The shift to working from home has led to greater use of electronic surveillance, but using laptop microphones or screen monitoring software to check staff performance may do more harm than good for morale, mental health and legal compliance. As more Australian workers discover just how closely they are being observed, concerns about trust and legality are becoming harder to ignore.
At the centre of a recent case is an Australian training company accused of intrusive monitoring practices. After ticking consent boxes, remote staff were allegedly subjected to nearly constant surveillance through their work laptops for up to 10 hours a day. Reports claim this included secret software installations along with remote audio and video recording. One employee linked these practices to mental health issues, leading to an investigation by Victoria Police.
Although some employers may have been prompted by cases involving staff misconduct such as running side businesses or viewing explicit content during work hours, critics argue that heavy surveillance punishes trustworthy employees alongside the few who break rules. In a traditional office, it is easier to observe contributions, whereas remote work leaves many managers feeling blind. As a result, many are turning to digital monitoring. The issue, however, is that such tools often cross the line between accountability and invasion of privacy.
This shift is not entirely new. International cases have involved employers tracking breaks or reading private emails without staff knowledge. However, Australian laws currently offer limited clarity. The national privacy regulator states that surveillance is permitted as long as employees are informed beforehand. In practice though, it remains unclear whether a single consent form is enough to meet legal standards.
The psychological impact is more obvious. A new federal Code of Practice introduced in 2024 lists “intrusive surveillance” as a workplace risk and requires employers to safeguard staff from harms including stress and anxiety. According to the document, excessive monitoring does not improve productivity. It reduces it by damaging trust and job satisfaction.
Other countries are starting to act. In the United States, new laws ban off-duty or in-home surveillance unless it is clearly outlined. Australian company leaders may need to follow this example. Relying on vague terms buried in contracts is not sufficient. To maintain trust, especially with remote teams, businesses must be honest about monitoring practices and hold open conversations with staff.
In the end, surveillance should not replace strong leadership. If managers are turning to hidden tools to measure results, the real issue may be poor communication around performance standards and a lack of proper support.
