lving about 250,000 employees, while even some sectors are practicing testing for HIV/AIDS. Screening for physical, psychological or cultural characteristics is often used to compare with performance, while genetic testing is likely to pose a problem in the future. Have companies taken this testing too far? Is this a violation of an employee's confidentiality? There are some gray areas under keeping employee's privacy information confidential.
             According to Michael Ford, "surveillance of workers is becoming more widespread, more continuous, more intense, and more secretive."(Ford, 1999) The number of employers that spy on their workers has risen from 8 million in 1990 to 20 million in 1996. This has raised some serious questions regarding an individual's privacy. In the workplace, hidden cameras can sit still and can also be attached to someone's clothes. The difference between the two is one is watching all the time and the other is watching only when someone is looking. But who is to say that either one of these methods is right or wrong? Even, "a right to privacy through the Human Rights Act 1998, is unlikely to have much effect on the intense surveillance to which many workers are now subject to." (International Labor Organization)
             Employers have an interest in how efficient the operations are with in their workplace, which causes an employer to use some form of monitoring to get the results that they desire. Some employers notify their employees before installing a video surveillance camera. Employees agree that they should be under a supervisor's watchful eye, but some agree that video is unreasonable. " The camera, unlike the human eye, never blinks." The Fourth Amendment prohibits management from observing electronically what it can see with the naked eye. "What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subje...