commentary Cases highlighted in recent times prove that Big Brother is well and truly entering the workplace, opening up a whole new can of worms.

If output is tangible and productivity measurable, why do some employers feel the need to "spy" on employees? I'm not talking about voyeuristic tendencies... just the gratification felt by some companies knowing their workers have nowhere to hide.

The idea that employees should always be squarely planted at their desks, working away like busy little bees, is a welcoming thought to many employers. Hopefully, no one takes pointers from former WorldCom chief Bernard J. Ebbers.

Ebbers -- who has been charged with conspiracy and securities fraud, among others -- allegedly told his technology department to track when employees began their work day, and had plans to reprimand a senior employee for taking too many smoke breaks.

At Box Hill Senior Secondary School in Victoria, teacher Gloria Ng claimed that footage from closed-circuit cameras -- installed only for security purposes -- was used as a basis for disciplinary action. The video, taken in 2002, allegedly shows Ng having difficulty controlling her students.

Principal Wayne Craig is said to have used the recording to corroborate his case against her, telling Ng her quality of teaching was below par and asking her to relinquish her post.

Under state law, such devices can't be used to gauge individual work performance. Ng is currently seeking compensation from the government.

There are other, non-traditional or unorthodox techniques used in the monitoring process. Some companies monitor employees' instant messenger activity status, and take an "idle" handle to mean the worker isn't working. But with a few simple clicks, "idle" can say "available" 24 hours a day.

In California, mobile tracking firm Xora touts mobile phone software technology that sets off an alarm if field workers visit pre-determined, prohibited sites (during office hours) such as the neighbourhood pub.

Beyond the high-tech tracking gizmos... this is the crux of the matter: are employees entitled to a little privacy in the workplace?

Another tool for probing is bandwidth measurement software -- which has been in existence for a while. To Melbourne-based Exinda Networks, the time could be ripe to start charging employees for personal Web use. The firm boasts of a system designed to calculate the cost of misused bandwidth and time. Based on preset values, in theory, an employee could be charged for downloading software, music, movies or surfing non-business Web sites. At the end of the month, the worker would be presented with a usage bill. No surprises here -- the invoice will surely find its way into the hands of that ambitious human resources executive.

To extreme micromanagers, playing Big Brother is very much in vogue; common sense and logic sometimes overshadowed by the need to be in control. Take this classic example of a friend's sister who works in sales. Despite meeting her targets, her boss had trouble with her two-hour client lunches. One day, he trailed her. She quit the next day.

At a Japanese company, there once was a proposal to snoop on workers' whereabouts by embedding a chip-based tracking device into their office security tags. Thankfully that idea was swiftly quashed. Beyond the high-tech tracking gizmos and insecure managers, this is the crux of the matter: are employees entitled to a little privacy at the workplace? I think so but others might not agree. What do you think about this controversial issue? Do you believe your manager has full trust in your capabilities to deliver on the job? And if not, do you you think they have the right monitor your moves?

This article was first published in Technology & Business magazine.
Click here for subscription information.

Copyright © 2009 CBS Interactive, a CBS Company. All Rights Reserved.
ZDNET is a registered service mark of CBS Interactive. ZDNET Logo is a service mark of CBS Interactive.