Background The increasing use of digital technologies in contemporary workplaces has transformed the employment relationship by expanding employers’ capacity to monitor employees through electronic communications, remote work platforms, artificial intelligence tools, biometric systems, keystroke logging, GPS tracking, and internet-use monitoring. These practices raise serious concerns regarding employee privacy, dignity, autonomy, and informational self-determination. Methods This article adopts a comparative doctrinal legal methodology. It examines workplace surveillance regulation in the United States, the European Union, particularly under the General Data Protection Regulation, the United Kingdom, and relevant international labour standards. The analysis also considers key judicial developments, including the European Court of Human Rights decision in Bărbulescu v. Romania, to assess how courts balance employer interests against employee privacy rights. Results The study finds a significant “electronic surveillance gap” between rapidly developing monitoring technologies and existing legal protections. In the United States, workplace surveillance remains largely shaped by employer property rights and limited privacy expectations, leaving many private-sector employees insufficiently protected. By contrast, the European framework provides stronger safeguards through transparency, lawful basis requirements, data minimisation, and proportionality. However, even the GDPR faces challenges in addressing AI-driven surveillance, remote monitoring, biometric processing, and opaque algorithmic decision-making. The United Kingdom and international labour standards reflect an intermediate approach but still lack comprehensive and technology-neutral safeguards. Conclusions The article concludes that current legal frameworks remain fragmented and insufficient to regulate modern workplace surveillance effectively. It recommends legislative reform based on mandatory transparency, meaningful consent or alternative lawful safeguards, proportionality testing, limits on intrusive monitoring, protection of biometric and AI-generated data, and stronger enforcement mechanisms. A coherent, rights-based, and technology-neutral framework is necessary to balance legitimate business interests with fundamental employee privacy rights in the digital.
Mahdy et al. (Tue,) studied this question.