Slashdot Mirror
Covert CCTV Monitoring in the Workplace?
An Inquiring Mind asks: "A good friend's employer has recently installed a CCTV system in the office she works at. This is not unusual in itself, but there is no notice that CCTV is in use, and no company policy regarding CCTV use in employee monitoring, data retention, or anything else. My understanding is that CCTV use in the UK is covered by the DPA (Data Protection Act) if: it is used to gather information about an individual; is monitored remotely; or is given to people other than law enforcement bodies (this from a CCTV/PDA document [pdf], from the website of the Information Commissioner's Office). If it does fall under the remit of the DPA, then they would need at least signage, and a policy for the retention of the data. Given that this camera would likely fall foul of the DPA, that challenging the employer would be career suicide (due to internal politics), and that she has nothing to hide -- what do other Slashdot readers think should be the next step for my friend: principled but suicidal stand, or quiet annoyance?" Much of what is allowed depends on the law of the land in your area. Depending on what the laws do and do not allow, how would you safely approach your employers to air your concerns on this subject?
Depending on what the laws do and do not allow, how would you safely approach your employers to air your concerns on this subject?
Safely approach? Fuck that. They are spying on you, so sue their asses. Or, better yet, get them a hooker and a hotel room. Just make sure to accidentally leave the webcam on. Payback is a bitch.
Religion for nerds. Stuff that really matters
It is said: Go not to the Slashdotters for counsel, for they will say both no and yes.
(with apologies to Tolkien)
That depends on what is most likely to satisfy her biological urges. If she has a strong biological urge to take a "principled but suicidal stand" then that is what she should do but otherwise she should focus on satisfying her other biological urges.
speak softly and carry a big stick
- theodore roosevelt
sudo killall humans
Rather than calmly contacting Human Resources and enquiring about it, and possibly mention the need or desire for a formal policy, I recommend instead some fast knee movements, gesticulation, and uninformed reactionary vocalization.
A series of anonymous e-mails, one a week, to the controlling manager. The first should be just a warning that the camera may be illegal. The second should contain the relevant portion of the law. The third should be a threat of potential legal action. The fourth should be the relevant portion of the law, cc'd to the authorities. The fifth should be the relevant portion of the law, cc'd to the supervisor of the authorities. The sixth should be the relevant portion of the law, cc'd to the appropriate Member of Parliment and the supervisor of the authorities. If six weeks go by without any action, then the anonymous and safe portion of being a whistle blower is at an end- and your friend should consult an attorney in defense of civil rights.
Of course, it goes without saying that if at any point, a change in workplace behavior with respect to the use of CCTV cameras is noticed, you have to start the whole sequence over.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Just report it anonymously to the DPA. They do follow up on these things, you know. Even for things like keeping names and addresses in Excel spreadsheets, let alone cctv cameras.
-EvilMagnus
And right this moment I'm watching the first few minutes of Resident Evil.
I hope workplace CCTV monitoring doesn't get used how it does there...
... small cameras are so cheap nowadays that the cost should be inconsequential to most IT workers. Time to start watching the watchers. That's where "they" want things. They watch you to get on dirt on you, you watch them to get on dirt on them.
I'm sure plenty will reply decrying this idea, but I know that I'm not alone among the people who have the ability and the means to do this. I think everyone should do this. You'd be surprised how quickly management can get turned off on the idea of cameras after a few high profile cases of upper management getting taken down by employees filming their dirty deeds as their way of saying "thank you for spying on me".
In the US, it is illegal to have CCTV in the workplace without a posted notice. If you have a union you should bring it up with them. I recently went through a Labor Relations course where we when through various cases and I distinctly remembering a company being in trouble for having a CCTV system without notice.
The Act is called the National Labor Relations Act, you should see if you have something similar. More info on different cases can be found here.
Mr. Universe: "They can't stop the signal, Mal. They can never stop the signal."
Over the thick sculls of the fools who MAKE BELIEVE they are the authorities over all of us!!
This includes most CEO's who now calmly partake in this war against the individual.
The most asinine remark by them is:
"WELL!!.. IF you don't have anything to hide, then why worry about us watching your EVERY move!?!"..
Needs to be answered as such:
Well Mr. Legal STALKER, IF I am NOT doing anything wrong, AND I am 'presumed' innocent-- until proven guilty..
THEN WHAT THE HELL GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO STALK ME!!!".
Eh hem.. excuse me folks :)
-- SORRY!! But I am still a PROUD member of SlashDot :)
I will gladly loose all of life's battles.. in order to win the war..
magnetron
Why not do them a favour and post your own signage and privacy policy? Post small signs around the office:
"You may be under video surveilance while you work. No privacy policy is available."
If they try to take the signs down, repost them. You wouldn't want your employer to get into trouble, after all.
-Kell
I'm amazed more companies and cities that set up these cams aren't sued.
Students' personal stuff was being stolen from their homeroom lab. They put in a couple of covert cameras and caught one of the janitors. They turned the video over to security and the janitor was sacked. The security chief (an ex police inspector) then suggested that maybe the class should have a lecture on the legality of what they had done. There was no hint that their taping was illegal. The lecture was mostly about the conditions they had to meet for the video to be accepted as evidence in a court of law.
Would your friend say that they're a generally "good" employer? Would she want to keep working there? There's always the risk that her name could be made public, despite her wishes, during any action.
. .
m ). It's pretty vague in places, and while it's unlikely that said cameras interfere with e.g. "... the right to respect for his private and family life ..." it might be worth reading.
If you want advice, somewhere like the Citizen's Advice Bureau or her Trades Union (taking along any relevant contract of employment) would be a good starting point. Depending on what a workplace CCTV camera is actually doing and (most importantly) what the company has said that it is doing with the data the company may or may not be abiding by the data protection act or not. Even if they aren't now, a simple declaration may be all it takes to abide by the law (with the camera staying, which may not be what your friend wants). The ICO would be a useful organisation to contact but (from experience) not until you've definitely got a case.
If you want someone who's likely to campaign on your behalf, try "Liberty" (http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/). People have certainly made interesting use of the 1998 act (see http://www.fnord.demon.co.uk/mt/fifth/cctv.html).
Another possibility, although a bit of a long shot, would be the Human Rights Act (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts1998/19980042.ht
The usual caveats apply - I'm not a lawyer, but have been involved with the deployment in a camera system at a former employer in the past, and was involved with the discussions as to legal requirements (then under the 1984 act) re data retention policy and security, and later of the effects of the 1998 act (on non-camera data).
A guy I know used to tease his dog with a little laser thingie. Now the dog constantly looks around to see where that little dot might have hidden.. I don't think that shit is good for them. Maybe some dogs deal with it better than other though.. YMMV or something.
If you suspect that your company is doing something against the law, it is your duty to raise the issue with your boss. You can refer him to the section 12.1 ("Comply with legal requirements") of the ISO recommended information security practices (ISO/IEC 17799). But be sure that there is wrongdoing; as an example, in Canada you are free to put secret cameras in the workplace as long as you can demonstrate in court that you are protecting equipments and not watching specifically someone. It is much trickier if there is audio involved.
Once you have raised the issue, if your boss explains that the cameras are there for a general security purpose, then it is up to you to evaluate if you are comfortable with the situation; you may stay and be annoyed, or leave. But if your boss does not acknowledge the issue, or if his behavior is not acceptable, walk away from this place.
In both case you should not involve the authorities, unless you feel that there is something very, very wrong. Revenge and bitterness are pointless and might just come in your way someday.
As for the cameras themselves, I think it is a big investment for what it is worth. The company must deal with storage and handling of the media (tape or DVD); if any incident occur they must go back in time, search for a while, then hope the picture is clear, and in most case it will have no value in court. It's a lot of annoyance for little ROI. But anyway I don't mind being on camera myself, as long as pictures of me spilling coffee in the fax server don't get on "America's Funniest Videos".
lucm, indeed.
Our office installed a linksys web camera (http://tinyurl.com/pxnpv), and while its not CCTV its functionally equivilent, since this can be viewed over a web server on the device by anyone. What rules in the united states would apply to this?
That said, no one likes cameras pointed at them at work. At one point while developing the software, I had several cameras pointed at me for testing purposes. Once the software was far enough along, a coworked informed that me he liked those cameras pointing at me because it allowed him to view the video feeds to see if I was at my desk before making the walk to the other side of the office to talk to me. Needless to say, I repositioned the cameras after he told me this to point towards my coworkers in my section of the office. Of course, my coworkers weren't too happy with me for doing this. My boss, however, did like it until I pointed one of the cameras at his office door.
To make a long story short, no one likes a video camera pointed at them at work, but unfortunately the law does allow it.
Yep, exactly right.
Thanks for playing.
> The finger
> Obscene T-shirt
> The "moon"
> Bring in your spouse and do "spousal" things
Make them feel as if it's a good investment.
- Just my $0.02, take with a grain of salt, your mileage may vary.
I think she should install her own CCTV at her cubicle, aimed at her employer's desk.
If her employer has nothing to hide, then he/she has nothing to worry about!
Two can play at that game!
The quickest start would be to go to the information commissioner's website (http://www.esd.informationcommissioner.gov.uk/ and see if your employer is registered to process employee data. Chances are they might be. If they're not, then you've got them. Failing that, they should (though it is not a legal requirement) comply with the codes of practice (http://tinyurl.com/dlwqr [www.ico.gov.uk]). The first paragraph of which points out that guidance on targeted surveillance of employees is 'forthcoming', so you might have to wait a bit if that's what you're worried about. If you're really impatient, you could report them to the Information Commissioner anyway. This is quite simple, and, providing you can prove (a) it is their intention to use captured images illicitly (b) pictures of you in an office constitute significant personal information and (c) that the cameras aren't be used for monitoring the 'security of the premises' or for 'public and employee safety', it would seem you've got a cast-iron case.
I work in a company that builds these things all day... there are cameras and microphones everywhere but there are also signs to that effect. Everything I do is recorded, and archived!
I would just politely ask the person who authorised the cameras (the boss?) why they think they need them and what they hope to achieve. They will come up with some crap excuse (they always do) that is based on some uninformed thing they read in some boss magazine.
Just push the issue politely until you demonstrate to them that spying on employees only demotivates them. If employees don't feel trusted then they won't be productive.
They do it to "stop" employees doing personal things on company time. The problem is that company time is the only time that other companies are open! Also, doing a few personal things over the day is a welcome break and refreshing. I work better when I can just do what I want; I get a lot more, better lines of code written with the freedom than I do with the authoritarian "thou shalt not..." directives.
Management here went through a phase of starting "thou shalt not.." and it was soon dropped when they realised that if they don't question what you are doing and only question the amount/quality of the end work they get better results.
Anywho, just point out to management the negatives of covert spying on employees and they might see the point. It's more likely given that they think they are "elite" that they will just ignore the employees as being dumb!
I drink to make other people interesting!
This wasn't published by any "London Guardian" paper. You guys that modded this up to +5, Informative got trolled.
The original article, published by The Guardian, is here. Note the distinct lack of accusations of being "shills for the establishment". Note the distinct lack of any mention whatsoever of blanket smoking bans, ASBOs, or putting cameras in people's homes. That paranoid speculation comes from here. A website so credible, its main sections are: Occult Elite | Loss Of Freedom | Scams & Cover-ups | Vote Fraud | World Government | Political Murders | Geopolitics. This is kook fodder, guys!
There is no blanket smoking ban in the UK. There will be a ban on smoking in pubs and restaraunts in Scotland very soon. Tobacco is still legal, you just can't smoke in public where people are eating and drinking.
ASBOs are Anti-Social Behaviour Orders. Basically, you can be punished for anti-social behaviour. For instance, kids who repeatedly throw bricks through their neighbours' windows. Not so scary when it's not a meaningless acronym, is it?
More nonsense. The UK government aren't installing cameras in anybody's homes. Not that this guy would know that - this uninformed nonsense comes not from a British source, as is claimed, but an American worried about the Occult Elite World Government.
Maybe they can't oppose the measures because they exist solely as paranoid delusions. I'll admit that CCTV is widespread in the UK, but the things that this article claims are happening simply aren't. And the thing that set this guy off on his rant? It's a proposal, as the Guardian article makes clear. It is by no means law yet. I quote:
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
So, if there is a web site from your government agency that discusses the legality of such cameras in very simple terms, just have your friend print it out and leave it on a Manager's desk. She could also cover the camera with a printout of the law when no one is looking.
No, I will not work for your startup
I don't own a laser pointer myself, but a flashlight beam is just as effective. My cat will chase it all over the place. However, since she will get frustrated after a while, being unable to catch the light, I make it up to her by dragging a string around for her to chase, catch, and teach a lesson or two. Then after she has had enough, it's lap time while I do stuff online.
This space unintentionally left blank.
ASBOs are Anti-Social Behaviour Orders. Basically, you can be punished for anti-social behaviour. For instance, kids who repeatedly throw bricks through their neighbours' windows. Not so scary when it's not a meaningless acronym, is it?
... what was wrong with the old system where we punished things like destruction of property, vandalism, and so on? I mean, ASBO covers a lot of things, the vast majority of which are already taken care of by one law or another, right? Call me paranoid, but I want my laws to be clear and specific.
Most of your post is dead on, but
I realise one has to keep these things in perspective, but you're spectacularly missing the point in some of these cases.
The insidious thing about ASBOs is that they allow the creation and punishment of new crimes without parliamentary or even judicidial oversight. An ASBO can say more-or-less anything, and breaking an ASBO can carry heavy prison sentence, even if the act prohibited by the ASBO carries no such sentence in law.
Smoking in bars, pubs and even private members' clubs in England will shortly be illegal under recently-passed legislation.
The road camera tracking network is going live any day now, by the admission of senior police officers involved. It has neither needed nor received any parliamentary oversight until the issue was raised recently, since previous legislation was so broad that the police could just go ahead and impose the most pervasive surveillance system in human history without so much as a by-your-leave. No doubt some MPs and probably the Information Commissioner will kick up more of a fuss when the issue finally hits the papers big-time, but by then it will, as ever, be too late.
Seriously, these things are happening, and they do have more than sinister overtones. Did you realise that an act is quietly going through Parliament that will allow ministers, without any further recourse to Parliament nor any vote of MPs, to impose major new legislation, including several of the things that have recently been strongly opposed in both houses? Several professors of Law at Cambridge University recently wrote to a national newspaper expressing their dismay at this turn of events and their support for Cambridge MP David Howarth's challenge against it, but other than that, even the mainstream media appears not to have noticed.
At current rates (i.e., with the proposals currently proceeding through Parliament passing into law on the expected timetable, and based on current or announced intent in the use of the laws by the relevant authorities) the following will be true in the UK by 2010:
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
there's a good chance that there isn't anyone actually monitoring the cameras on a regular basis. that costs a lot of money.
if someone reports a crime of some sort, management or a security company might review the tapes (or DVR) for that location and time to help identify the suspect. the rest of the time you could probably be doing all kinds of crazy stuff and no human eyes would see it.
also i've seen office situations where there are several cameras around but only one or a few near the front door or elevators is actually hooked up to anything real. there are a lot of 4 or 8 camera setups so if you see 20+ domes scattered about most of them are dummies.
one thing you can do is make friends with the security guards. unless it's a casino they'll probably have no problem showing you their monitoring station and telling you what parts of the building are really monitored on a regular basis. if you see the women's bathroom you have a case. if you see an elevator bank and the parking lot, you can probably relax.
Isnt it far better for the employer to have an employee decide not to cary out an illegal action (e.g. stealing from the workplace, vising inappropriate websites etc) becase they know they are being watched than for the employee to cary out the action and get caught on a secret camera?
If you have the right cameras in the right place, you dont need to worry that the employee will somehow incapacitate the cameras or cary out actions when the camera is not pointing at them.
If my employee discovered that I was unknowingly violating the law, and thus placing the business at risk, but did not promptly inform me, I would fire that person on the spot.
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
I am just curious about how common it is for employers to monitor their staff. Recently, I discovered some spyware installed on all the machines in my organisation that takes screenshots of the desktop at ten-minute intervals in addition to logging keystrokes. (Activity Monitor from www.softactivity.com)
None of the employees were made aware of the fact that they would be monitored and this degree of intrusion has compromised personal information, passwords, bank accounts etc. This kind of websurfing has previously never been discouraged at our workplace.
The software comes with an easy uninstaller so i went ahead and uninstalled it from all the computers in my department. (The IT dept. subsequently came to "check" the computers in our dept. and i discovered the software had once again been installed on the machines) But the only reason I discovered it in the first place is that I randomly check what processes are running on my machine. Most people simply would not know to check for random or strange processes and the few people I have told about this don't really seem too bothered or surprised by the fact that the company is doing this.
This is an extremely underhanded way of keeping a check on your employees. Though I do not agree with this type of monitoring, it may have been acceptable had we been told from the very start that our computer usage would be monitored. Has anyone else had experience with their computers being monitored in this way?
I notice more cars with number plates that are so muddy that they won't be tracked by these automatic tracking systems. Perhaps having a muddy numberplate is the new terrorism.
Link to your source please?
If this is the UK (or elsewhere in the EU, which has broadly similar legislation).. Get your friend to serve their employer with a Data Protection Act request (no need to contact a lawyer), asking for all data pertaining to themselves and their movements recorded by the company. The person holding the data can charge a reasonable fee (no more than GBP 10, I seem to recall). This covers CCTV systems, computer records and paperwork. If nothing is forthcoming regarding the CCTV footage, report them to the Information Commissioner (see http://www.data-protection.gov.uk/ , there's plenty of good information there)
How about a simple "Hey, what's the deal with the camera?"
One problem with using laser pointers to blind CCTV is that they are usually only one colour, typically red. So, by applying a red filter to the digital image later, you can get something that lacks colour but is still usable.
There was a TV program about this a few years ago, IIRC on Channel 4. The guy never found a way to blind a camera properly. White lasers were not available cheaply then, I don't know about now.
At work, I just stuck up a bit of paper with "NO SIGNAL" written on it. No one has complained so far.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
I'd suggest asking somebody who knows all about using CCTV in the workplace.
// TODO: Insert Cool Sig
Opposition editorial in the Times by a member of Parlament.
"The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill has been called the "Abolition of Parliament Bill" by several leading lawyers because it appears to give the Government an unrestrained ability to rewrite laws as it chooses without passing them through Parliament."
Good advice! Let's see...
To: CEO@mycompany.com
fr: anonymous
re: Security Cameras
Shitcock!
Surveillance is for the security of the workplace. I think we need more of it not less.