How often did that stop an employer?
>Commenting on the ruling, Pam Cowburn, the communications director at in London, said: “The European court’s ruling is welcome. In some workplaces, it may be necessary for emails to be monitored, but if employers are going to do so, they should make staff explicitly aware of it.”
>Despite finding that Bărbulescu’s rights under article 8 of the convention had been violated, the court declined to award him any compensation, saying the ruling was “sufficient just satisfaction”.
The largest example probably is the 2020 GDPR fine of 35 million euro for clothing retailer H&M for violating the privacy of their employees, despite the employees being informed of that.
In most EU countries, tracking company-owned hardware is explicitly okay, and where it's not mentioned in law there are judicates that make it OK.
As I said, even the government and its wholly/partially owned enterprises are doing it, and working as a contractor for the government here requires you to track usage of your employees' workplace computers too, so I can't see how it could be in any way illegal. Same thing with working for banks and insurance, and I bet there are more cases.
Don't know about other EU countries, but at least NL deviates significantly from the sketched scenario.
[1] https://blog.iusmentis.com/2017/11/22/wanneer-mogen-mailbox-...
Still cheaper then searching for a new job... without a current one.
(This probably doesn't work so well in the US.)
From an OPSEC perspective, sure. But the question was whether it's legal for an employer to do it.
You might also get a phone call (on your private phone) about a private medical matter while at work, but I would hope your employer couldn't use the CCTV audio they have in the office to decide to fire you based on that information (though I don't know if US laws actually protect workers in this case -- in Australia and basically all of Eastern Europe this would be insanely illegal on several levels).
> Laptops are cheap.
Not for everyone.