Imagine a day in the life of an employee at a company that has implemented an “intelligent” monitoring system. From the moment of logging in, the algorithm tracks every mouse movement and every keystroke, generating a “productivity score.” The laptop camera, using facial recognition, analyzes their facial expressions to assess “engagement level” during online meetings. The system scans their messages on company chat, evaluating the sentiment of their statements and relationships with other team members. At the end of the day, the employee receives an automatic report summarizing their “efficiency,” and their manager receives a ranking of all team members. Instead of feeling motivated, the employee feels constantly watched, evaluated, and stressed. Their creativity and willingness to collaborate drop to zero. Trust in the company dies.
This dystopian image, unfortunately, is no longer the domain of science fiction. In 2025, hundreds of tools are available on the market that promise managers unprecedented insight into their teams’ work. The promise of productivity optimization and security assurance is extremely tempting, especially in the era of remote and hybrid work. However, the shortcut offered by invasive AI-based monitoring is actually a legal and ethical minefield.
As a business leader or HR manager, you face one of the most difficult challenges of the new era: how to reconcile the need to manage efficiency with employees’ fundamental right to privacy and dignity? Implementing any monitoring tool without a thorough understanding of legal, ethical, and, most importantly, human boundaries is a direct path to destroying organizational culture and exposing the company to massive financial penalties.
This guide is your map through this extremely sensitive territory. It is an honest and uncompromising risk analysis. We will explain what Polish labor law, GDPR, and the upcoming AI Act say about AI monitoring. We will show where the thin line lies between acceptable measurement and unacceptable surveillance. We will also present alternative, trust-based performance management methods that deliver much better and more lasting results.
Quick Navigation
- What data about an employee can modern AI-based monitoring systems collect?
- Does monitoring an employee using AI require their consent, and what do GDPR and labor code say about it?
- What are examples of high-profile abuses of artificial intelligence in employee monitoring?
- What severe legal and financial consequences are there for violating employee privacy boundaries?
- What new, rigorous obligations for workplace monitoring will the AI Act introduce?
- What are the best practices and golden rules of ethical and legally compliant monitoring?
- What effective alternatives to invasive monitoring exist that build trust and engagement?
- Strategic summary: what does the risk assessment framework for employee monitoring projects look like?
- How can EITT help your company implement a performance management strategy based on trust, not surveillance?
What data about an employee can modern AI-based monitoring systems collect?
The technological capabilities of modern monitoring tools are astounding and often exceed the imagination of many leaders. These systems can collect and analyze an enormous spectrum of data.
The simplest category is activity data. This includes counting keystrokes and mouse movements, taking screenshots at regular intervals, and tracking which applications and websites are running and how long the employee spends in each.
A more advanced category is communication data. Natural language processing (NLP) algorithms can scan the content of company emails, Slack messages, or Microsoft Teams, analyzing not only who the employee communicates with and how often, but also the sentiment of their statements.
The most controversial category is biometric and behavioral data. This includes the aforementioned facial expression analysis for allegedly assessing emotions or engagement, voice tone analysis during calls, and even keyboard typing pattern analysis to identify stress levels. The use of this type of data enters extremely dangerous and shaky legal and ethical ground.
Does monitoring an employee using AI require their consent, and what do GDPR and labor code say about it?
This is a key legal question, and the answer is much more complicated than a simple “yes” or “no.” In the employer-employee relationship, due to the obvious power imbalance, employee consent is rarely recognized by supervisory authorities as a valid and voluntary legal basis for data processing. An employee, fearing for their employment, will usually agree to anything the employer proposes.
Therefore, under GDPR, an employer who wants to implement monitoring must rely on a different legal basis – most commonly on so-called “legitimate interest.” However, this interest must be very carefully defined, necessary to achieve the purpose, and, most importantly, must be balanced against the rights and freedoms of the employee.
The Polish Labor Code additionally specifies that monitoring (e.g., video or email) is only permissible when it is necessary to ensure work organization, full use of working time, or proper use of provided tools. Crucially, the purpose, scope, and method of monitoring must be clearly defined in work regulations or collective agreements, and employees must be informed about it. “Silent” surveillance is absolutely illegal.
What are examples of high-profile abuses of artificial intelligence in employee monitoring?
The history of recent years provides many examples that should serve as a warning to every company.
One of the most high-profile cases was Amazon’s use of automated systems to track warehouse worker productivity. The algorithm measured “idle time” and automatically generated terminations for people who did not meet stringent standards. Such a soulless, automated process was met with massive criticism worldwide as an example of work dehumanization.
Other examples include companies that used facial expression analysis software on candidates during job interviews to assess their “character,” which is a practice based on pseudoscience and leads to discrimination. There are also known cases where companies analyzed employee communication sentiment to identify people who were “negatively disposed” or potentially planning to form a union. All these examples show how easily powerful technology can be used unethically and harmfully.
What severe legal and financial consequences are there for violating employee privacy boundaries?
The consequences of illegal or excessive monitoring are very serious.
From a GDPR perspective, violation of employee data protection principles, especially on a large scale and using sensitive data, can lead to fines imposed by the President of the Personal Data Protection Office reaching up to 20 million euros or 4% of the total annual global turnover of the company.
From a labor law perspective, an employee who believes their privacy and dignity rights have been violated can assert their rights in labor court, demanding compensation or damages. In extreme cases, proving illegal mobbing using monitoring tools can lead to very high compensation awards.
Additionally, there are reputational consequences. Information that a company is unethically spying on its employees can destroy its reputation as an employer and make talent recruitment difficult for years.
What new, rigorous obligations for workplace monitoring will the AI Act introduce?
The EU AI Act regulation introduces an additional layer of regulation that directly addresses the risks associated with AI in the workplace.
Most AI systems used for monitoring and evaluating employees are classified as high-risk systems. This means that their producers and implementers must meet a number of rigorous requirements, such as conducting conformity assessments, ensuring high data quality, maintaining detailed documentation, and, above all, guaranteeing effective human oversight.
Moreover, the AI Act explicitly prohibits the use of some of the most invasive practices. These include the use of AI systems for emotion recognition in the workplace and in educational institutions. This means that tools that allegedly measure “engagement” based on facial expression analysis will be illegal in the European Union.
What are the best practices and golden rules of ethical and legally compliant monitoring?
If, after analyzing all the risks, a company still believes that implementing some form of monitoring is absolutely necessary, it must adhere to several iron rules.
First, radical transparency. Employees must know clearly and unambiguously what is being measured, how, for what purpose, and how this data will be used. Any attempt to hide or downplay the scope of monitoring is unacceptable.
Second, the principle of proportionality and minimization. Collect only the data that is absolutely necessary to achieve a clearly defined and justified purpose. If you want to measure the productivity of a development team, measure the number of completed tasks and code quality, not the number of keystrokes.
Third, use data for support, not punishment. Monitoring data should never be the sole basis for making decisions about firing or punishing an employee. It should be treated as a starting point for a coaching conversation, as a tool for identifying systemic problems, not for individual assessment.
What effective alternatives to invasive monitoring exist that build trust and engagement?
The best and most productive companies in the world do not base their success on surveillance. They base it on trust, autonomy, and a culture of responsibility. There are many proven, mature management methods that are a much more effective alternative to invasive monitoring.
The foundation is Management by Objectives (MBO). Instead of controlling how employees work, focus on what they should achieve. Define clear, measurable goals with them and give them autonomy in how they accomplish them. Evaluate them based on results, not on “mouse activity index.”
Another tool is regular, trust-based one-on-one conversations and feedback sessions. Instead of relying on algorithm data, regularly talk to your people. Ask them about progress, problems, and how you can help them.
Invest in building psychological safety and a culture of responsibility. In a team where people feel safe and are internally motivated to achieve common goals, invasive monitoring is not only unnecessary but actually harmful.
Strategic summary: what does the risk assessment framework for employee monitoring projects look like?
Before making a decision to implement any monitoring tool, conduct a rigorous risk assessment with your HR and legal team using this table as a guide.
Monitoring Purpose Sample Data Collected Main Risk (legal/ethical) Question You Must Ask Yourself? Less Invasive Alternative Security Assurance (DLP) Email and message content searching for sensitive data. Violation of correspondence privacy. Can the goal be achieved without content analysis, e.g., through metadata and permission analysis? Security training, permission management systems. “Productivity” Measurement Number of keystrokes, mouse movements, time spent in applications. Work dehumanization, enormous stress, promoting “performative work” rather than real results. Do I really believe that click count is a measure of creative work? Management by Objectives (MBO), evaluation based on actually delivered results. “Engagement” Assessment Facial expression analysis through camera, voice tone analysis. Extreme privacy violation, pseudoscience, high discrimination risk. Non-compliance with AI Act. Do I want to build a company based on trust or on technology that pretends to read minds? Regular 1-on-1 conversations, engagement surveys, building psychological safety.
How can EITT help your company implement a performance management strategy based on trust, not surveillance?
At EITT, we believe that the foundation of every high-performing organization is trust, not control. We understand that implementing monitoring tools, while tempting, is often a shortcut that leads to a dead end.
That’s why our development programs for leaders and HR departments focus on building mature, partnership-based leadership competencies. Our workshops on “Management by Objectives (MBO)”, “Situational Leadership”, or “Building Psychological Safety” give managers practical and ethical tools for motivating teams and managing their performance.
We also conduct specialized training on “AI, Law and Ethics in HR”, where, in collaboration with lawyers, we help leaders understand the complicated regulatory landscape and make informed, safe technology decisions.
Summary
Artificial intelligence offers powerful capabilities, but its application to employee monitoring is walking on extremely thin ice. The boundary between the employer’s justified interest and illegal surveillance is very thin, and the consequences of crossing it – both legal and cultural – can be catastrophic. Before you as a leader decide to implement any monitoring tool, ask yourself the fundamental question: “What problem am I really trying to solve, and isn’t there a better, more human way to do it?” In 99% of cases, the answer is: yes.
If you want to build a culture of high performance in your company based on trust, autonomy, and engagement rather than fear and control, contact us. Let’s talk about how we can support your leaders in this most important mission.
Read Also
- Employment Law and Ethics for Managers: Legal Pitfalls
- ‘Ethics and responsibility in AI: how to design and implement artificial intelligence in accordance with values and the law?’
- AI governance in practice: how to build ethical and legally compliant AI systems
Read also
- Employment Law and Ethics for Managers: Legal Pitfalls
- AIOps - How AI is Transforming IT Monitoring and Operations
- Ethics and responsibility in AI: how to design and implement artificial intelligence in accordance with values and the law?
Develop your skills
Want to deepen your knowledge in this area? Check out our training led by experienced EITT instructors.
➡️ AI for the professional: ethics, productivity and risk management — EITT training
Frequently Asked Questions
Is it legal to use AI to monitor employee productivity during remote work?
Employers may implement limited productivity monitoring during remote work, but only if it meets the principles of proportionality and transparency required by GDPR and Polish labor law. The monitoring scope, purpose, and methods must be clearly defined in work regulations, and employees must be informed in advance. Invasive methods such as continuous camera surveillance or keystroke logging carry significant legal risk.
What is the difference between acceptable performance measurement and illegal surveillance under EU law?
Acceptable performance measurement focuses on work outcomes and uses proportionate, transparent methods that employees are informed about, such as tracking task completion or project milestones. Illegal surveillance involves covert, disproportionate, or biometric data collection that violates employee dignity, such as secret emotion analysis, continuous screen recording without consent, or monitoring private communications.
How does the AI Act affect existing employee monitoring tools already deployed in companies?
The AI Act requires companies to review and reclassify their existing AI monitoring tools according to the regulation’s risk categories. Systems classified as high-risk must undergo conformity assessments, maintain detailed documentation, and ensure human oversight, while those using prohibited practices like emotion recognition in the workplace must be discontinued entirely.
What should a company do if employees raise concerns about AI-based monitoring practices?
Companies should establish a transparent grievance mechanism where employees can raise monitoring concerns without fear of retaliation. The organization should conduct a Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) for the monitoring system, involve employee representatives in the review process, and be prepared to modify or discontinue monitoring practices that cannot be justified under proportionality and necessity principles.