You can refuse. But your prospective employer can also refuse to consider you for the position. Even if you decline on the principle that you're protecting your privacy rights, you've got one big strike against you: you'll probably be seen as someone with something to hide. Potentially, you're damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Employers need to protect themselves. There's the issue of employee theft which is in the billions of dollars. And there are sabotage, productivity, security and lawsuits that have companies peering into the lives of prospective employees with intensive background checks via fingerprints, civil court records and personality tests.

And once you're in, a company may employ other expensive and time-consuming surveillance tactics.

But things seem to have gone a bit far. Technology now makes it possible for employers to gather enormous amounts of data about you that's often far beyond what's necessary to satisfy safety or productivity concerns, says Frederick S. Lane III, author of The Naked Employee: How Technology is Compromising Workplace Privacy (Amacom.)

The problem with "the right to privacy" is that it's not yet widely recognized as a fundamental human right, or at least has not yet become one, says Lane. And when a privacy interest "comes in conflict with property rights, privacy is typically the loser."

It's reasonable to provide a certain amount of data about yourself. But "increasingly, employers are interested in hiring employees who will not expose the company to additional costs and liability." So more poking around can "can quickly turn into a highly invasive review of your personal life," he adds.

The personality test can be an example. The big threat to your privacy is that they're used to ask improper questions or gather private information, says Lane. This was the case in 1993, when a class action suit was filed by job applicants of the retailer, Target.

Target administered the test which asked over 700 true/false questions including: "I believe in the second coming of Christ." "I have never engaged in unusual sex practices." Settling the suit, Target still defended the test, claiming it successfully weeded out emotionally unstable candidates, says Lane.

Once you're an employee, beware--even if you telecommute. "There's little likelihood that your company would go to the trouble of making you wear an infrared badge system to see just how much time you spend in front of the TV." But, "...bringing a company computer into your home is the equivalent of giving your employer a key to the front door."

Is there anything you can do? First, assume you have no privacy at work. Limit or avoid personal calls and e-mails. If you feel strongly about workplace privacy, let your legislators know. Although Congress has considered adopting some legislation to protect employee privacy, it hasn't passed. But that doesn't mean you should give up.

Today, employers gain "an essentially unfettered examination" of your private life through a broad, generally-worded grant of permission, says Lane. He's lobbying for an employee privacy bill of rights which includes the requirement for employers to provide you with:

• the nature and scope of information being sought
• sources from which the information would be obtained
• methods by which information would be obtained
• specific, work-related purposes for which the information is being sought.

This disclosure would let you make an informed decision about whether or not to apply for a job at a particular company. As Lane says, privacy shouldn't be about fear. It should be about choice.

© by Andrea Kay