Where monitoring enforces organisational rules, those rules should be clearly set out and regularly brought to workers' attention, and the policy should describe the nature, purpose and extent of monitoring; the ICO's example is an acceptable use policy linked to privacy information explaining how the rules are monitored, how the information is used and the safeguards. Workers form expectations from what actually happens, not only from policy: excessive monitoring is not made lawful by being written down, and a tolerated practice (some personal calls) cannot be policed by pointing to a policy that bans it. Blocking sites or requiring acceptance of conditions can reduce the need to monitor.
This control maps to 1 controls across 1 other frameworks. If you already hold one of them, the evidence you collected for it is the starting point here rather than new work.
Every mapping shown was judged rather than inferred from wording similarity, and the ones that failed review are published too. See the coverage reports and what was rejected.
The graph holds this control, the 1 it maps to, and the evidence behind each claim, over MCP and REST.