When Does Video Surveillance Go Too Far?

openbear asks: "Last year the loft complex that I live in installed video cameras at the front gate so residents can see their visitors before they buzz them in. I have no problem with this, by itself it is a cool idea/ Now a small group of overprotective residents have convinced the property management to install video cameras in all of the main hallways on each floor of our building. This is where I have a problem. The reason is because the locations for the new video cameras will wind up capturing the front doors of about twenty residents in the building. Add the fact that the video feeds from these new cameras will be recorded and saved for two months and the situation gets legally-questionable quickly. So here is my question: We have all become accustom to video surveillance cameras in public places. We don't think twice about a camera in a department store or in the hallway of a hotel, but how would you feel about cameras in the building that you call home? Isn't there some law stopping the property management from recording who goes in and out of peoples apartments even if it is done by accident?" Updated!

Update: 06/05 5PM EST by C :Sean M. Bober sends in this related question, which attempts to put a humorous spin on things while asking a very important question: "Recently, my 'technical lead' has taken a liking to setting his webcam on the cubicle wall so that he can observe us working. First of all, I would like some fun and creative ways to get him back. Secondly, I would like some feedback as to the ethics of this situation. Finally, I would like some discussion as to it's long-term impact on employee morale..."

Comments

the problem is not surveilance, it's secrecy

[Jamie Zawinski]

What if everyone had access to those cameras? For example, what if they were broadcast on extra channels on the cable TV system inside the building (this is trivially easy to do, it's a $10 part.)

The thing that people find disturbing about surveilance is not that they are being watched, but that they are being watched by some authority who is not accountable.

It's about disparity of power.

If everybody can see, then nobody cares. You can easily observe this by the care-free way people walk down the street, and eat in public restaurants. When you are all on equal footing, lack of privacy is not a big deal. It's just called ``being out in public.''

David Brin wrote an interesting book about this called The Transparent Society, which was based on an article he wrote in Wired a few years ago.

Re:the problem is not surveilance, it's secrecy

[Ron Bennett]

Some buildings for senior citizens here in Reading, Pennsylvania have had such setups since the 80s - all residents have access to multiple video camera feeds on their TVs - to change to a different camera view, they just change the channel.

Re:hey Sean try this

[sharkey]

Run the "3D Maze" screensaver that comes with Windows, replace all the textures with a psychedelic, tie-dyed type bitmap, and move the webcam so that the screen is all it can see.

I used to make people sick from ten feet away doing that, just think how it might look up close. (Made me sick, too.) I think I still have the BMP in question, too, if you want it.

--

How about this analogy?

[gmhowell]

What right does the sys-admin have to monitor what programs are installed in /usr? Why should they be virus checking our email? What gives them the right to make sure that our software is properly licensed?

The computer is your employer's property, and the apartment (condo, whatever) is the property of the landlord. Your right to privacy begins and ends at your front door, and even that is somewhat limited (every lease I have seen for residential property allows the landlord access with either notice or under emergency situations.)

Now, this group that got the things installed may be small. But perhaps the 'silent majority' just doesn't care as much as you do. If they do, then it's time for you (plural) to stop being so quiet. Go bitch to the management. It may not do anything, but it beats whinging on /.

Finally, if none of this works, and you are still po'ed, move. Either move to a new place without the 'draconian' surveilance, or buy a house. I did the latter (for reasons largely unrelated to your dissatisfaction with your current situation. To whit, I couldn't fix cars or bikes in the parking lot without violating the terms of my lease.) It sucks in that I have to: mow my own lawn, fix my own plumbing, appliances, etc, I have to get my own security. But, I can fix stuff in the yard, punch holes in the drywall, cover the walls in shag carpet, or whatever I want. I also get a nifty break in my income tax (that doesn't cover the difference in costs, but oh well).

So, what have we learned:

If they don't have cameras inside your door, that's their right.
If you don't like it complain.
If they don't change, and you can't deal with it, move.

Sorry, but this sounds like something that the /. crowd should be against. Make your decision with your wallet like a good Libertarian.

Re:How about this analogy?

[gmhowell]

Hmmm... Yeah, the only way to add programs to /usr is with explicit permission.

Sure you aren't one of them security experts? Hired by internetconnect maybe?

Re:Dutch law

[drudd]

tapes/pictures/whatever will be deleted within 24 hours, or within a short period of time if you have a VERY good reason

That's almost worse... if you have to suffer the lack of privacy and indignity of having yourselve videotaped, then at least you should get the benefit of having a record of a crime available... 24 hours is such a small amount of time that it's unlikely the person who needs the tape will be able to request it in time.

Doug

Dutch law

[radja]

- ALL camera surveillance contains sensitive material (race, for one)
- tapes/pictures/whatever will be deleted within 24 hours, or within a short period of time if you have a VERY good reason. Don't count on getting that permission
- The public will be informed that they're under surveillance, and who gave the order.
-camera surveillance will be reported to the 'registration dept.' (registratiekamer)

and then there's some more rules.

//rdj

Evoting???

[heliocentric]

That web cam scares me for the sole reason of the possibility of online voting becoming a reality - I want no means to link me to my vote and a camera (Antitrust-esq) watching me code scares me - you can watch my code and see the pages I go on the web (you can watch that at the firewall anyway) but don't look at my vote!

Read your lease

[Lish]

In my last lease, it specifically mentioned that they could, at any time, install surveillance equipment in "common areas" (meaning hallways, laundry room, etc). They didn't, but I can think of reasons why they might start doing so. Since you have no "expectation of privacy" in common areas, their installing video cameras in the hallway is perfectly legal. If, let's say, when a resident opens their door, the interior of the apartment would be visible, that _might_ be a different story. Someone standing outside your door waiting to be let in, however, is in a public place; while I object to this personally as a privacy issue, it is almost certainly legal.

Talk to the landlord, or get a petition of residents that are opposed to putting in the cameras. If they aren't already there, the landlord might actually welcome an excuse not to spend the money for them.

---

Voluntary cameras in your house

[Mwongozi]

You can make a lot of money by filming yourself all day long.

expectation of privacy

[phr1]

I would find it very obnoxious that a record was created showing who was visiting my apartment and exactly when they came and left. It wouldn't help if everyone in the building could see the video. The legal situation is unclear, at least to me. There's lots of precedent that you can shoot video of comings and goings a public street or sidewalk. However, I'm under the impression that you're not allowed to point the camera into private property. Here's a link called Continuous Video Surveillance that has a bunch of citations and further links, but doesn't have a clearcut answer. I found it in about half a minute of Googling, so there might be better stuff out there that's still easy to find.

Privacy

[dachshund]

US law, as interpreted by the courts, is notoriously lax on these issues. Generally, if you own it, you can record it, no matter who else is involved (you don't even have to notify them.) This has been applied to employees in their office, customers in dressing rooms, etc. I don't think a renter can expect privacy in the public (non-leased) spaces of their building, but someone might prove me wrong. In any case, I don't think there's ever been an expectation of privacy on who goes into your front door, whether it's on the street or inside of a building.

Perhaps you should fight back. A little bit of motor oil on a lens should just about do the trick-- they can't clean all the cameras every day. Or perhaps you should try putting X10 cameras outside the homes of the folks who manage your building (they don't have to work to get the point across.) If you're really concerned, you can just tell your friends to come over in disguise :)

Re:hey Sean try this

[onepoint]

Sharkey, if I had mod points I would have you at 5. that is one sick idea. I LOVE IT

ONEPOINT

hey Sean try this

[onepoint]

Since your bothered by the web cam, try this,

trick 1) Get an inflatable doll or a HUGE life like figure and place it in the camera's view. This should block any and all pictures. and add a bit of humor

next trick :

get one of those signs that are programable, place it in view and have many different sayings come up.

next trick :

case the camera with a mouse(lab mouse), that is sure to scare the hell out of somebody. And with that you can advise him of how you feel. ( trapped like a rat )

next trick :

Their should be a way to block or scramble the signal with a "white noise" generator. Or get a small laser and aim so that when the camera eye is aimed in your direction, the view is blocked.

last trick :

Crazy glue the lens out of focus

one other trick :

place a small bell on the camera, so that when it moves it rings.

ONEPOINT

Just guessing...

[GreyPoopon]

This is all just guesswork, but I think the answer may depend on whether you own the your room or not. If you are leasing, you don't have as much control. There may be some issues with the lease contract -- IE, they may not be able to install such devices until they add language to the lease contract and everybody has renewed. But aside from that, I think that they could do whatever they wanted to -- provided that you were informed. If you OWN, as in if this is a condominium, there are further implications.

1. You own part of the hallway, so there would have to be a vote taken of all members.
2. You own your unit, so you should be able to legally prevent any footage from being taken of your unit. This would include the front door because, if for no other reason, opening the door would allow "big brother" to see the inside of your unit.

Of course this is, as I said, all guessing. I'm certainly not a legal expert by ANY means. Obviously, if they put up such video monitoring devices, only those that didn't have a problem with them would continue to live there -- others would seek residence elsewhere.

GreyPoopon
--