Annotated bibliography

MLA Annotated Bibliography (Orlov)

Marginal annotations indicate MLA-style formatting and effective writing.

Source: Hacker/Sommers (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2011, 2007). This paper follows the style guidelines in the MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers, 7th ed. (2009).

5/11_A

MLA Annotated Bibliography (Orlov)

Orlov 1

Anna Orlov

Professor Willis

English 101

3 March XXXX

Online Monitoring: A Threat to Employee

Privacy in the Wired Workplace:

An Annotated Bibliography

Adams, Scott. Dilbert and the Way of the Weasel. New York: Harper,

2002. Print.

Adams’s “Dilbert” cartoons are known for satirizing

everyday workplace issues. The cartoon on page 106 illustrates

how rampant Internet use in the workplace has become

and suggests that both employers and employees are well

aware of the practice. The cartoon points out the difficulty

employers face in trying to restrict employee Internet use.

American Management Association and ePolicy Institute. “2005

Electronic Monitoring and Surveillance Survey.” American

Management Association. Amer. Management Assn., 2005.

Web. 15 Feb. 2006.

According to the survey of workplace Internet use

summarized in this article, employers are most concerned

about employees visiting inappropriate Web sites. However,

employers’ monitoring of employees extends beyond blocking

certain Web sites. Many employers who participated in the

study also track individual keystrokes and review e-mails. The

study suggests that the majority of employers who monitor

Internet use are telling their employees that they are being

Marginal annotations indicate MLA-style formatting and effective writing.

In MLA style, each entry begins at the left margin; subsequent lines indent 1⁄2''.

The annotation begins on a new line and is indented 1⁄2''.

Source: Diana Hacker (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2007). This paper has been updated to follow the style guidelines in the MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers, 7th ed. (2009).

Source: Hacker/Sommers (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2011, 2007).Source: Diana Hacker (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2007).

monitored. These findings seem to contradict many of my

other sources, which claim that employers are not doing

enough to explain Internet monitoring to their employees.

“Automatically Record Everything They Do Online! Spector Pro 5.0

FAQ’s.” Netbus.org. Netbus.org, n.d. Web. 17 Feb. 2006.

Spector Pro is a type of Internet surveillance program.

This Web page, sponsored by the manufacturer of the product,

explains the functionality of the software and describes its

features. It can be installed on a variety of computers and

can be installed in “Stealth” mode so that the user cannot

detect the software on his or her computer. The program can

also monitor all computer use ranging from Word documents

to Web sites. This source supports my other sources by

illustrating the ease with which this kind of software can be

installed as well as the extensive amount of information it

can gather for employers.

Flynn, Nancy. “Internet Policies.” ePolicy Institute. ePolicy Inst.,

n.d. Web. 15 Feb. 2006.

This excerpt from Flynn’s The ePolicy Handbook offers

statistics on employee Internet use and five suggestions for

minimizing it. Flynn claims that the majority of employees in

the United States are using company time to surf the Internet

and that companies are suffering huge financial losses as a

result. Her suggestions for minimizing personal Internet use

include establishing a company Internet policy and installing

monitoring software. This is consistent with the suggestions

of many other sources.

Orlov 2

Orlov interprets the source’s findings in relation to other sources in the bibliography.

Annotations are usually three to seven sentences long.

Double-spacing is used throughout, with no extra space between entries and no extra space between entries and their annota- tions.

Source: Hacker/Sommers (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2011, 2007).Source: Diana Hacker (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2007).

Frauenheim, Ed. “Stop Reading This Headline and Get Back to

Work.” CNET News.com. CNET Networks, 11 July 2005. Web.

17 Feb. 2006.

The author examines the results of a study of ten

thousand employees conducted by America Online and

Salary.com, which found that the Internet was the most

popular means of wasting time at work. Frauenheim notes

that the extra time spent surfing the Internet is costing

companies an estimated $759 billion a year but also quotes

the senior vice president at Salary.com and a director at

America Online, who argue that employee Internet use

actually increases productivity and creativity in the

workplace. Frauenheim suggests that the increase in personal

Internet use at work might result from a longer average

workday and that use of the Internet has made employees

more efficient, giving them more free time to waste.

Gonsalves, Chris. “Wasting Away on the Web.” eWeek.com. Ziff

Davis Enterprise Holdings, 8 Aug. 2005. Web. 16 Feb. 2006.

In this editorial, Gonsalves considers the implications of

several surveys, including one in which 61% of respondents

said that their companies had the right to spy on them. The

author agrees with this majority, claiming that it’s fine if his

company chooses to monitor him as long as the company

discloses its monitoring practices. He adds that he would

prefer not to know the extent of the monitoring. This article,

though not entirely objective, offers an employee’s

perspective on Internet surveillance in the workplace. It also

Orlov 3

Summary is followed by a balanced evaluation of the source.

Source: Hacker/Sommers (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2011, 2007).Source: Diana Hacker (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2007).

contradicts some of my other sources, which claim that

employees want to know and should know all the details of

their company’s monitoring procedures.

Kesan, Jay P. “Cyber-Working or Cyber-Shirking? A First Principles

Examination of Electronic Privacy in the Workplace.” Florida

Law Review 54.2 (2002): 289-332. Print.

This extensive, balanced article examines the legal

issues involved in Internet monitoring and employee privacy.

Kesan establishes that US written law and common law do not

guarantee a right to electronic privacy in the workplace. He

suggests that Internet policies should be addressed through

a “market-based” contractual approach that would benefit

both employers and employees. Kesan examines employee

concerns, such as a working parent’s desire to check on his or

her children while at work, and employer concerns, such as

legal liability for inappropriate employee Internet use. He

concludes that a company should develop an Internet policy,

make that policy known to all employees, and then monitor

employees to ensure that the policy is being followed.

Lane, Frederick S., III. The Naked Employee: How Technology

Is Compromising Workplace Privacy. New York: Amer.

Management Assn., 2003. Print.

Lane’s book discusses the lack of employee privacy

in the modern workplace. The author acknowledges that

employers have several reasons to be concerned about employee

Internet use, such as theft, a decrease in productivity, and

workplace lawsuits. At the same time, however, he questions

Orlov 4

Source: Hacker/Sommers (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2011, 2007).Source: Diana Hacker (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2007).

where employers will draw the line as technology becomes

better and better at tracking an employee’s every move.

This book is accessible and draws from a variety of sources;

it confirms the information provided by my other sources.

Tam, Pui-Wing, et al. “Snooping E-Mail by Software Is Now a

Workplace Norm.” Wall Street Journal 9 Mar. 2005: B1+. Print.

The authors point out that in every state except

Connecticut and Delaware, companies can legally monitor

employee e-mail without notifying employees and can also use

e-mails as evidence in lawsuits against employees. According

to the article, only 27% of companies monitor employee-to-

employee e-mails, although these e-mails are potentially the

most incriminating, since employees are less likely to censor

themselves with other employees. The article also explores

the means by which companies now monitor employee e-mail,

such as software that searches not only for inappropriate

words but also for words specific to the industry and even

the company. Although the article is narrowly focused, it

offers a good overview of current practices regarding e-mail

monitoring in the workplace.

Tynan, Daniel. “Your Boss Is Watching.” PC World. PC World

Communications, 6 Oct. 2004. Web. 17 Sept. 2006.

This conversational article presents ten myths about

employee Internet and computer monitoring and reveals how

wrong they are. Although several of the “myths” are discussed

more extensively in my other sources, Tynan presents some

new information. For example, he states that some employers

Orlov 5

Source: Hacker/Sommers (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2011, 2007).Source: Diana Hacker (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2007).

monitor employee Webmail accounts in addition to company

e-mail accounts. Perhaps most important, the article gives a

sense of how unaware most employees are about the current

capabilities of employee Internet monitoring and about their

own lack of legal protection from employers who monitor

them.

Verespej, Michael A. “Inappropriate Internet Surfing.” Industry

Week. Penton Media, 7 Feb. 2000. Web. 16 Feb. 2006.

Unlike most of my other sources, this article is aimed

at employers and suggests that they need to do more to

establish Internet policies and monitor employees. Verespej

warns that if employers do not establish Internet policies,

they leave themselves vulnerable to expensive and

damaging lawsuits, such as suits based on inappropriate or

discriminatory e-mails distributed in the workplace. He offers

several examples to back up his claim that employers are

more at risk than employees from lawsuits. This seems to

contradict the information in my other sources, which present

the risks mostly in terms of employees’ privacy.

Orlov 6