This is the kind of tortured thinking that lets The NSA look a judge in the eye and not laugh out loud as they say "Bulk internet collection is not 'surveillance' and so it doesn't require a warrant. It's only after we've keyword searched the data and then have a agent look at the returned results that it becomes 'surveillance'."
I'm sorry but words have meanings, and you don't get to make up your own meanings just because the law prohibits you under the well understood meaning of a word.
Video recording your employees 24x7 is creepy and wrong, no matter whether you never view the recordings or not.
You shouldn't be so quick to accuse someone of tortured thinking. From HN guidelines: "When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3.""
You probably would prefer neither over both. This case only says that doing constant video surveillance without sufficient cause is illegal. It doesn't say anything about the legality of constant searches without sufficient cause either, just that it may have been a better solution if they actually had a cause.
Where did you pull this from? It's random searches, occasional, and only if there's enough theft happening to justify it otherwise the searches would be illegal too.
And they can claim they didn't watch it at all? Total surveillance without specific reason and without information and consent is exactly what the law is trying to prevent.
> - Random bag checks, like in programming, is not really random. You either have a particular target or type in mind or you apply it to everyone and bag checks are a lot more invasive than video surveillance.
And that's the whole point. If there's a reasonable suspicion that someone stole something, they can ask to check the bag. The Person has the right to refuse that his bag be checked by company employees and ask to involve the police.
Why would the employee ask to involve the police? You can just refuse, period.
If your employer has evidence of a crime they're free to try to convince the police to get involved.
The interesting part is that your boss can't do much if he suspects theft besides calling a criminal investigation. I.e. it is difficult to fire an employee for that.
However, when safety is involved, things change. You can get fired for unboxing with the wrong knife. It is actually a side effect of employee protection laws. The employer is responsible for the safety of his employees, and if the employer have set rules for that purpose, not only he can take serious action if they aren't followed, but he has to, otherwise in case of an accident, he may be found responsible if the rules are not enforced.
So if you really want to fire someone, the best way is to argue that he is putting himself or others in danger. It includes hygiene concerns.
Didn't we just have an article a few days ago about Google automating everything, and having absolutely meager human level support?
When (not if) those "Video Surveillance AI tools" come out, and can be hooked to a video surveillance system for 'automated anomaly detection', will they just be used as probable cause because some programmer with a classifier thinks you're at fault?
It's not hard to extrapolate 1 step into the future. Even Kroger and Walmart are doing that here. If an "anomaly" (aka: assumed theft) occurs, then flag a attendee to come over.
Search the web for "panopticon".
Random searches can be done effectively if they are truly random. Usually effective pilfering is done by employees who wouldn’t be tagged as a thief.
That’s how it is random. It’s milder because you get in trouble only if you have something in your bag that’s not supposed to be there and since it’s random you don’t feel targeted.
Since I already expect to be seen, one more person looking at me isn't a big deal. My public appearance is public, but my private things in my bag are not. It's incredibly uncomfortable (and IMO demeaning) to have someone examining the extra pair of underwear in your gym bag or skimming through your journal looking for proprietary info.
They would (presumably) not be allowed to read a journal for the purpose of theft detection. And if you would be made uncomfortable by something you brought to work, and it wasn't required for your job, you could leave it in a vehicle or at home. Sure, being able to bring it into work might be a personal convenience, for example if you take public transport and wanted to go to the gym before, during, or after work - but it's a choice. It isn't possible to opt out of surveillance.
- They're typically not going to be watching it 24/7. They'll only look at the tapes if something occurs.
- Random bag checks, like in programming, is not really random. You either have a particular target or type in mind or you apply it to everyone and bag checks are a lot more invasive than video surveillance.