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?

Comments

A wise man once wrote..

[phozz bare]

It is said: Go not to the Slashdotters for counsel, for they will say both no and yes.

(with apologies to Tolkien)

Re:A wise man once wrote..

[Anonymous Coward]

> It is said: Go not to the Slashdotters for counsel, for they will say both no and yes.
>
>(with apologies to Tolkien)

Ask not the Slashdotters for counsel, for they will say that in Soviet Russia, North Korea and Japan, you will only email old people both "yes" and "no". And that Natalie Portman, naked and petrified, in hot grits... may not be soggy, but she sure tastes good with ketchup.

(with apologies to GNU/Tolkien)

Oh, and CCTV? Don't worry about it. CCTV is dead. [netcraft.blogspot.com]

I think that about covers all the base that are belo*WHAM WHAM WHAM*
NO CARRIER

What I would do

[Marxist Hacker 42]

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.

Data Protection Registrar

[EvilMagnus]

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.

Re:Safely approach?

[tomhudson]

Its not that hard - you're aiming at the lens, not the ccd. The lens does the job of focusing it onto the ccd. Hit the lens pretty much anywhere and the results are bad. The further away, the better, since the "dot" gets bigger, so you need LESS steadiness, not more. But the best part is that its a lot easier to aim than you think - just "walk" the dot across the wall with your hand resting on a desk or other stable surface.

The cameras typically have sensitivities well under 1 lux and their backlight/brightness compensation circuitry can't cope with a laser. Like I said, I tested it with a cctv cam I have hanging around for testing purposes when I build these things, so I know a few of their weaknesses.

Re:Dogs and lasers..

[tomhudson]

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" :-)

Re:Just ran across this, in the bigger context - U

[Bogtha]

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?

The age of the telescreen is upon us as surveillance cameras that festoon our streets, shopping malls and airports are now moving into our private homes as the panopticon prison is erected.

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.

Liberty, the group supposedly tasked with defending privacy rights in the UK, revealed itself to be a shill of the establishment in refusing to oppose the measures.

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:

Tomorrow's transport committee session and a further meeting next week will examine how far this technology can be expanded and what use can be made of the data. Evidence will be presented by bodies representing the police and organisations that campaign on road safety.

Any attempt to widen the application of camera surveillance is likely to be strongly resisted.