Ethics of Real-Time Monitoring
Evans, Kloke & Jahn (2023) Review of ethics for occupational hygiene hazard monitoring surveys using sensors. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene. DOI 10.1080/15459624.2023.2247018
Collecting Data
It’s been nearly 10 years since NIOSH’s EVADE software made it far easier to integrate video and sound recordings into the real-time data. And, while not yet common in the workplace, researchers have also began incorporating precise location data into exposure assessments.
It is arguable that the advantages of real-time over conventional sampling methods is limited without collecting this secondary data. Knowing that there are short-term elevated exposures is nice; knowing exactly where and how the elevated exposure happened is even better. Improved assessments, training, expenditure justification to management… there are a mountain of benefits of real-time. This is not to discount the value of tradition monitoring (we can have that discussion another day), but real-time technology is only getting more advanced and more popular. And so is the collection of more and more detailed supporting information, like video.
The Question
What inherent rights to privacy do / should workers have in the workplace during exposure assessments, even if the data is purely used with good intentions? What protections should be in place to prevent the misuse, intentional or not, of this data?
Hygiene work is undertaken for good reasons to protect the health and well-being of employees. However, this does not negate the need for thoughtful ethical study design in planning exposure monitoring surveys.
Most research is unsurprisingly focused on the technical development of real-time sensor technology rather than ethical deployment. However, a review was performed by Evans et al. detailing what has previously been found on concerns of workers, impacts of not addressing these concerns, and a proposal of a checklist on how to manage privacy.
The Problems
Workers were found to be mistrusting of a business if they weren’t provided a clear explanation of what the assessment was, or how the information was to be used. You may wonder, who doesn’t explain what happening but it’s apparently rather common. Two-thirds of companies surveyed did not explain to their staff why they were deploying sensors. It’s probably unsurprising then that workers had a fear that the information collected could be used to punish unproductive workers, or discriminate against at risk workers. Again, this isn’t workers being paranoid. A different study found the majority of surveyed businesses had often mishandled what was considered personal information.
If you asked most hygienists, consultants or in-house, they would probably know enough sensitive information to get both employees and employers in a lot of strife. Often completely unrelated to OH, anyone trying to deeply understand a workplace will find “something”. But unless the information can be used to prevent disease, sharing is of little value to a hygienist.
At all stages, the hygienist is accountable for the data collection process.
EVADE real-time analysis software. Source: NIOSH
There are legal obligations in most jurisdictions to manage personal information. Medical information being the most developed example. But where the line is when it comes to exposure assessment is not so clear. Ethical guidelines published by industry bodies likewise usually do not specifically detail real-time data considerations. Given that a hygienist is only interested in improving workplace conditions, it would seem best to treat any and all information about a worker or potentially identifiable information about them as private. The article review proposes a few areas for consideration:
Informed consent
All participants of exposure monitoring should be informed on what information is being collected, how it will be used, why the assessment is taking place, and what their rights are in regards to privacy. They should be allowed to raise concerns and have these properly addressed. Then, they should be given the option to participate or not.
Data collection
The hygienist should be clear and intentional about what information is being collected. Only information that is directly relevant to the assessment should be collected. Care should be taken to avoid collecting unrelated information or data outside of the workplace and work hours.
Data usage
The hygienist should take measures to use the information only for the benefit of workers, and actively prevent the misuse of collected information (e.g. for punishment for productively etc). This is heavily related to security:
Data security
All private information should be securely stored to prevent unnecessary access. Identifiable information should not be shared, and de-identified info should only be shared when there is an objective benefit to sharing (or if a legal requirement exists). Obviously you’d still need to share the information you have collected to achieve an outcome, but the point is to be mindful of what info and how the information is communicated to avoid discrimination.
Exceptions?
Are there any situations where privacy described by the review should be breached? Negligence behaviour, for example, or would this jeopardise the integrity for future assessments?
Please share your thoughts. Like most ethical conversations, there is plenty of room for differing opinions. What other ethical considerations are there when it comes to exposure monitoring?