Digital surveillance tools are reshaping workplace privacy, GAO warns

A new U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report warns that the rapid spread of workplace digital surveillance – ranging from keystroke biometrics and productivity-tracking software to emotion-detection systems and wearable sensors – is creating significant privacy risks for millions of workers.

While the tools can help employers improve safety and efficiency, GAO found that a lack of transparency, weak safeguards, and flawed algorithmic assessments leave workers vulnerable to misuse of their data and to decisions made without meaningful human oversight.

The report highlights how modern “bossware” monitors speech or call center interactions. Many employees do not know what information is being collected, how long it is stored, who has access to it, or how employers plan to use it.

Stakeholders interviewed by GAO said this secrecy is one of the biggest sources of employee stress, often creating a sense of constant surveillance that blurs the boundary between legitimate management oversight and invasive monitoring.

Privacy concerns intensify when surveillance data feeds into automated systems that evaluate performance, set productivity metrics, or flag workers for potential discipline.

GAO found that employers often rely on flawed benchmarks and incomplete measurements. Tools rarely capture the full range of work performed, such as research, mentoring, reading, or off-screen tasks, and frequently misinterpret normal behavior as inefficiency.

When employers trust these tools “at face value,” the report notes, workers can be unfairly labeled unproductive or noncompliant despite doing their jobs well.

These problems disproportionately affect specific groups. Researchers told GAO that emotional-analysis systems can misread the tone of workers of certain races or nationalities, penalize people with accents, and reinforce gender stereotypes.

Workers with disabilities may be flagged as low performers if surveillance systems are not designed to accommodate diverse work patterns. Older workers may skip needed breaks to avoid triggering automated productivity alerts. In each case, GAO found that opaque data collection and automated scoring systems heighten the risk of discriminatory outcomes.

Federal oversight of workplace surveillance remains fragmented. Agencies such as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, National Labor Relations Board, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration investigate cases when they intersect with discrimination, labor rights, or safety laws, but none tracks how often complaints involve digital monitoring.

Meanwhile, past federal efforts to issue guidance on reducing surveillance related harms such as transparency practices, human oversight, and safeguards against discriminatory impacts have been rescinded or paused since January by the Trump administration as agencies reassess their policy priorities.

GAO also notes that existing federal privacy protections are narrow. The Electronic Communications Privacy Act restricts covert interception of communications, but it does not cover most forms of digital monitoring, such as keystroke logging, location tracking, biometric data collection, or algorithmic productivity scoring.

State laws vary widely, leaving many workers with little insight into how extensively their activities are being monitored.

The report concludes that while digital surveillance can improve safety, efficiency, and health monitoring, its benefits depend wholly on how employers use it.

Without transparency, meaningful guardrails, and a clear understanding of the technology’s limitations, these tools can erode worker privacy, increase stress, influence employment decisions unfairly, and exacerbate inequities across the workforce.

Article Topics

behavioral biometrics  |  biometrics  |  GAO (Government Accountability Office)  |  keystroke biometrics  |  workforce management