Data Broker Veterans Launch Employee Surveillance Firm Drawing Privacy Concerns
ClearForce's patented system monitors workers' social media, finances and personal lives to predict misconduct before it occurs
ClearForce Inc., a Vienna, Va.-based technology firm, has developed what it calls "predictive behavioral analysis" software that continuously monitors employees' personal lives to identify potential security risks before misconduct occurs. The company's patented system tracks workers' social media activity, financial records, legal issues, and what it terms "social determinants of health" to generate real-time alerts for employers.
The company was awarded U.S. Patent No. 11,961,029 in April 2024 for "Systems & Methods for Electronically Monitoring Employees to Determine Potential Risk," marking a significant development in workplace surveillance technology that privacy advocates say resembles science fiction.
Founded in 2015, ClearForce markets its Resolve platform to government agencies and Fortune 500 companies, including the Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security, American Express, Live Nation, and Visa. The company employs 29 people and has achieved profitability while raising capital from investors including Centricus and Capital Factory.
Data Broker Leadership Raises Questions
The company's board of directors includes several former executives from major data brokerage firms that experienced significant security breaches and regulatory violations. Dann Adams, who joined ClearForce's board in 2019, served as president of Equifax Global Consumer Solutions during the 2017 data breach that exposed personal information of 147 million Americans. Equifax ultimately paid $575 million in settlements related to the breach.
Board member Harry Gambill served as CEO of TransUnion from 1992 to 2007, during which time the Federal Trade Commission found the company illegally selling consumer data to marketers in 2001. Another board member, Norman Willox Jr., previously served as chief privacy officer at LexisNexis, which faced multiple lawsuits for allegedly collecting and selling personal information without consent.
The board also includes former CIA and military officials: Anna Cotton, a former assistant general counsel at the CIA, and retired General James Jones, who served 40 years in the U.S. Marine Corps and later as National Security Advisor.
Technology Tracks Multiple Data Sources
ClearForce's system aggregates information from what the company describes as "thousands of locations," including criminal records, financial data, social media posts, and dark web activity. The platform also incorporates "social determinants of health," which the company describes as "patient level data" used to analyze environmental, financial, and legal risk factors.
"ClearForce delivers a paradigm shift in how organizations approach employee risk management, helping them move from a reactive to a proactive model," said Tom Miller, CEO of ClearForce. The company says its technology helps address workplace fraud, theft, violence, and security threats.
The system generates automated alerts when it detects anomalies in employee behavior patterns, such as social media posts indicating personal stress, financial difficulties, or legal problems. Employers can then investigate or take action before any workplace incident occurs.
Growing Surveillance Market Amid Privacy Concerns
The employee monitoring software market grew by 75% in 2022 and is projected to reach $1.5 billion by 2032. However, research indicates that pervasive workplace surveillance can undermine worker productivity and create psychological stress.
Currently, no comprehensive federal law regulates the extent to which employers can monitor workers in the U.S., with most policies governed by inconsistent state laws. Privacy advocates argue that extensive workplace monitoring "undermines worker power" and disproportionately affects vulnerable employees.
Studies suggest that continuous surveillance can create anxiety and reduce employee trust. Researchers have documented cases where employees develop "social anxiety disorder" from constant workplace monitoring, leading to hypervigilance and mental health issues.
Industry Response and Future Outlook
Some states are implementing new regulations modeled after Europe's General Data Protection Regulation to address growing surveillance concerns. Companies are also grappling with the challenge of monitoring remote workers while respecting privacy rights.
ClearForce maintains that its system includes "unique controls for initial anonymity, privacy and legal compliance" and requires employee consent. The company positions its technology as essential for national security and organizational safety in an era of increasing insider threats.
As workplace surveillance technology becomes more sophisticated, the debate over employee privacy rights versus security concerns is likely to intensify, particularly as artificial intelligence and machine learning capabilities expand monitoring possibilities beyond traditional methods.
Sidebar: Constitutional Privacy vs. Workplace Surveillance
The expansion of workplace monitoring technologies like ClearForce's system raises fundamental questions about the clash between constitutional privacy rights and employer surveillance powers.
The Foundation of Privacy Rights
The constitutional right to privacy, while not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, was established by the Supreme Court in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965). The Court ruled that privacy rights exist within "penumbras" formed by emanations from the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments. Justice William O. Douglas wrote for the majority that various constitutional guarantees "create zones of privacy" that are fundamental to personal liberty.
Workplace Privacy Limitations
However, the Supreme Court's landmark 1987 decision in O'Connor v. Ortega significantly limited privacy expectations in the workplace. The Court ruled that public employees retain Fourth Amendment protections, but that "operational realities" of the workplace may reduce or eliminate reasonable expectations of privacy.
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's plurality opinion established that workplace searches must balance "the employee's legitimate expectation of privacy against the government's need for supervision, control, and the efficient operation of the workplace." The Court applied a "reasonableness" standard rather than requiring warrants or probable cause for workplace searches.
Key Court Precedents
O'Connor v. Ortega (1987): Established that government employees have reduced privacy expectations at work and that administrative searches require only "reasonable suspicion" rather than warrants.
City of Ontario v. Quon (2010): The Supreme Court upheld a city's search of a police officer's personal text messages on a work-issued pager, finding the search reasonable for determining the adequacy of the city's wireless service contract. The Court emphasized that "employer policies concerning communications will of course shape the reasonable expectations of their employees."
Private vs. Public Sector
The Fourth Amendment only applies to government employers, not private companies. Private sector employees have even fewer constitutional protections against surveillance. Federal laws like the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) provide some protection, but employers can generally monitor communications if they have a legitimate business reason and obtain employee consent.
State Law Variations
Some states provide stronger privacy protections: California, Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina explicitly guarantee privacy rights in their state constitutions. Connecticut and New York require written notice to employees about monitoring activities.
The Current Legal Reality
Courts consistently rule in favor of employers in workplace surveillance cases, finding that employees have "reduced expectation of privacy in the workplace" and that employers' business interests outweigh privacy concerns. Privacy violations are typically only found when surveillance is "physically invasive" with "no legitimate business purpose," such as cameras in bathrooms.
Off-Duty Surveillance: The Expanding Gray Zone
The legal landscape becomes more complex when considering employers' rights to monitor employees outside the workplace. ClearForce's system specifically tracks employees' off-duty activities, including social media posts, financial problems, and legal issues—areas where privacy protections should theoretically be stronger.
However, employer surveillance of off-duty conduct faces several legal constraints:
National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) Protection: The NLRA prohibits employers from monitoring employees' union activities or "protected concerted activity" even when it occurs outside work. This includes employees discussing working conditions, wages, or workplace issues on social media platforms like Facebook or Twitter. Recent NLRB General Counsel memos have emphasized protection against "intrusive or abusive electronic monitoring."
State Law Variations: Some states provide stronger off-duty privacy protections. California Labor Code Section 435 prohibits employers from requiring social media passwords and protects employees from adverse action based on lawful off-duty conduct. California's constitution also provides an "inalienable right" to privacy. Several states have laws prohibiting employers from accessing personal social media accounts.
Limited Federal Protection: For private employers, federal law provides minimal protection against off-duty surveillance. The Electronic Communications Privacy Act allows monitoring with employee consent or legitimate business purpose. Unlike government employees, private sector workers have no Fourth Amendment protections.
Practical Reality: Despite these limitations, employers can often legally monitor publicly available information about employees, including social media posts, court records, and other publicly accessible data—exactly the type of information ClearForce aggregates. The key distinction is between accessing private communications (generally prohibited) versus publicly available information (generally permitted).
This creates a legal paradox: while Americans enjoy broad constitutional privacy rights in their personal lives, those protections largely evaporate not only at the workplace but increasingly extend into off-duty activities through systems like ClearForce's comprehensive monitoring platform.
Sources
- PR Newswire. "ClearForce Awarded U.S. Patent for Continuous Employee Risk Monitoring Technology." May 2, 2024. https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/clearforce-awarded-us-patent-for-continuous-employee-risk-monitoring-technology-302133601.html
- PitchBook. "ClearForce 2025 Company Profile: Valuation, Funding & Investors." 2024. https://pitchbook.com/profiles/company/163579-42
- ClearForce. "Dann Adams." Company website. https://www.clearforce.com/dann-adams
- PR Web. "Equifax's Dann Adams Joins ClearForce Board of Directors." November 20, 2019. https://www.prweb.com/releases/equifax-s-dann-adams-joins-clearforce-board-of-directors-818173247.html
- Federal Trade Commission. "Equifax to Pay $575 Million as Part of Settlement with FTC, CFPB, and States Related to 2017 Data Breach." July 22, 2019. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2019/07/equifax-pay-575-million-part-settlement-ftc-cfpb-states-related-2017-data-breach
- Kisi. "The State of Employee Privacy and Surveillance in 2024." 2024. https://www.getkisi.com/blog/state-employee-privacy-surveillance
- Washington Center for Equitable Growth. "Workplace surveillance is becoming the new normal for U.S. workers." November 5, 2024. https://equitablegrowth.org/research-paper/workplace-surveillance-is-becoming-the-new-normal-for-u-s-workers/
- ActivTrak. "The Top 8 Employee Monitoring Trends Happening in 2024." July 9, 2024. https://www.activtrak.com/blog/employee-monitoring-trends/
- Journal of Information Technology Teaching Cases. "Employees and workplace surveillance: Tensions and ways forward." 2024. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/20438869221142027
- Pitch VC. "ClearForce, Inc." Company profile. https://pitch.vc/companies/clearforce-inc
- Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/381/479/
- O'Connor v. Ortega, 480 U.S. 709 (1987). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/480/709/
- City of Ontario v. Quon, 560 U.S. 746 (2010). U.S. Supreme Court.
- FindLaw. "Employees' Rights to Privacy." August 30, 2017. https://corporate.findlaw.com/human-resources/employees-rights-to-privacy.html
- Jibble. "Employee Monitoring - US Law Case Studies." January 4, 2024. https://www.jibble.io/article/employee-monitoring-us-legal-case-studies
- Nolo. "Monitoring Employees' Off-Duty Conduct." January 24, 2025. https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/monitoring-employees-off-duty-conduct-29994.html
- National Labor Relations Board. "NLRB General Counsel Issues Memo on Unlawful Electronic Surveillance and Automated Management Practices." October 31, 2022. https://www.nlrb.gov/news-outreach/news-story/nlrb-general-counsel-issues-memo-on-unlawful-electronic-surveillance-and
- CDF Labor Law LLP. "The Challenges and Risks When Private Employers Regulate Employees' Off-Duty Conduct in California." 2024. https://www.callaborlaw.com/entry/the-challenges-and-risks-when-private-employers-regulate-employees-off-duty-conduct-in-california
- Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman. "The Legalities of Employee Monitoring and Privacy in California Workplaces." April 4, 2024. https://www.toddflaw.com/blog/the-legalities-of-employee-monitoring-and-privacy-in-california-workplaces/
No comments:
Post a Comment