Covert CCTV Monitoring in the Workplace? 109
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?
Safely approach? (Score:4, Funny)
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.
Re:Safely approach? (Score:4, Informative)
Just so happens that I build/sell those systems, so I also know their weak points.
You can buy laser pointers for a couple of bucks a piece. I have one handy that I use to tease my dogs with (they love chasing the dot), plus a cctv camera hanging around, so I just tested this to make sure.
Shine the pointer into the camera. You can blind it from 50' away if you have a steady hand.
Re:Safely approach? (Score:1)
Re:Safely approach? (Score:5, Informative)
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:Safely approach? (Score:1)
Re:Safely approach? (Score:2)
Use a clothes pin to hold the on-off switch in the on position, and set the pointer on one of those "bean-bags" you stick
Re:Safely approach? (Score:1)
Re:Safely approach? (Score:2)
I should have also mentioned that the cheap pointers are best because the beams DO spread out quickly - they're not pin-point sharp. They have a bright center surrounded by a penumbra (cheap lens/no lens, scratches on the surface, etc., all help the beam to widen as it spreads).
This is another example where buying cheap is better, same as motherboards (stupid ASUS A7V8X-X dies 13 months after purchase - the cheap-ass pc-chips I'm typing this on has been running for 5 years without a hiccup, and its handl
Re:Safely approach? (Score:1)
Jaysyn
Re:Safely approach? (Score:1, Offtopic)
I guess they saved all those for the US market. In my experience, if its cheap, and it runs a week, it'll run forever. If its name-brand, it dies a few months after the warranty expires. That's why I left the stupid box sit for a year - I was so pissed off! Now there are cheapie versions out that will take the cpu and peripherals, and I can use another box for a specific task, so I don't mind replacing it so much.
The bad caps bit affected the whole industry, and not just motherboards. Like the power supp
Re:Safely approach? (Score:1)
Jaysyn
Re:Safely approach? (Score:2)
Fortunately, they've cleaned up their act. They had no choice (and everyone in the industry later got hit by those "environment-friendly" water-based capacitors).
Re:Safely approach? (Score:2)
Dogs and lasers.. (Score:1)
Re:Dogs and lasers.. (Score:5, Funny)
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" :-)
Cats, Dogs and lasers.. (Score:1)
Re:Dogs and lasers.. (Score:2)
Interesting. Have you ever tried to patent that?
If you do, be sure to note prior art [freepatentsonline.com].
Oh yeah, and I want a cut.
Re:Safely approach? (Score:2)
Re:Safely approach? (Score:2)
Re:Safely approach? (Score:2)
Re:Safely approach? (Score:2)
Re:Safely approach? (Score:2)
Re:Safely approach? (Score:2)
They just have to examine the few frames before the flare to see if anyone looks like they're pointing at the camera, ie, at the viewer. The biggest clue will be that they're looking at the camera, any easy thing for a human viewer to pick up on.
Now, if you can carefully line up small mirrors or something ahead of time (long enough before that it's on a different recording), and you've worked out the angles, etc, etc, then just maybe you'll get away with it (unless perhaps if th
Re:Safely approach? (Score:2)
Criminal mischief? Vandalism? Gee, I can see it now. Boss complains to the police. They ask "What damage was done?" The answer - "Well, uh, none." "In that case its a civil matter. Good-bye."
Laser pointer work-around (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re:Laser pointer work-around (Score:2)
Re:Laser pointer work-around (Score:2)
somewhat more powerfull than a flashlight and still small enough to easilly handle
Re:Safely approach? (Score:3, Insightful)
To much work. Just do what we did when they installed these things in our break room for no reason. Just jerk the god damn thing off the wall. Find its blind spot, sneak in there, and break the god damn thing. We did that to 3 of the fuckers and they got the message.
Of course this is highly illegal and if you get caught, you'll get fired and send to jail. In this case I don't know you and I didn't write this. I'll denigh it till my dieing day.
Re:Safely approach? (Score:3)
Plus you'll have a good idea of how aggressively you're being watched by how quickly they show up to fix it. If it goes for days before anyone notices, at least you'll know you're not being watched, just recorded. If they walk into the room 5 minutes later, then you know
Re:Safely approach? (Score:2)
Re:Safely approach? (Score:3, Insightful)
the idiot who thought of installing the CCTV sans employee permission is -allowed- to keep their job.
then the complainer about the policy is FAR more likely to
be afraid of losing their job or having it noted on a file.
Because the company has already proven that it doesn't look at workers as people- but only as resources to be managed.
Re:Safely approach? (Score:2)
Surveillance is not illegal everywhere. (Score:1)
A wise man once wrote.. (Score:5, Funny)
(with apologies to Tolkien)
Re:A wise man once wrote.. (Score:5, Funny)
>
>(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
Re:A wise man once wrote.. (Score:2)
Obey your Urges (Score:1)
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 sat
Re:Obey your Urges (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re:Obey your Urges (Score:2)
I work from home... (Score:4, Informative)
a safe approach (Score:1)
- theodore roosevelt
Re:Forget talking at this point... (Score:2)
Unless you're suggesting blackmail. But I don't think that would work very well, either. Not everyone's boss commits illegal/immoral activities at their desk.
Re:Forget talking at this point... (Score:1)
So block the view of the camera with another camera pointed back at it?
Re:Proper Reactions (Score:1)
I'm sure they would pay you $$$$$ to go to work in a special tshirt or something.
What I would do (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:What I would do (Score:2)
Anonymous emails might not be so anonymous. Lots of people I've worked with in the past have had... let's say, "unique attitudes" to spelling and grammar that I could identify them by even if there was no name attached. You might want to run emails like that through Babelfish twice.
Re:What I would do (Score:4, Funny)
Melissa
Normal Person + Anonymity + Audience = Total F**** (Score:2)
Good advice! Let's see...
To: CEO@mycompany.com
fr: anonymous
re: Security Cameras
Shitcock! [penny-arcade.com]
Re:What I would do (Score:2)
Data Protection Registrar (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Data Protection Registrar (Score:5, Informative)
Sound advice. Part of my job can involve collecting information for an investigation within the Bank, without the subject being aware that we are looking at what they are doing.
However it is all detailed that the Bank *may* carry out Special Investigations should the need arise, in the employee handbook and with the DPA.
If we run afoul of the DPA we are in BIG trouble and would expect an internal smackdown, not to mention the external repercussions.
You have to ask, if the company are willing to break the law with regard to the DPA, what else are they doing?
Workplace CCTV Monitoring (Score:1, Funny)
I hope workplace CCTV monitoring doesn't get used how it does there...
IANAL (Score:4, Informative)
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 [nlrb.gov].
Re:IANAL (Score:1)
Re:IANAL (Score:1)
I found that NLRB case here [nlrb.gov]. Look at the AnheuserBusch case.
After a little more research, I discover this [brickhousesecurity.com]
Re:'Laws' Are Made To Be Broken (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re:one word (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:one word (Score:1, Funny)
Do them a favour (Score:1, Interesting)
"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
Re:Do them a favour (Score:2)
It wouldn't solve the legal issue either; in accordance with the DPA, any CCTV scheme must have signs stating the name of the operator and a contact telephone number - anything less isn't enough.
In this sort of situation, I'd approach my line manager in the first instance. If no action was taken withi
It may not be that illegal (Score:3, Informative)
Depends on the employer (Score:3, Informative)
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/ [liberty-hu...hts.org.uk]). People have certainly made interesting use of the 1998 act (see http://www.fnord.demon.co.uk/mt/fifth/cctv.html [demon.co.uk]).
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).
Quiet annoyance (Score:1)
Re:Quiet annoyance (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Surveillance Cameras in the Workplace (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Surveillance Cameras in the Workplace (Score:1)
The audio part was an interesting part. It now seems right, but wasnt blatant prior to your post (to me at least).
My $0.02 (Score:1)
> 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.
Re:My $0.02 (Score:1)
> Invite Stewie Griffin over for a "sexy party"
Well.. (Score:3, Informative)
How do you think I feel? (Score:3, Insightful)
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!
Similar Situation (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
probably not 24/7 spying on you (Score:2)
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 e
Whats the point of secret cameras? (Score:2)
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.
Tell them immediately, or face the consequences (Score:2)
Common in the workplace? (Score:4, Interesting)
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?
Re:Common in the workplace? (Score:2)
I'd rather have a camera in the bathroom watching me than spyware on my PC recording everything I type. Including passwords and personal messages off of company time (lunch break, etc).
Re:Common in the workplace? (Score:1)
Dont get me wrong, he (lets just assume its a he, but replace with a she if its a she) has no reason to sniff your bank accound login, data, or any other personal info. But when I was an admin, we knew where every employee was at all times. If an employee was on a site that was deemed "naughty" (yahoo games, msn games, porn (owner loved that shit), etc), I would walk over and tell them that surfi
Data Protection Act request (Score:2, Informative)
Why be adversarial? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why be adversarial? (Score:1)
Ask the experts (Score:2)
Re:Just ran across this, in the bigger context - U (Score:5, Informative)
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 [guardian.co.uk]. 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 [prisonplanet.com]. 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:
Re:Just ran across this, in the bigger context - U (Score:2)
Most of your post is dead on, but
How bad things already are in the UK (Score:5, Interesting)
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:
Re:How bad things already are in the UK (Score:3, Interesting)
And didn't I hear that They are trying to give Themselves the option of sending a "super nanny" in to live with offending families, to retrain their behavior along socially-correct lines?
This is real. Read the bill here. (Score:2)
Opposition editorial in the Times by a member of Parlament. [timesonline.co.uk]
"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."
fake! - it's the Manchester, not London, Guardian (Score:2)
Link to your source please?