In Netherlands, making workers keep their webcams on is now considered a human rights violation

In the Netherlands, a court ruled that making workers keep their webcams on is now considered a human rights violation. The court also ruled that it was illegal to require an employee to install a program on his computer that would film him while he worked.

“Tracking via camera for 8 hours per day is disproportionate and not permitted in the Netherlands. (…) video surveillance of an employee in the workplace, be it covert or not, must be considered as a considerable intrusion into the employee’s private life (…), and hence [the court] considers that it constitutes an interference within the meaning of Article 8 [Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms],” the court said in its decision.

The trial began after software company Chetu fired an employee who refused to keep his webcam on for eight hours at work.

At issue here is the now-classic practice of tracking employee activity, which is actively used by outsourcing companies to monitor remote workers. A program installed on an employee's computer can provide a live webcam feed, as well as take pictures of the employee at random moments, record what is currently on the screen, and can track how long active applications are on the screen, count how long the employee to work on the keyboard, etc.

The use of these tracking programs in the IT industry has long been criticized by employees. Meanwhile, employers argue that when using an hourly wage model, it's important for them to understand that the person is actually working, not getting paid to watch shows or YouTube videos.

Some of these programs work in a more soft way and only check to see if the person is at work or not. But there are programs that are made in the best tradition of "Big Brother" and record everything they can. And such programs are used not only in remote work, but also in offices.

"I don’t feel comfortable being monitored for 9 hours a day by a camera. This is an invasion of my privacy and makes me feel really uncomfortable. That is the reason why my camera is not on,"

The programmer actually agreed that the employer could have access to his computer screen; it was an honest and fairly impersonal way to monitor his work activities, which the programmer thought would be quite sufficient to monitor himself. However, Chetu's standards also required visual monitoring by the individual.

As a result, a Dutch court ruled that "instructions to keep the webcam turned on is in conflict with the respect for the privacy of the workers." The court ruling said that such a requirement was unacceptable to the Netherlands.