Thesis Statement The 21st century has ushered in the latest and increasingly sophisticated technology. The improved technology may be viewed as either a blessing or a curse in the modern business environment. Such sophisticated monitoring technologies enable organizations to conduct basic business transactions, launch investigations, avoid liability as well as achieve significant success in an increasingly competitive economic environment. Workers also derive some benefits when such monitoring provides immediate feedback and discourages any unethical activities. However, the same improved technology allows the company to closely monitor every activity within the business. Such a trend is problematic since excessive or unreasonable monitoring can invade a worker’s reasonable privacy expectation, thus lowering their morale. It may even lead to employees instituting lawsuits against the organizations. Summaries Art Lambert, Technology in the Workplace A Recipe for Legal Trouble Employee privacy has taken center stage over recent years. The modern workplace environment cannot be complete without a computer. This makes their potential for abuse to be much higher, and the enactment of the Patriot Act means that these computers can be commandeered at the slightest chance by the concerned authorities (Lambert Para.2). An extensive workplace policy that is specific on what employees can or cannot do on the workplace computers is a proven way to deter any abuse or misuse of company computer hardware. Courts of law have typically asserted that employees do not have any reasonable expectations of individual privacy when making use of technology provided by the employer. The best way to avoid such lawsuits is to alert the employees that they are constantly being monitored. These same warnings are applicable when it comes to company-issued laptops, phones of any other wireless devices (Lambert Para.5). Instant messaging is an ambiguous area that ought to be carefully examined. A 2004 workplace IM and E-mail survey showed that close to 80% of the organizations that were surveyed had enacted a comprehensive e-mail policy, but just 20% had gone ahead and issued a policy that addressed the use and content of instant messaging services and applications. Even though instant messaging is potentially beneficial, it still exposes the company to all manner of risks (Lambert Para.11). Jon Hyman, Who Owns Personal Email on an Employer-Issued Smartphone? According to Lazette v. Kulmatycki, an employer does not have the right to access an employee’s personal email that has been accessed through the company phone or device. The Stored Communications Act expressly prohibits any unauthorized access to personal emails or other internet accounts. The case raised significant practical considerations that touch on the risks organizations are taking with the use of mobile devices to conduct both personal and official duties. Under this particular Act, personal data is classified as sacred (Hyman Para.2). Simply informing employees that they do not possess any expectation of privacy when it comes to a company-owned mobile device does not exempt the organization from a claim based on the stored communications act claim (Hyman Para.4). To av