name, password or other means of accessing a private Internet site or electronic account.

The Equal Opportunity Employment Commission (EEOC) and National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) regulate, monitor, and enforce employer misuse of social media during the hiring process. Since 2010, the NLRB has heard dozens of cases regarding employers infringing on employee rights through social media. Both the EEOC and the NLRB have issued guidance to employers regarding social media rights of employees.

Does your mother see your posts?

Whether you’re currently looking for job or suddenly need a clearance, you never know when a situation will surface that requires a background check, which will now more than likely include social media checks. As we are seeing, the trend is spreading beyond dating sites to employers, college admissions, pretty much anyone who wants to know more about who you are. A picture truly is worth a thousand words.

Getting a lot of ambiguous rejections? Check your social media posts.

Even social media posts from years ago can haunt you. During the 2016 NFL draft, a potential first round pick had his Twitter account hacked.  A years old video showing him allegedly smoking marijuana with a bong hit the web. As this sorted out, draft round after round passed. He eventually was chosen in the thirteenth round, costing him millions.

Because of the anonymity of the Internet, the narcissist in us all, and the instantaneous culture we have, social media seems to be a window into our daily lives. Not only what cat videos we find hilarious or what we’re eating and where, but social media goes a long way in determining who we are, the character of the person doing the posts. Now one could argue that it’s not how they really are, that they use social media as an alter ego. But over time, patterns do develop and the onus appears to be on the account holder to justify the veracity of their posts and not the reviewer.

A good rule of thumb is-If you wouldn’t want your mother to see it, then don’t post it.

See our blog archive for other posts relating to social media:

What’s your social media policy? March 22, 2016

Enforcing company policy May 8, 2015

Convicted? Never convicted. October 17, 2014

Workplace monitoring

 The messaging software company Slack is working on software that will install manager bots to monitor employee production. The bots will be plugged into company networks to monitor an employee’s work. The bots will ask for updates, check employees work status, and even ask what tasks are currently being worked. Managers won’t have to roam the cube farms to keep everyone on point. The bots will do it.

Does this help or hurt employee morale and productivity? Do companies that are constantly looking over employee shoulders getting the results they want?

Many in the workforce have been exposed to a micro manager. Constantly overlooking every detail of an employee’s work. Workers usually respond with frustration or task-to-task completion without innovation. Doing only what has to be done to satisfy the manager, waiting to be told what to do next. The last decade has seen the use of technology to replace that micro manager.

Long before the idea of manager bots technology enabled companies to monitor almost every aspect of a worker’s day. Most, if not all, companies that have computer networks monitor employee email traffic and Internet use. Some even capture keystrokes and keyboard activity, such as how long a keyboard has been inactive. Software enables managers to monitor telecommuters-are they actively working or just logged in to the network? Companies that utilize vehicles track employees through GPS, recording location and length of stay. Hospitals track nurses through the use of sensors embedded to monitor their location and patient visits. And let’s not forget about cameras. With or without using a computer, workers are constantly tracked. How the use of monitoring occurs and is communicated to workers can have varied results.

Hawthorne Effect

Workers who are knowingly being observed tend to be more productive due to what has been called the Hawthorne effect. The Hawthorne effect is used to describe the tendency of observed employees to work harder due to the attention they are receiving from researchers rather than because of individual work habits.

The Hawthorne Effect is named for the location where worker productivity experiments took place in the 1920’s and 1930’s, Western Electric’s Hawthorne Works near Hawthorne, Illinois. The electric company had commissioned research to determine if there was a relationship between productivity and the work environment. The focus of the studies was to determine if increasing or decreasing the amount of light that workers received would have an effect on worker productivity. Employee productivity seemed to increase due to the changes but then decreased after the experiment was over. Researchers suggested that productivity increased due to attention from the research team and not because of changes in the experimental variables.

Transparency Trap

Ethan Bernstein, assistant professor of business administration at Harvard Business School has extensively researched employee monitoring. Bernstein believes that it is difficult for employees to be at their best when they know they are being watched and evaluated at every moment. Bernstein wrote in the Harvard Business Review, “Wide open workspaces and copious real time data on how individuals spend their time can leave employees feeling exposed and vulnerable.” For his paper, The Transparency Trap, Bernstein conducted several experiments to help prove his theory. In one, Bernstein embedded five Chinese born Harvard undergraduate researchers into the lines of the world's second largest mobile phone factory in China. Controls were added to allow for the Hawthorne Effect.

This particular experiment showed that employees acted and behaved differently when they were being watched. Basically, observed employees followed the policies of the company to the letter while unobserved employees did not. Unobserved employees innovated ways to make their tasks easier, tending to hide process improvements from managers. Two examples were scanning multiple bar codes at once instead of one at time as per policy and crossed trained themselves on breaks. The intent was to improve the process without having the inefficiency of explaining their actions to managers.

Overall, those shielded from observation were more productive than the observed. Experimentation, shared problem solving, and focus flourished.

Communication

There are many examples of employee monitoring. Done improperly, with poor communication to employees may cause resentment and a feeling of “Big Brother” is watching. Letting workers know that data is being collected to improve efficiency may alleviate skewed results. UPS has saved millions and improved their schedules by collecting delivery data and providing the analysis back to drivers. You may have heard of how UPS routes were made more efficient by reducing left turns.

Letting employees know that monitoring is taking place, how the data is being used, and how that will improve their workday goes a long way is establishing trust between employer and employee.

Will employees do their best when being observed? Or are they so hindered by the constant oversight that they do the minimum required. If left to themselves would they perform better, working more efficiently with less fear of messing up and being corrected by managers?

These questions that are still being studied. From what is known, it seems that communication between management and the workforce about the use of technology to monitor productivity is a key factor for improvement. Technology will always continue to improve. Innovators will figure out how to apply technology to the workplace. But while people are still involved they need to be kept in the loop.