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)
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
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."
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.
The cameras are pretty cheap. Buy one (or even one of those "fake" dummy cameras), bring it to work, and mount it in their washroom. You don't have to connect it to anything. Stick a $1 antenna on it - look. ma - wireless toilet-cam.
If you can get a group together to buy 3 real cameras with wireless transmitters, label them Cam1, Cam3, and Cam6 and mount them, then watch the show. When they're found, they'll go nuts trying to find Cam2, Cam4 and Cam5. Just remember to wear gloves while handling everything.
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).
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.
Todays setups are much better. Motion and alarm triggers, a decent-sized (705x480) picture, 25 frames per second, with audio, viewable in real time and searchable over any network or the internet. Infrared cams that will pick you out in the dark when you can't see your hand in front of your face (they're fun to experiment with - they use infrared LEDs to light up stuff up to 30 feet away as bright as day). Easily searchable, and you can store up to a year if you don't mind setting up a JBOD. A couple of terrabyes of storage isn't that expensive any more, and mp4s don't take up nearly as much space as you'd think.
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.
My dogs absolutely love it. There's something to be said about 400 pounds of dogs chasing a tiny dot, pushing each other out of the way. Especially when they try to "gnaw" it off the floor or stomp it with a paw.
What spooks them is the radio-controlled truck one of my daughters gave me for christmas a few years ago. I haven't met a dog that isn't totally freaked by it. Its funny watching my St. Bernard trying to hide in a bathtub (its the only way to get her into the tub).
Next step - "r/c trucks with frigging lasers strapped on them" :-)
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 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.
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?
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