Mixing
Is it reasonable to set up a hidden camera in one's office?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
up vote
24
down vote
favorite
Someone I know --not me and not in my workplace-- has noticed a number of incidents of vandalism and petty theft in their office and in the offices of colleagues in nearby offices. Given that all offices are locked at night and that the whole area is behind another lock, the obvious suspects are cleaning staff and security staff. For obvious reasons they don't want to bring it up with security. My friend and their colleagues have considered setting up a hidden video camera to find out what is going on. However, it strikes me that there is an ethical and perhaps legal barrier to this. The cleaning staff and security staff are in a sense also in their workplace and entitled to a reasonable expectation of privacy. Is it reasonable to set up a hidden camera in such a circumstance? Would it be reasonable, given the permission of their manager?
ethics canada security
asked Jun 11 '14 at 19:32
Theodore Norvell
22626
 |Â
show 1 more comment
up vote
24
down vote
favorite
Someone I know --not me and not in my workplace-- has noticed a number of incidents of vandalism and petty theft in their office and in the offices of colleagues in nearby offices. Given that all offices are locked at night and that the whole area is behind another lock, the obvious suspects are cleaning staff and security staff. For obvious reasons they don't want to bring it up with security. My friend and their colleagues have considered setting up a hidden video camera to find out what is going on. However, it strikes me that there is an ethical and perhaps legal barrier to this. The cleaning staff and security staff are in a sense also in their workplace and entitled to a reasonable expectation of privacy. Is it reasonable to set up a hidden camera in such a circumstance? Would it be reasonable, given the permission of their manager?
ethics canada security
asked Jun 11 '14 at 19:32
Theodore Norvell
22626
I presume "ethics" on this site roughly means "what will generally be acceptable to other people" - in that context, does it matter? Only a select few should know about it anyway, otherwise it's not particularly hidden. And the legal aspect is off topic for this site - you should consult a lawyer for legal judgement.
– Dukeling
Jun 11 '14 at 22:12
5
Recording audio without consent is a criminal offence in Canada. As to video, I think you need to talk to a labour lawyer about this and follow their recommendations.
– Spehro Pefhany
Jun 13 '14 at 3:53
1
What are those “obvious†reasons not to bring it up with security?
– Relaxed
Dec 3 '14 at 11:25
1
"Obvious" was a poor choice of words. I should have explained that my friend is reluctant to bring it up with the security management because the security guards are the prime suspect and because of an expectation that management side of security would not properly investigate their own people. In retrospect this is hardly obvious and in fact one of my first suggestions was to talk to the security managers.
– Theodore Norvell
Dec 3 '14 at 13:58
1
Also voting to close this question. What needs to be determined first is whether this action is legal (and that is off-topic for this site). After that comes the question if it is reasonable, which is primarily opinion-based, and also off-topic.
– Jan Doggen
Dec 3 '14 at 20:07
 |Â
show 1 more comment
up vote
24
down vote
favorite
up vote
24
down vote
favorite
Someone I know --not me and not in my workplace-- has noticed a number of incidents of vandalism and petty theft in their office and in the offices of colleagues in nearby offices. Given that all offices are locked at night and that the whole area is behind another lock, the obvious suspects are cleaning staff and security staff. For obvious reasons they don't want to bring it up with security. My friend and their colleagues have considered setting up a hidden video camera to find out what is going on. However, it strikes me that there is an ethical and perhaps legal barrier to this. The cleaning staff and security staff are in a sense also in their workplace and entitled to a reasonable expectation of privacy. Is it reasonable to set up a hidden camera in such a circumstance? Would it be reasonable, given the permission of their manager?
ethics canada security
asked Jun 11 '14 at 19:32
Theodore Norvell
22626
Someone I know --not me and not in my workplace-- has noticed a number of incidents of vandalism and petty theft in their office and in the offices of colleagues in nearby offices. Given that all offices are locked at night and that the whole area is behind another lock, the obvious suspects are cleaning staff and security staff. For obvious reasons they don't want to bring it up with security. My friend and their colleagues have considered setting up a hidden video camera to find out what is going on. However, it strikes me that there is an ethical and perhaps legal barrier to this. The cleaning staff and security staff are in a sense also in their workplace and entitled to a reasonable expectation of privacy. Is it reasonable to set up a hidden camera in such a circumstance? Would it be reasonable, given the permission of their manager?
ethics canada security
asked Jun 11 '14 at 19:32
Theodore Norvell
22626
edited Dec 3 '14 at 8:34
user1023
asked Jun 11 '14 at 19:32
Theodore Norvell
22626
asked Jun 11 '14 at 19:32
Theodore Norvell
22626
asked Jun 11 '14 at 19:32
Theodore Norvell
22626
22626
I presume "ethics" on this site roughly means "what will generally be acceptable to other people" - in that context, does it matter? Only a select few should know about it anyway, otherwise it's not particularly hidden. And the legal aspect is off topic for this site - you should consult a lawyer for legal judgement.
– Dukeling
Jun 11 '14 at 22:12
5
Recording audio without consent is a criminal offence in Canada. As to video, I think you need to talk to a labour lawyer about this and follow their recommendations.
– Spehro Pefhany
Jun 13 '14 at 3:53
1
What are those “obvious†reasons not to bring it up with security?
– Relaxed
Dec 3 '14 at 11:25
1
"Obvious" was a poor choice of words. I should have explained that my friend is reluctant to bring it up with the security management because the security guards are the prime suspect and because of an expectation that management side of security would not properly investigate their own people. In retrospect this is hardly obvious and in fact one of my first suggestions was to talk to the security managers.
– Theodore Norvell
Dec 3 '14 at 13:58
1
Also voting to close this question. What needs to be determined first is whether this action is legal (and that is off-topic for this site). After that comes the question if it is reasonable, which is primarily opinion-based, and also off-topic.
– Jan Doggen
Dec 3 '14 at 20:07
 |Â
show 1 more comment
I presume "ethics" on this site roughly means "what will generally be acceptable to other people" - in that context, does it matter? Only a select few should know about it anyway, otherwise it's not particularly hidden. And the legal aspect is off topic for this site - you should consult a lawyer for legal judgement.
– Dukeling
Jun 11 '14 at 22:12
5
Recording audio without consent is a criminal offence in Canada. As to video, I think you need to talk to a labour lawyer about this and follow their recommendations.
– Spehro Pefhany
Jun 13 '14 at 3:53
1
What are those “obvious†reasons not to bring it up with security?
– Relaxed
Dec 3 '14 at 11:25
1
"Obvious" was a poor choice of words. I should have explained that my friend is reluctant to bring it up with the security management because the security guards are the prime suspect and because of an expectation that management side of security would not properly investigate their own people. In retrospect this is hardly obvious and in fact one of my first suggestions was to talk to the security managers.
– Theodore Norvell
Dec 3 '14 at 13:58
1
Also voting to close this question. What needs to be determined first is whether this action is legal (and that is off-topic for this site). After that comes the question if it is reasonable, which is primarily opinion-based, and also off-topic.
– Jan Doggen
Dec 3 '14 at 20:07
I presume "ethics" on this site roughly means "what will generally be acceptable to other people" - in that context, does it matter? Only a select few should know about it anyway, otherwise it's not particularly hidden. And the legal aspect is off topic for this site - you should consult a lawyer for legal judgement.
– Dukeling
Jun 11 '14 at 22:12
I presume "ethics" on this site roughly means "what will generally be acceptable to other people" - in that context, does it matter? Only a select few should know about it anyway, otherwise it's not particularly hidden. And the legal aspect is off topic for this site - you should consult a lawyer for legal judgement.
– Dukeling
Jun 11 '14 at 22:12
5
5
Recording audio without consent is a criminal offence in Canada. As to video, I think you need to talk to a labour lawyer about this and follow their recommendations.
– Spehro Pefhany
Jun 13 '14 at 3:53
Recording audio without consent is a criminal offence in Canada. As to video, I think you need to talk to a labour lawyer about this and follow their recommendations.
– Spehro Pefhany
Jun 13 '14 at 3:53
1
1
What are those “obvious†reasons not to bring it up with security?
– Relaxed
Dec 3 '14 at 11:25
What are those “obvious†reasons not to bring it up with security?
– Relaxed
Dec 3 '14 at 11:25
1
1
"Obvious" was a poor choice of words. I should have explained that my friend is reluctant to bring it up with the security management because the security guards are the prime suspect and because of an expectation that management side of security would not properly investigate their own people. In retrospect this is hardly obvious and in fact one of my first suggestions was to talk to the security managers.
– Theodore Norvell
Dec 3 '14 at 13:58
"Obvious" was a poor choice of words. I should have explained that my friend is reluctant to bring it up with the security management because the security guards are the prime suspect and because of an expectation that management side of security would not properly investigate their own people. In retrospect this is hardly obvious and in fact one of my first suggestions was to talk to the security managers.
– Theodore Norvell
Dec 3 '14 at 13:58
1
1
Also voting to close this question. What needs to be determined first is whether this action is legal (and that is off-topic for this site). After that comes the question if it is reasonable, which is primarily opinion-based, and also off-topic.
– Jan Doggen
Dec 3 '14 at 20:07
Also voting to close this question. What needs to be determined first is whether this action is legal (and that is off-topic for this site). After that comes the question if it is reasonable, which is primarily opinion-based, and also off-topic.
– Jan Doggen
Dec 3 '14 at 20:07
 |Â
show 1 more comment
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
up vote
24
down vote
accepted
Given that serious offences have been committed, it seems a reasonable approach. I suggest the following:
- If this is done, it MUST be done as a company action and not
individual employees freelancing. - The cameras must be removed after the investigation witnessed by employee
representatives.
If you're a small company without an internal security operation (ie most companies), it might be better to hire a reputable private investigator to do this, as they can protect the chain of evidence required by law.
Of course, dependant on your local legal situation, if it can be proven that the offences where committed by the cleaners/guards, you could just sack the cleaners and guards – this is the case in the UK.
edited Jun 11 '14 at 21:35
FrustratedWithFormsDesigner
10.7k43957
answered Jun 11 '14 at 20:14
Pepone
1,508815
Also worth mentioning that in some jurisdictions you must post signs indicating that an area is under video surveillance.
– Andrew Medico
Jun 12 '14 at 18:06
add a comment |Â
up vote
15
down vote
Putting up a hidden camera could be illegal and get you into deep, deep legal trouble. I am almost positive that this would be the case in Germany.
Any recordings may not be admissible in a court of law against the thieves. If you sack someone because of such a recording, you could be sued for wrongful termination.
Ask a lawyer first!
answered Jun 12 '14 at 7:50
Stephan Kolassa
8,35532850
1
So your saying that if for example that DBP or VW had a large office that had been broken into and cleaned out of their PC's more than once they would be unable to install covert surveillance to catch those responsible? I was involved in the third!! replacement of 60-70 pc's for British Telecom in Manchester a few years back it turns out the security guard let the robbers in. For serious crimes yes it is acceptable to use video surveillance an employer has a duty of care to provide a safe and secure work place.
– Pepone
Jun 12 '14 at 19:50
1
@Pepone: I am saying that this would probably first need to be vetted with lawyers. There have been cases of people setting up cameras around private property after vandalism and getting into legal trouble because these cameras also filmed part of the street. Not directly comparable, since we are talking about an office here, but I stick with my main point: ask a lawyer first.
– Stephan Kolassa
Jun 12 '14 at 19:53
Slightly related, using dashboard cameras that you put in your car seems to be illegal in Germany, and evidence from such cameras has been rejected in court cases. I'd think a camera in the workplace might be a bigger problem. And in England, everything protected by a camera has a big sign about it.
– gnasher729
Dec 3 '14 at 10:53
Likewise, here in The Netherlands if you e.g. are a shop owner and money is being stolen, it is illegal to put up a camera without contacting the police and getting permission.
– Jan Doggen
Dec 3 '14 at 20:04
2
@MarchHo: Here is a ruling of the EU Court of Justice on a private individual in the Czech Republic who set up a camera on his own private property, but which also recorded parts of the public street adjacent to it. This was deemed illegal. (I'm not talking about a company, but a private individual.)
– Stephan Kolassa
Jul 18 '16 at 12:59
 |Â
show 3 more comments
up vote
3
down vote
From an ethical and practical point of view, it would seem that bringing it up with the people involved is the most obvious course of action. Presumably, even if you do put up cameras, advertising that fact should be more effective in preventing further incidents (beside potentially being legally required).
You mentioned the fact that your friend does not want to involve security “for obvious reasons†but I don't quite follow what those might be. It would seem that preventing theft and vandalism is their responsibility. Even if some part of the security staff is in fact involved, bringing it up would give a serious warning to everybody and might prompt the guilty party to stop (isn't it precisely what you are trying to achieve?).
Now, if your concern is that you don't trust the manager, security company or whoever is in charge of the security staff to deal with this properly or want to identify the culprits to sack them or press criminal charges then a camera is at best a small part of any solution. What you need is a lawyer or perhaps an audit of some sort that should help you find out the best ways to achieve that goal.
answered Dec 3 '14 at 11:39
Relaxed
1,07289
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
Usually, there are 3 conditions that must be fulfilled:
1) The (written) permission from the property owner/holder (your company).
2) You must put the written warning in the visible place that the area is monitored by the camera (usually on the entry doors) - however, some legal systems may not require that.
3) Placing a camera in that place may not be against the legal system, for example, in most (western) countries placing camera in the toilet would not be acceptable under any circumstances
add a comment |Â
protected by Community♦ Dec 24 '16 at 12:04
Thank you for your interest in this question.
Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).
Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
24
down vote
accepted
Given that serious offences have been committed, it seems a reasonable approach. I suggest the following:
- If this is done, it MUST be done as a company action and not
individual employees freelancing. - The cameras must be removed after the investigation witnessed by employee
representatives.
If you're a small company without an internal security operation (ie most companies), it might be better to hire a reputable private investigator to do this, as they can protect the chain of evidence required by law.
Of course, dependant on your local legal situation, if it can be proven that the offences where committed by the cleaners/guards, you could just sack the cleaners and guards – this is the case in the UK.
edited Jun 11 '14 at 21:35
FrustratedWithFormsDesigner
10.7k43957
answered Jun 11 '14 at 20:14
Pepone
1,508815
Also worth mentioning that in some jurisdictions you must post signs indicating that an area is under video surveillance.
– Andrew Medico
Jun 12 '14 at 18:06
add a comment |Â
up vote
24
down vote
accepted
Given that serious offences have been committed, it seems a reasonable approach. I suggest the following:
- If this is done, it MUST be done as a company action and not
individual employees freelancing. - The cameras must be removed after the investigation witnessed by employee
representatives.
If you're a small company without an internal security operation (ie most companies), it might be better to hire a reputable private investigator to do this, as they can protect the chain of evidence required by law.
Of course, dependant on your local legal situation, if it can be proven that the offences where committed by the cleaners/guards, you could just sack the cleaners and guards – this is the case in the UK.
edited Jun 11 '14 at 21:35
FrustratedWithFormsDesigner
10.7k43957
answered Jun 11 '14 at 20:14
Pepone
1,508815
Also worth mentioning that in some jurisdictions you must post signs indicating that an area is under video surveillance.
– Andrew Medico
Jun 12 '14 at 18:06
add a comment |Â
up vote
24
down vote
accepted
up vote
24
down vote
accepted
Given that serious offences have been committed, it seems a reasonable approach. I suggest the following:
- If this is done, it MUST be done as a company action and not
individual employees freelancing. - The cameras must be removed after the investigation witnessed by employee
representatives.
If you're a small company without an internal security operation (ie most companies), it might be better to hire a reputable private investigator to do this, as they can protect the chain of evidence required by law.
Of course, dependant on your local legal situation, if it can be proven that the offences where committed by the cleaners/guards, you could just sack the cleaners and guards – this is the case in the UK.
edited Jun 11 '14 at 21:35
FrustratedWithFormsDesigner
10.7k43957
answered Jun 11 '14 at 20:14
Pepone
1,508815
Given that serious offences have been committed, it seems a reasonable approach. I suggest the following:
- If this is done, it MUST be done as a company action and not
individual employees freelancing. - The cameras must be removed after the investigation witnessed by employee
representatives.
If you're a small company without an internal security operation (ie most companies), it might be better to hire a reputable private investigator to do this, as they can protect the chain of evidence required by law.
Of course, dependant on your local legal situation, if it can be proven that the offences where committed by the cleaners/guards, you could just sack the cleaners and guards – this is the case in the UK.
edited Jun 11 '14 at 21:35
FrustratedWithFormsDesigner
10.7k43957
answered Jun 11 '14 at 20:14
Pepone
1,508815
edited Jun 11 '14 at 21:35
FrustratedWithFormsDesigner
10.7k43957
edited Jun 11 '14 at 21:35
FrustratedWithFormsDesigner
10.7k43957
edited Jun 11 '14 at 21:35
FrustratedWithFormsDesigner
10.7k43957
10.7k43957
answered Jun 11 '14 at 20:14
Pepone
1,508815
answered Jun 11 '14 at 20:14
Pepone
1,508815
answered Jun 11 '14 at 20:14
Pepone
1,508815
1,508815
Also worth mentioning that in some jurisdictions you must post signs indicating that an area is under video surveillance.
– Andrew Medico
Jun 12 '14 at 18:06
add a comment |Â
Also worth mentioning that in some jurisdictions you must post signs indicating that an area is under video surveillance.
– Andrew Medico
Jun 12 '14 at 18:06
Also worth mentioning that in some jurisdictions you must post signs indicating that an area is under video surveillance.
– Andrew Medico
Jun 12 '14 at 18:06
Also worth mentioning that in some jurisdictions you must post signs indicating that an area is under video surveillance.
– Andrew Medico
Jun 12 '14 at 18:06
add a comment |Â
up vote
15
down vote
Putting up a hidden camera could be illegal and get you into deep, deep legal trouble. I am almost positive that this would be the case in Germany.
Any recordings may not be admissible in a court of law against the thieves. If you sack someone because of such a recording, you could be sued for wrongful termination.
Ask a lawyer first!
answered Jun 12 '14 at 7:50
Stephan Kolassa
8,35532850
1
So your saying that if for example that DBP or VW had a large office that had been broken into and cleaned out of their PC's more than once they would be unable to install covert surveillance to catch those responsible? I was involved in the third!! replacement of 60-70 pc's for British Telecom in Manchester a few years back it turns out the security guard let the robbers in. For serious crimes yes it is acceptable to use video surveillance an employer has a duty of care to provide a safe and secure work place.
– Pepone
Jun 12 '14 at 19:50
1
@Pepone: I am saying that this would probably first need to be vetted with lawyers. There have been cases of people setting up cameras around private property after vandalism and getting into legal trouble because these cameras also filmed part of the street. Not directly comparable, since we are talking about an office here, but I stick with my main point: ask a lawyer first.
– Stephan Kolassa
Jun 12 '14 at 19:53
Slightly related, using dashboard cameras that you put in your car seems to be illegal in Germany, and evidence from such cameras has been rejected in court cases. I'd think a camera in the workplace might be a bigger problem. And in England, everything protected by a camera has a big sign about it.
– gnasher729
Dec 3 '14 at 10:53
Likewise, here in The Netherlands if you e.g. are a shop owner and money is being stolen, it is illegal to put up a camera without contacting the police and getting permission.
– Jan Doggen
Dec 3 '14 at 20:04
2
@MarchHo: Here is a ruling of the EU Court of Justice on a private individual in the Czech Republic who set up a camera on his own private property, but which also recorded parts of the public street adjacent to it. This was deemed illegal. (I'm not talking about a company, but a private individual.)
– Stephan Kolassa
Jul 18 '16 at 12:59
 |Â
show 3 more comments
up vote
15
down vote
Putting up a hidden camera could be illegal and get you into deep, deep legal trouble. I am almost positive that this would be the case in Germany.
Any recordings may not be admissible in a court of law against the thieves. If you sack someone because of such a recording, you could be sued for wrongful termination.
Ask a lawyer first!
answered Jun 12 '14 at 7:50
Stephan Kolassa
8,35532850
1
So your saying that if for example that DBP or VW had a large office that had been broken into and cleaned out of their PC's more than once they would be unable to install covert surveillance to catch those responsible? I was involved in the third!! replacement of 60-70 pc's for British Telecom in Manchester a few years back it turns out the security guard let the robbers in. For serious crimes yes it is acceptable to use video surveillance an employer has a duty of care to provide a safe and secure work place.
– Pepone
Jun 12 '14 at 19:50
1
@Pepone: I am saying that this would probably first need to be vetted with lawyers. There have been cases of people setting up cameras around private property after vandalism and getting into legal trouble because these cameras also filmed part of the street. Not directly comparable, since we are talking about an office here, but I stick with my main point: ask a lawyer first.
– Stephan Kolassa
Jun 12 '14 at 19:53
Slightly related, using dashboard cameras that you put in your car seems to be illegal in Germany, and evidence from such cameras has been rejected in court cases. I'd think a camera in the workplace might be a bigger problem. And in England, everything protected by a camera has a big sign about it.
– gnasher729
Dec 3 '14 at 10:53
Likewise, here in The Netherlands if you e.g. are a shop owner and money is being stolen, it is illegal to put up a camera without contacting the police and getting permission.
– Jan Doggen
Dec 3 '14 at 20:04
2
@MarchHo: Here is a ruling of the EU Court of Justice on a private individual in the Czech Republic who set up a camera on his own private property, but which also recorded parts of the public street adjacent to it. This was deemed illegal. (I'm not talking about a company, but a private individual.)
– Stephan Kolassa
Jul 18 '16 at 12:59
 |Â
show 3 more comments
up vote
15
down vote
up vote
15
down vote
Putting up a hidden camera could be illegal and get you into deep, deep legal trouble. I am almost positive that this would be the case in Germany.
Any recordings may not be admissible in a court of law against the thieves. If you sack someone because of such a recording, you could be sued for wrongful termination.
Ask a lawyer first!
answered Jun 12 '14 at 7:50
Stephan Kolassa
8,35532850
Putting up a hidden camera could be illegal and get you into deep, deep legal trouble. I am almost positive that this would be the case in Germany.
Any recordings may not be admissible in a court of law against the thieves. If you sack someone because of such a recording, you could be sued for wrongful termination.
Ask a lawyer first!
answered Jun 12 '14 at 7:50
Stephan Kolassa
8,35532850
answered Jun 12 '14 at 7:50
Stephan Kolassa
8,35532850
answered Jun 12 '14 at 7:50
Stephan Kolassa
8,35532850
answered Jun 12 '14 at 7:50
Stephan Kolassa
8,35532850
8,35532850
1
So your saying that if for example that DBP or VW had a large office that had been broken into and cleaned out of their PC's more than once they would be unable to install covert surveillance to catch those responsible? I was involved in the third!! replacement of 60-70 pc's for British Telecom in Manchester a few years back it turns out the security guard let the robbers in. For serious crimes yes it is acceptable to use video surveillance an employer has a duty of care to provide a safe and secure work place.
– Pepone
Jun 12 '14 at 19:50
1
@Pepone: I am saying that this would probably first need to be vetted with lawyers. There have been cases of people setting up cameras around private property after vandalism and getting into legal trouble because these cameras also filmed part of the street. Not directly comparable, since we are talking about an office here, but I stick with my main point: ask a lawyer first.
– Stephan Kolassa
Jun 12 '14 at 19:53
Slightly related, using dashboard cameras that you put in your car seems to be illegal in Germany, and evidence from such cameras has been rejected in court cases. I'd think a camera in the workplace might be a bigger problem. And in England, everything protected by a camera has a big sign about it.
– gnasher729
Dec 3 '14 at 10:53
Likewise, here in The Netherlands if you e.g. are a shop owner and money is being stolen, it is illegal to put up a camera without contacting the police and getting permission.
– Jan Doggen
Dec 3 '14 at 20:04
2
@MarchHo: Here is a ruling of the EU Court of Justice on a private individual in the Czech Republic who set up a camera on his own private property, but which also recorded parts of the public street adjacent to it. This was deemed illegal. (I'm not talking about a company, but a private individual.)
– Stephan Kolassa
Jul 18 '16 at 12:59
 |Â
show 3 more comments
1
So your saying that if for example that DBP or VW had a large office that had been broken into and cleaned out of their PC's more than once they would be unable to install covert surveillance to catch those responsible? I was involved in the third!! replacement of 60-70 pc's for British Telecom in Manchester a few years back it turns out the security guard let the robbers in. For serious crimes yes it is acceptable to use video surveillance an employer has a duty of care to provide a safe and secure work place.
– Pepone
Jun 12 '14 at 19:50
1
@Pepone: I am saying that this would probably first need to be vetted with lawyers. There have been cases of people setting up cameras around private property after vandalism and getting into legal trouble because these cameras also filmed part of the street. Not directly comparable, since we are talking about an office here, but I stick with my main point: ask a lawyer first.
– Stephan Kolassa
Jun 12 '14 at 19:53
Slightly related, using dashboard cameras that you put in your car seems to be illegal in Germany, and evidence from such cameras has been rejected in court cases. I'd think a camera in the workplace might be a bigger problem. And in England, everything protected by a camera has a big sign about it.
– gnasher729
Dec 3 '14 at 10:53
Likewise, here in The Netherlands if you e.g. are a shop owner and money is being stolen, it is illegal to put up a camera without contacting the police and getting permission.
– Jan Doggen
Dec 3 '14 at 20:04
2
@MarchHo: Here is a ruling of the EU Court of Justice on a private individual in the Czech Republic who set up a camera on his own private property, but which also recorded parts of the public street adjacent to it. This was deemed illegal. (I'm not talking about a company, but a private individual.)
– Stephan Kolassa
Jul 18 '16 at 12:59
1
1
So your saying that if for example that DBP or VW had a large office that had been broken into and cleaned out of their PC's more than once they would be unable to install covert surveillance to catch those responsible? I was involved in the third!! replacement of 60-70 pc's for British Telecom in Manchester a few years back it turns out the security guard let the robbers in. For serious crimes yes it is acceptable to use video surveillance an employer has a duty of care to provide a safe and secure work place.
– Pepone
Jun 12 '14 at 19:50
So your saying that if for example that DBP or VW had a large office that had been broken into and cleaned out of their PC's more than once they would be unable to install covert surveillance to catch those responsible? I was involved in the third!! replacement of 60-70 pc's for British Telecom in Manchester a few years back it turns out the security guard let the robbers in. For serious crimes yes it is acceptable to use video surveillance an employer has a duty of care to provide a safe and secure work place.
– Pepone
Jun 12 '14 at 19:50
1
1
@Pepone: I am saying that this would probably first need to be vetted with lawyers. There have been cases of people setting up cameras around private property after vandalism and getting into legal trouble because these cameras also filmed part of the street. Not directly comparable, since we are talking about an office here, but I stick with my main point: ask a lawyer first.
– Stephan Kolassa
Jun 12 '14 at 19:53
@Pepone: I am saying that this would probably first need to be vetted with lawyers. There have been cases of people setting up cameras around private property after vandalism and getting into legal trouble because these cameras also filmed part of the street. Not directly comparable, since we are talking about an office here, but I stick with my main point: ask a lawyer first.
– Stephan Kolassa
Jun 12 '14 at 19:53
Slightly related, using dashboard cameras that you put in your car seems to be illegal in Germany, and evidence from such cameras has been rejected in court cases. I'd think a camera in the workplace might be a bigger problem. And in England, everything protected by a camera has a big sign about it.
– gnasher729
Dec 3 '14 at 10:53
Slightly related, using dashboard cameras that you put in your car seems to be illegal in Germany, and evidence from such cameras has been rejected in court cases. I'd think a camera in the workplace might be a bigger problem. And in England, everything protected by a camera has a big sign about it.
– gnasher729
Dec 3 '14 at 10:53
Likewise, here in The Netherlands if you e.g. are a shop owner and money is being stolen, it is illegal to put up a camera without contacting the police and getting permission.
– Jan Doggen
Dec 3 '14 at 20:04
Likewise, here in The Netherlands if you e.g. are a shop owner and money is being stolen, it is illegal to put up a camera without contacting the police and getting permission.
– Jan Doggen
Dec 3 '14 at 20:04
2
2
@MarchHo: Here is a ruling of the EU Court of Justice on a private individual in the Czech Republic who set up a camera on his own private property, but which also recorded parts of the public street adjacent to it. This was deemed illegal. (I'm not talking about a company, but a private individual.)
– Stephan Kolassa
Jul 18 '16 at 12:59
@MarchHo: Here is a ruling of the EU Court of Justice on a private individual in the Czech Republic who set up a camera on his own private property, but which also recorded parts of the public street adjacent to it. This was deemed illegal. (I'm not talking about a company, but a private individual.)
– Stephan Kolassa
Jul 18 '16 at 12:59
 |Â
show 3 more comments
up vote
3
down vote
From an ethical and practical point of view, it would seem that bringing it up with the people involved is the most obvious course of action. Presumably, even if you do put up cameras, advertising that fact should be more effective in preventing further incidents (beside potentially being legally required).
You mentioned the fact that your friend does not want to involve security “for obvious reasons†but I don't quite follow what those might be. It would seem that preventing theft and vandalism is their responsibility. Even if some part of the security staff is in fact involved, bringing it up would give a serious warning to everybody and might prompt the guilty party to stop (isn't it precisely what you are trying to achieve?).
Now, if your concern is that you don't trust the manager, security company or whoever is in charge of the security staff to deal with this properly or want to identify the culprits to sack them or press criminal charges then a camera is at best a small part of any solution. What you need is a lawyer or perhaps an audit of some sort that should help you find out the best ways to achieve that goal.
answered Dec 3 '14 at 11:39
Relaxed
1,07289
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
From an ethical and practical point of view, it would seem that bringing it up with the people involved is the most obvious course of action. Presumably, even if you do put up cameras, advertising that fact should be more effective in preventing further incidents (beside potentially being legally required).
You mentioned the fact that your friend does not want to involve security “for obvious reasons†but I don't quite follow what those might be. It would seem that preventing theft and vandalism is their responsibility. Even if some part of the security staff is in fact involved, bringing it up would give a serious warning to everybody and might prompt the guilty party to stop (isn't it precisely what you are trying to achieve?).
Now, if your concern is that you don't trust the manager, security company or whoever is in charge of the security staff to deal with this properly or want to identify the culprits to sack them or press criminal charges then a camera is at best a small part of any solution. What you need is a lawyer or perhaps an audit of some sort that should help you find out the best ways to achieve that goal.
answered Dec 3 '14 at 11:39
Relaxed
1,07289
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
From an ethical and practical point of view, it would seem that bringing it up with the people involved is the most obvious course of action. Presumably, even if you do put up cameras, advertising that fact should be more effective in preventing further incidents (beside potentially being legally required).
You mentioned the fact that your friend does not want to involve security “for obvious reasons†but I don't quite follow what those might be. It would seem that preventing theft and vandalism is their responsibility. Even if some part of the security staff is in fact involved, bringing it up would give a serious warning to everybody and might prompt the guilty party to stop (isn't it precisely what you are trying to achieve?).
Now, if your concern is that you don't trust the manager, security company or whoever is in charge of the security staff to deal with this properly or want to identify the culprits to sack them or press criminal charges then a camera is at best a small part of any solution. What you need is a lawyer or perhaps an audit of some sort that should help you find out the best ways to achieve that goal.
answered Dec 3 '14 at 11:39
Relaxed
1,07289
From an ethical and practical point of view, it would seem that bringing it up with the people involved is the most obvious course of action. Presumably, even if you do put up cameras, advertising that fact should be more effective in preventing further incidents (beside potentially being legally required).
You mentioned the fact that your friend does not want to involve security “for obvious reasons†but I don't quite follow what those might be. It would seem that preventing theft and vandalism is their responsibility. Even if some part of the security staff is in fact involved, bringing it up would give a serious warning to everybody and might prompt the guilty party to stop (isn't it precisely what you are trying to achieve?).
Now, if your concern is that you don't trust the manager, security company or whoever is in charge of the security staff to deal with this properly or want to identify the culprits to sack them or press criminal charges then a camera is at best a small part of any solution. What you need is a lawyer or perhaps an audit of some sort that should help you find out the best ways to achieve that goal.
answered Dec 3 '14 at 11:39
Relaxed
1,07289
edited Dec 3 '14 at 17:34
answered Dec 3 '14 at 11:39
Relaxed
1,07289
answered Dec 3 '14 at 11:39
Relaxed
1,07289
answered Dec 3 '14 at 11:39
Relaxed
1,07289
1,07289
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
Usually, there are 3 conditions that must be fulfilled:
1) The (written) permission from the property owner/holder (your company).
2) You must put the written warning in the visible place that the area is monitored by the camera (usually on the entry doors) - however, some legal systems may not require that.
3) Placing a camera in that place may not be against the legal system, for example, in most (western) countries placing camera in the toilet would not be acceptable under any circumstances
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
Usually, there are 3 conditions that must be fulfilled:
1) The (written) permission from the property owner/holder (your company).
2) You must put the written warning in the visible place that the area is monitored by the camera (usually on the entry doors) - however, some legal systems may not require that.
3) Placing a camera in that place may not be against the legal system, for example, in most (western) countries placing camera in the toilet would not be acceptable under any circumstances
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
Usually, there are 3 conditions that must be fulfilled:
1) The (written) permission from the property owner/holder (your company).
2) You must put the written warning in the visible place that the area is monitored by the camera (usually on the entry doors) - however, some legal systems may not require that.
3) Placing a camera in that place may not be against the legal system, for example, in most (western) countries placing camera in the toilet would not be acceptable under any circumstances
Usually, there are 3 conditions that must be fulfilled:
1) The (written) permission from the property owner/holder (your company).
2) You must put the written warning in the visible place that the area is monitored by the camera (usually on the entry doors) - however, some legal systems may not require that.
3) Placing a camera in that place may not be against the legal system, for example, in most (western) countries placing camera in the toilet would not be acceptable under any circumstances
answered Dec 3 '14 at 8:33
user1023
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
protected by Community♦ Dec 24 '16 at 12:04
Thank you for your interest in this question.
Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).
Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?
I presume "ethics" on this site roughly means "what will generally be acceptable to other people" - in that context, does it matter? Only a select few should know about it anyway, otherwise it's not particularly hidden. And the legal aspect is off topic for this site - you should consult a lawyer for legal judgement.
– Dukeling
Jun 11 '14 at 22:12
5
Recording audio without consent is a criminal offence in Canada. As to video, I think you need to talk to a labour lawyer about this and follow their recommendations.
– Spehro Pefhany
Jun 13 '14 at 3:53
1
What are those “obvious†reasons not to bring it up with security?
– Relaxed
Dec 3 '14 at 11:25
1
"Obvious" was a poor choice of words. I should have explained that my friend is reluctant to bring it up with the security management because the security guards are the prime suspect and because of an expectation that management side of security would not properly investigate their own people. In retrospect this is hardly obvious and in fact one of my first suggestions was to talk to the security managers.
– Theodore Norvell
Dec 3 '14 at 13:58
1
Also voting to close this question. What needs to be determined first is whether this action is legal (and that is off-topic for this site). After that comes the question if it is reasonable, which is primarily opinion-based, and also off-topic.
– Jan Doggen
Dec 3 '14 at 20:07