Just stopped RescueTime and moved to trash. I'm not really sure about it politically, but that change does bug me. And frankly, I'm not getting that much value from the service anyways. Maybe that's a result of their new niche and loss of focus on the "rescue" part. Thanks for the tip.

> Unlike many professions where ethical decisions must be made everyday... we in the software business are often (though not always) engaged in ethically inert pursuits

This attitude is the real problem. There scarcely exists such a thing as an ethically inert pursuit. I am reminded of a proposal I once read for something like a Hippocratic Oath for programmers:

http://glyf.livejournal.com/46589.html

Sorry to disappoint! FWIW, I think that painting this as "sinister" or exclusively financially motivated is way off base (our blog post talks about a lot of other motivations that you chose not to mention in your response).

We still have strong opinions that there is a "right" way to use a tool like RescueTime in the workplace (or at least a BEST way), but we've moved to be a bit more agnostic in terms of pushing our beliefs onto other people-- we're not going tell them how to run their businesses. It's our hope that we can meet them halfway (but NOT move so far as to screen capture, scrape emails, grab IM conversations, etc) and then have the luxury to persuade them that there is a better way (with hard data showing that it IS a better way). But if they aren't our customer, we don't have that luxury.

The good news is that, of the 75% of workplaces that monitor employees, 80% of 'em disclose the fact, which we feel is the right thing to do (data from: http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs7-work.htm ). Every customer that we've talked about this was more interested in limiting employee controls to the software than they are in "stealth". There's a really good essay on the ethics here at: http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v9n2/brother.html -- It outlines the case for and against pretty well-- the bit that's REALLY worth reading is the "Some Possibilities for Common Ground" section.

We feel that employers are entitled to ask how employees are spending time-- and we feel that they are entitled to the truth when they DO ask. When used properly, RescueTime can provide this data without requiring the manager to hover and the employee to do a lot of timekeeping-- so we think that's a win. With transparency, people generally spend less time at work, but more time on the things that they identify as productive-- we've got piles of data to back that up. RescueTime in the workplace helps people SPEND LESS TIME AT WORK.

Employers who want to monitor folks are going to find a vendor. If they find us, they'll continue to receive data nudging them in a more collaborative direction. If they don't, they probably won't. We think that allowing this direction ultimately will allow us to do good things in the workplace. And yes, part of that is just plain financial survival. We can't push our agenda of collaborative/open time management if we don't make money any more than Google can give away search without showing ads that look like search results (aside: when I tell my mom to click on the first result in a search, do you think she clicks on the result or the barely-not-white ad that looks like a result right above it?).

Anyhoo-- we do appreciate the feedback (and we BubbleTimer!).

@asciilifeform Interesting. We must have quite different views on what makes something ethically active or inert. Let's take two examples, BubbleTimer and Less Accounting (http://lessaccounting.com/). What about either of these is ethically relevant?

Sean

@Tony I didn't mean to overlook any motivations. I went back and re-read your post and I still don't see them. I do see 3 bullets.

1. People wanted it (financial)
2. Revenue and profit (financial)
3. Understand the value in the open product (confusing)

This 3rd one confused me and still does on 2nd reading. I read the first part of it to say that the "closed" offering will prove that the "open" offering truly does provide more productivity. If that's what you are out to prove, then I'm not sure the test results are worth the cost of the test.

But I'm not even sure if that's what you're saying, because you go on to hint that you expect to be able to disclose an even more dramatic number than the 9% boost in productivity. I am confused, but I can only take that to mean you expect the closed product to be more effective than the open product. Or where is this big number coming from? And if that is what you are saying, then why do you expect those results? Is that because you think the fear inspired by users knowing they are being monitored by the closed product will provide an even bigger boost?

I'm sorry Tony, but I just don't see where you post provides the alternative purer motivations that you allude to.

Thank you for taking the time to reply.
Sean

Wow. I oughta re-read my post-- I literally can't imagine it being read that way.

No, we don't expect the restricted mode to be more effective than the open/collaborative alternative. Sorry if I wasn't clear there-- we expect the opposite to be true (I think we'd have to be lobotomized to think otherwise). The point is that 75% of businesses monitor their employees. We think there's a better way (get it in the open, get employees involved and seeing their own data), but we really don't have any data to back that up other than the 9% number (but we really don't have a "control" to compare that to). Pretty soon, we think we will. And we'll have relationships with customers to whom we can say, "Look-- customers of our open product enjoy a 20% increase in efficiency over customers like you. Why not get your team involved and measure to see if there is any change that you can see in the data?"

Again, our motivations aren't pure-- we're a business. But the sure as heck aren't pure evil and the 5 of us are still coming to work excited about the positive effect we're having on business teams. As with the issue of employee monitoring (did you read those two essays I linked to?), it's not a black and white issue.

Question to you: Do you think a manager has the right to say, "How did you spend your week?" to a team member and has a right to an honest response? Assuming the manager discloses that monitoring is occurring, isn't that in the same ethical ballpark? If a manager says, "John, it seems like your on Facebook a lot," and John says, "It's really less than 15 minutes per day-- promise!", would it be bad for a manager to say, "Okay, John--I think perception can be a tricky thing, so let's measure that for a month and see what it adds up to."?

I guess my point here is that RescueTime in the hands of an asshole manager can be a nasty thing, just as Craigslist can be a tool for predators, a bar can be a generator of drunk drivers, and a gun can be an instrument of death. But in the hands of a good manager, we think RescueTime (in both modes) can be a positive force for everyone involved and shine light into some dark corners that really need it.

@Tony, I really appreciate your willingness to discuss this. I think we are narrowing in on the core issues.

If you're saying the big number you expect to be able to disclose is how much more efficient the users of the open tool are than users of the closed tool, then that's good. I'm glad you expect that. I would too. Your post didn't read that way to me.

If that is your expectation, then it seems odd you are creating a version of your software that you think will make your users less efficient than the current version. Those are the kinds of feature requests I say no to.

To answer your question to me, I absolutely think an employer has the right to ask that question and expect an honest answer. I think it's a pretty dumb question to ask though. A good question to ask is "what did you accomplish this week?" Who cares how the employee spent the week? That really shouldn't be a smart employers concern. If an employee exceeds the employer's expectations for what she'd accomplish that week then why does the employer care how much time they spent on facebook?

The scenario you layout (Manager helping John realize how much time he is spending on Facebook) does not represent the scenario I'm objecting to. If an employer that was concerned about John's productivity and so offered to pay for a tool like RescueTime to help him, that is a ethically upstanding and commendable employer. In fact, I kept quiet about RescueTime's lurch into marketing itself as an employee monitoring tool until you crossed the line and removed the employees ability to see the data too.

How are the Manager and John better served in your scenario by John not being able to see the RescueTime data? That makes no sense at all. This is no longer about helping John and you know it.

Yes, Craiglist can used ethically or it can be misused by predators. That wouldn't provide any ethical excuse for the developers working on Craigslist if they were putting in predator friendly features because that's what the predators asked for.

I did read the essays you pointed to.

Thanks,
Sean

Likewise thanks for the even-tempered discussion. Monitoring is an emotional issue and it's cool to be able to discuss it without tooooo much mudslingin'. :-)

I can see lots of scenarios where a restricted version isn't bad. If you managed a team of 50 phone/email support folks with low pay rate, high turnover, and a 10% "lazy good-for-nothing-hire-who's-good-at-hiding-it" rate, it might not be a wonderful thing to invest in shaping good time management habits for every new hire. I think it'd be fine to say in the interview, "Hey, just FYI-- we do monitor which apps and sites are being used-- it helps us understand the pulse of our business. To give you a baseline sense of things, here's a printout of the average person on your team." i.e. the customer is looking for a business intelligence tool with a side-effect of keeping folks honest without having to micromanage 'em-- they aren't looking for a productivity tool, per se. We think that's ok.

It's a tough issue for us. We have some strong beliefs on what people SHOULD buy. That doesn't necessarily map to what all of them WILL buy. Our hope is that we can meet a whole new audience halfway with a toolthat doesn't get into reading emails and such and drag as many of them the rest of the way there with overwhelming evidence.

One interesting note: Offering the restricted version has actually increased sales of the open version. So, if we can agree that the open version is a good thing (I hope we can!), then offering this version has had immediate positive effect on that front. I'm not sure what conclusions to draw from that, but I think it's interesting (and good!).

Gah, I need to get back slingin' pixels and css. Keep rockin' with BubbleTimer!

> We feel that employers are entitled to ask how employees are spending time-- and we feel that they are entitled to the truth when they DO ask.

And when a lowly cube grunt asks whether he will be included in a planned lay-off next quarter, or whether another salt-mine slave is paid more than he is because he played golf with the CEO's brother-in-law, is he also entitled to the truth?

Building such tools undeniably alters the balance of power between employees and employers. And there is no doubt as to in which direction.

Tony, I tend to agree with Sean and the others on this. I think a strong case can be made to anyone who wants to use a "closed" version (where employees can't see the data) that using an open version is better for everyone, because it allows employees to adjust their own behavior - it empowers them to make a change, rather than to just get yelled at or fired if they're not doing it right. Perhaps a better way to approach that would be to build the corporate version with employer-set rules about how much time *should* be spent doing various things (for example, encouraging people to use less than 30 minutes a day on gmail / facebook). It could even pop up warnings on the screen like "You've spent 25 minutes surfing the web so far today, and your employer suggests no more than 30, so you should consider wrapping up what you're doing for today" (probably with employer-defined or partial boilerplate language). It would still report on it to management, but when the employees see it for themselves, they're much more likely to be self-monitoring, and everybody wins.

You obviously care about making good software, so please do consider the possibility that this development is *not* good software.

Just want to add in that as a Supervisor who has folks who have difficulty identifying there time issues (myself included...that's why I am here), it may be helpful to them to clarify the root causes through deploying RescueTime. I really don't see the problem with it as long as it is used for coaching purposes initially and only for discipline in the worst case scenario. Also , it should really only be deployed for those who have time management as an issue. I work hard, and I wouldn't mind my boss seeing what I am doing, and offering suggestions based on their experience. Just my 2 cents.

Just to add a data point, my last day at work is tomorrow. I quit 3 weeks ago. One of the reasons that helped me make this decision was the deployment of monitoring spyware. This kind of software generates deep resentment in every employee that knows about it.

One day one of the developers was wondering aloud on the team group chat what this random exe running was. We looked it up and found it it was monitoring spyware. The IT department blew up. Management later admitted to having installed it on all workstations a while back and it was really only to make sure employees weren't engaging in IP theft, not to individually monitor employees.

Everyone hates it. The only ones that don't are the ones doing the spying.

I didn't hate it because I'm a slacker, I hated it because it's a message from the company to me that I'm not a professional and can't be trusted.

Anonymous,

Thanks for that data point. I'm sorry about your job. I hope you had luck finding a better one.

Your comment goes right to the heart of the point I was trying to make to Tony. RescueTime is a great tool, when used for self improvement and coaching, it's a great thing. But for employers to do deny information to employees, information that is about them, is ethically wrong according to my moral compass. As software professionals we should not be contributing our efforts to things we feel our unethical. Clearly Tony's moral compass and mine point in different directions on this. We've agreed to disagree.

Thanks,
Sean