Response to:

Also include this in the second question: A1. Yes, I think Biometric by employees is justified. Biometric measurements scans the human body parts such as eyes, face, or fingerprints in order to strengthen the security codes of the business. Therefore, employees can get safeguards and have assurance that a safety procedure is placed for them.

A2. Parramore focuses on the negative aspects of this company, being that surveillance cameras have a way of making workers uncomfortable because they are being watched all the time which invades their privacy. Biometric measurements can be used to help employees and employers. Biometric measurements has security in the workplace with recognition of most facial features, such as the face, nose, ears, fingerprints and face recognition

A3. In the final paragraph Parramore says “maybe we ought to ensure that those whose behavior can do society the most harm do not escape the panopticon.”, By saying this Parramore contradicts here argument because she is basically saying that some people deserved to be spied on which is making her look like a hypocrite.

A4. No, I don’t trust Parramore’s assessment of this issue becuase, Parramore believes people deserve to be spied and that made me feel this way.

A5. Not really, I believe there’s some issues about this and some groups will agree and some would feel some type of way and don’t like their privacy to be invaded.

Response 2:

1. The privacy of employees should not be monitored by their employers because in any work environment people want to feel comfortable and strive to work effectively without data measurements exploiting and tracking their hormonal “positive” and “negative” state performances.

2. No, Parramore did not fairly portray the founder of Humanyze because Parramore introduced Ben Waber’s organization’s name as “creepy”. Although Parramore includes claims from research studies on GPS surveillance and why it is essential; Parramore then provides incite on an employee who filed a lawsuit against a company that invaded her privacy. Also, Parramore notes that “Young Americans” would not overlook that employers want to implement biometric measurements into the workplace because they are influenced by it through advertisements. Her overall stance is that monitoring employees in a sense; is a dehumanizing experience.

Biometric measurements can help employees track their performance levels and through graphs and diagrams see how they can improve in the future employers can also benefit by seeing how well their employees are engaging in the companies objectives and if the majority of employees are not performing well the employers should act on successful improvement strategies.

3. Parramore’s recommendation in the final paragraph contradicts her argument about the individual right to privacy because she is implying that the viewers should be viewed. This clashes with her idea that monitoring employees in a sense; is a dehumanizing experience. Parramore is advising a form of “checks and balances” in the workplace, which will result in little to no privacy or security.

4. I do trust Paramore’s assessment of this issue because she provided informative evidence as to why biometric measurements by employers can cause disturbances on employees. The last paragraph does oppose her initial viewpoint but it is a way to put employers in the perspective of employees. In the last sentence of the final paragraph, it was intriguing that she corresponded a panopticon (A circular openly monitored prison) to observing people at all levels of power. One thing I did not agree with was how she openly introduced Humanyze as a “creepily named”.

5. Yes, I do see potential compromises in this issue because as I read this essay I visually felt being pulled from left to right. I can understand the perspective of how biometric measurement by employers is justified but I can also recognize how employees can be negatively impacted by this type of technology.