Typically when we read about privacy issues in the workplace, it’s stories about employers spying on employees. The use of “bossware” – software that tracks employees’ PC activity during the day – has become widespread. A 2026 study found that 91% of surveyed Australian employers use software to monitor their workers.
But what happens when employees turn the tables on their employers and instead spy on them? This is what happened recently in the US to two software engineers who were dismissed by social media giant Pinterest.
In January 2026, Pinterest announced that it would make around 15% of its workforce redundant. This meant that 700 employees would be let go as part of the company’s strategy of prioritising “AI-focused roles and teams.” Pinterest, however, kept details of the redundancies under wraps, even to its own workforce. Many within the company did not know which teams or individuals were impacted by the layoffs.
During a company-wide meeting, Pinterest management explicitly stated that they would not disclose the names of affected employees. They cited privacy concerns for those departing the organisation. So this is when the two software engineers decided to act. The duo, whose names were never made public, created a computer code that monitored the internal communication tools used within Pinterest by staff.
The code specifically monitored account deactivations. Users would get an alert when an employee’s name was removed or deactivated from an internal communication tool. The two engineers shared their alert system with other staff, allowing them to see who had been deactivated and therefore were likely made redundant.
When Pinterest management discovered their internal communications channels were being surveilled in this way, the two engineers were immediately fired. In a statement to the media, the company slammed the duo for “improperly accessing confidential company information.” Specifically, for sharing the locations and names of dismissed staff. Pinterest said that this was a “clear violation” of “their former colleagues’ privacy.”
Pinterest CEO Bill Ready addressed the incident during an all-staff meeting, labelling the employees as “obstructionist.” He maintained that while healthy debate is welcome, there is a clear distinction between constructive dissent and behaviour that actively undermines the company. He further suggested that employees misaligned with the company’s mission should consider finding employment elsewhere.
While the reaction of Pinterest staff to the dismissals is muted for obvious reasons, public opinion has been sceptical of the social media giant’s reasoning. On Reddit, commenters viewed the “obstructionist” label as a tactical move by management. One user argued that the term was simply “corporate speak for ‘we’re mad that you made us look bad.'”
Another commenter questioned Pinterest’s “employee privacy” justification for firing the engineers. They said that workplace privacy laws “protect individual data, not a public company’s obligation to disclose to investors who they cut.” They said that “you don’t usually fire the people tracking internal data unless that data has become a liability.”
Some commenters, however, criticised the engineers for choosing a path that risked their careers. One user advised that “the most destructive thing you can do for your own life” is to prioritise company politics over personal stability. They suggested that employees should focus on self-preservation by “taking the paycheck for as long as you can” rather than engaging in risky dissent that may lead to termination.
The story of the Pinterest engineers is a rare situation where the employer, rather than the employee, was being monitored. A 2026 report by the Human Technology Institute at the University of Technology Sydney, Surveillance Creep, looked into how rapidly employers have adopted high-intensity surveillance technology. A central finding of the report is that while employers are rapidly deploying these systems, there is a large perception gap among the staff being monitored.
The report found that 91% of surveyed Australian employers monitor their remote workers’ locations. However, only 43% of surveyed Australian workers were aware that some employers use technology or AI to monitor them. Meanwhile, 9% of workers did not even know that such monitoring was occurring in their workplaces.
The Surveillance Creep report detailed the range of employee surveillance technology available on the Australian market. It said that these are not only being used by employers in corporate offices to monitor remote workers. They’re being used to monitor workers across many industries, including retail, factories and trucking.
These tools generally fall into several key categories:
The Surveillance Creep report cited recent polling by the Minderoo Foundation. The poll found that 75% of workers believed that monitoring should only be used when it is clearly communicated and strictly necessary to check if they are fulfilling the requirements of their role.
When forced to choose, 52% of workers viewed tech-enabled surveillance as a fundamental breach of trust and workplace privacy. This compared to 38% who believed employers have an inherent right to monitor performance. Workers were more likely to accept monitoring when it is used for protective or educational purposes. This includes protecting company property (69%), promoting work health and safety (68%), or for training purposes (65%).
They were less likely to approve of tech-enabled surveillance when the primary goal is perceived as restrictive or managerial. 44% of workers approved of surveillance to track productivity, while 39% approved it when used to observe and manage worker behaviour.
The type of technology used also dictated the level of concern. Workers expressed high levels of discomfort regarding audio surveillance (72%), live-screen monitoring (71%), location tracking (71%) and emotion recognition (70%).
The Surveillance Creep report noted that using such invasive monitoring tools can erode trust between employers and workers. It can also increase staff turnover and encourage counterproductive behaviours like rule-breaking. The report also highlighted that unreasonable surveillance is linked to increased stress, mental health issues and physical injury. This is because workers are pressured to maintain unsustainable paces or fear constant, punitive scrutiny.
It also creates a “chilling effect” on worker rights, as the knowledge of being watched can discourage employees from joining unions or moving and speaking freely.
In Australia, workplace surveillance comes under a complex and often inconsistent patchwork of federal privacy laws, state-specific surveillance legislation, and workplace health and safety statutes. Because these laws have struggled to keep pace with the rapid advancement of workplace monitoring tools, they often fail to outline what constitutes unreasonable surveillance. This ambiguity leaves workers inadequately protected against intrusive monitoring.
The current system relies heavily on the concept of consent. One of the authors of the Surveillance Creep report, the Human Technology Institute’s Sarah Sacher, noted that “workers are often taken to ‘consent’ to highly-intrusive surveillance” when they sign their employment contract. She said that employment contracts are often vague about the types of surveillance used. Sacher believes that “consent cannot be free and informed when a person’s job is hanging in the balance.”
The Human Technology Institute’s professor Edward Santow, co-author of the Surveillance Creep report, said that new types of employee surveillance technology intrude on workers’ private lives in an “unprecedented” manner. He said that the laws governing their use are “complicated and dangerously out of date,” noting that workers “don’t have robust protections” against unlawful monitoring. Santow said that employers often “don’t know where the line is” between lawful and unlawful workplace monitoring.
In the Surveillance Creep report, the Human Technology Institute advocated for a “fair and reasonable” test to be integrated into law. This would require employers to prove that any monitoring is necessary, proportionate and respects the human rights of their workers.
A recent example of an Australian employer that made headlines for its invasive monitoring of employees is online compliance training company Safetrac. In early 2025, the company was frustrated with the perceived underperformance of its remote staff. To solve this, they turned to a US-based monitoring software called Teramind. While many employees are used to basic “bossware” that tracks idle time or browser history, Teramind is far more invasive.
A UK investigation found that once installed on a worker’s laptop, Teramind monitors nearly all activity. It allows an employer to view the screens of workers in real-time and provides live analytics about their laptop activity. For instance, if a worker accesses a job listing website, Teramind can send a ‘behaviour alert.’ The software can also send an alert if a worker’s email is deemed to have an ‘angry’ sentiment.
At Safetrac, the Teramind software was configured to record desktop screens and to activate the microphones of employee laptops by default. Employees said that this was done without their knowledge or consent. The default recording meant that the company was capturing the ambient audio of people’s private residences for up to ten hours a day. Employees were recorded for a period of around two months.
The fallout began when staff discovered the true extent of the surveillance. It wasn’t just Microsoft Teams meetings being recorded. The software was sensitive enough to pick up the sounds of children whispering in the next room, private phone calls to doctors, and late-night venting sessions between colleagues. To avoid the audio surveillance, Safetrac employees reportedly hid their laptops in closets when not in use. Some stepped out onto the street to take personal calls.
In 2025, two Safetrac employees lodged Fair Work unfair dismissal claims. They had complained to Safetrac management that the company had violated their workplace privacy due to the surveillance. Their primary contention was that the audio recordings were not only a breach of state surveillance laws but also a violation of the Australian Privacy Principles. The employees also complained about the workplace privacy violations to the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner, WorkSafe and the Victoria Police.
Not long after making their complaint to management, Safetrac allegedly locked them out of its systems without notice nor giving them a reason why. The two employees were both allegedly dismissed within weeks.
In its response to one of the Fair Work unfair dismissal claims, Safetrac argued that the employee was underperforming. It claimed that data from Teramind showed they were idle for a significant portion of the workday. For the other employee, the company pointed to a private text message sent to a colleague in which the worker described the company environment as the “wild west.” Safetrac argued that such a characterisation posed a serious risk to the firm’s commercial reputation and justified immediate dismissal.
Under the Fair Work Act 2009, an employer cannot dismiss a worker for exercising a workplace right. This includes making a complaint or inquiry in relation to their employment. The dismissed employees argued that by raising the alarm about covert audio recording, they were performing a protected act. In late 2025, it was reported that one of the employees reached a settlement with Safetrac via a Fair Work Commission unfair dismissal conciliation.
Read more: Why the Epstein Files Matter – And Why They Should Matter to All Workplaces
Australian Workplace Discrimination Representatives assists employees across Australia with unfair dismissal claims, general protections disputes, workplace complaints and other employment-related matters. If you’ve been monitored without your knowledge, disciplined unfairly, or lost your job after speaking up, you may be eligible to lodge a Fair Work Commission claim.
Your initial consultation with us is free and private. Strict time limits apply to many Fair Work claims, so contact us today on 1800 333 666.
