Blockchain Employee Records? What is the Balance Between Business Controls and Employee Privacy?

by Stacey Lett, Director of Operations – Eastern U.S. – Proactive Technologies, Inc.

How much personal information is too much? Can we be so swamped by data available to us from so many sources that we forget our mission? What will technology’s legacy be: the engine for positive change or a harmful disruptor and nothing more?

United Healthcare announced in 2016 that their employees would be wearing fitness trackers  as part of their wellness program. Other employers were looking into it, as well. Privacy advocates expressed concern over how the devices could be used to track an employee’s movement, and possibly provide data out of context.

Lacking a standardized format between departments, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management in 2017 announced that they were looking to modernize the handling of employee records. One proposed solution is the creation of the federal employee digital record that would enable a continued, secure exchange of information on the “life cycle of employees.” Without knowing the types, limits and sources of collected data, it is unclear as to who will be helped and hurt by this practice.

Also in 2017, Sony announced that is was working to digitize education records using blockchain technology to track each citizen’s educational achievement throughout their life. Again, the devil is in the details.

In 2018, in an article appearing in Material Handling & Logistcs entitled “Will Amazon’s Worker Tracking Wristbands Cross the Privacy Line?,” it was reported that Amazon announced a new technology to track workers that has drawn many privacy group’s concern. “…a recent patent acquired by Amazon that would require employees to wear devices on their wrists which would track their every move has sounded alarm bells as to whether this new foray into advanced technology comes up against the need for privacy.”

Where is all of this leading? Lori Andrews, a professor at the Illinois Institute of Technology’s Chicago-Kent College of Law said, “Employers are increasingly treating their employees like robots,” Andrews said. And this tracking could extend deeper than merely recording movement related to warehouse operations. Maroitti [Ally Maroitti-Chicago Tribune] also spoke with Paula Brantner, senior adviser at employee rights organization Workplace Fairness who said that the “technology could lead to discrimination. Even if the wristbands don’t use GPS tracking, they could tell a company if a woman is taking longer bathroom breaks than co-workers or whether a disabled employee is moving more slowly, which could reflect negatively on their job performance.”

Data is good. Employers need data to monitor efficiency and track the results of improvement efforts. But when does too much data cloud the underlying issue being measured? Can employers micro-manage itself into bad decisions and operational paralysis? And as companies continue to aggregate and sell collected data, what dangers does this pose to employees and consumers privacy – something difficult to nearly impossible to remedy once affected?

The effort was already underway to digitize individual’s medical history and records. When added to the vast amount of credit information collected on each individual, the effort to collect and consolidate criminal and civil records, the internet search information collected by Google, Facebook, LinkedIn and others – all available to data aggregators – the potential for misuse appears astounding. Yet the concern for data security and protection underwhelming to non-existent. Is it because individuals do not care, they do not see risks or is it because they do not quite yet understand the risks that can extend decades?

Other technology breakthroughs have reached a point of second-thinking. For example, cryptocurrencies, such as BitCoin, were promoted as the currency of the future; a replacement for sovereign currencies. Now, brokerages are being shut down, scandals erupt, and more countries seek to reign them in or close them down. The capability for some to “mine” bitcoins with complex algorithms seems more in a “geek’s” wheelhouse than most less tech-savvy consumers.

And when a country’s election process outcome can be influenced, or tampered, by foreign governments using personal profiles supplied by firms without our knowledge or explicit consent, when is it a appropriate to ask, “are any of these innovations safe?”

There have already been numerous examples of hacks and data breaches; the Equifax breach in 2017 that put over 200 million citizen’s personal and financial information on the selling block. We have seen medical records used by insurers to qualify(disqualify) applicants for insurance, and we have seen credit reports used to disqualify job seekers. The revelation of data being collected on approximately 50 million Facebook users was sold to Cambridge Analytica to influence votes in the 2016 and 2018 campaigns thrust the debate into the halls of statehouses and Congress. Although Facebook is talking about making changes now, questions remain as to who all has the data and what will they do with it next.

By the way, those harmless fitness trackers…Under Armour admitted to a huge application data hack of its personal fitness tracker MyFitnessPal in March, 2018. It is estimated a “security breach of 150 million customer records including usernames, passwords and email addresses but not bank, driving license or social security numbers” (which one could match with data that has already been breached and available elsewhere). The vulnerability of users to endless data breaches and the data’s aggregation into massive amounts of consumer information already leaked or breached in previous events should give us all pause when another opportunity to relinquish private information, or require others to relinquish it, is proposed.

It is unclear whether those who develop these new technologies care about the harm that their innovation can lead to – especially when Wall Street gets behind them. And we know that our elected officials are always years behind the events that cause damage in considering legislative solutions…if at all. And by that time, the damage is done and most likely irreversible.

There isn’t a week that goes by that another hack or breach is announced, or a scammer makes personal contact. Is this what is meant by “disruptive technology?” After all, disruption can lead to good change, and it can also lead to disastrous outcomes. What is the cutoff for “acceptable risk?” How many lives can be damaged before a technology is scrapped or reigned in? What happens to those whose lives that have been damaged through little or no fault of their own – most likely from naivete or misplaced trust?

Maybe it is time to back away from this well-funded wave of technology announcements and focus on the real-world; absorbing, understanding and maximizing the technology we now have. It doesn’t seem that any of the hedge funds and investment bankers care if they leave a path of destruction in their wake as long as they “increase shareholder value.” So, it is up to each user to properly research advancements rather than accept them at face value. When risks are obvious, look beyond the public relations explanations. Be aware of the media’s complicity in marginalizing risks. Resist the pressure from peers who want to be seen as innovators even if they do not understand the technology they have embraced, nor the risks or the consequences.

Always remember the common frustration we all feel when we put our faith in those who make our computers and tablets, our phones, our televisions, our cars and, yes, even our toasters push us into believing that the technology they advertised to us 6 months ago as the future is now ancient and in need of replacement; and once we do replace it, the peripheral equipment and software related to it needs to be replaced, as well. The “planned obsolescence” of today is on steroids. The only thing that can counter it and any risks exposed is a rational, well-informed consumer.

That applies to us in the workforce development and management professions. Just because the band wagon is rolling and early adopters are pressuring us to hop on doesn’t mean we give up free will and common sense. Trust me, none of those sycophants will be there to help us to pick up the pieces of our business or career when it turns out change brought more harm than good.

It is long past the time to start looking at the workforce development and skills gap challenge pragmatically. We have enough data to know what is working and what is not. More and better records are not the solution to under-developed and under-utilized employee potential.

For those who feel the path you have been on has not landed you where you were expecting, there is no better time to change course. Contact a Proactive Technologies, Inc. representative today to find out more. The discussion may at least give you more food for thought.