4 ms·
UK: " https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/surveillance-the-legal-issues-of-cctv-use-at-work/ https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/surveillance-the-legal-iss... - I
by kartan 7y ago
UK:
"
https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/surveillance-the-legal-issues-of-cctv-use-at-work/ https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/surveillance-the-legal-iss...
- If an employer wishes to use CCTV in the workplace, the ICO must be notified as to why they intend to use it. This is part of the registration process for a data controller under the DPA. An employer cannot then use the information collected for any other reason. For example, if the organisation is using CCTV to monitor crime, it cannot then use it to monitor staff. Employers should, before using surveillance cameras, carry out an impact assessment, decide if alternatives are possible and only go ahead if the use of cameras meets a legitimate aim.
- Staff must be informed that they may be recorded and where cameras are located. To make this undisputable the employer should use clear and visible signs.
- Levels of CCTV surveillance in work must be proportionate to the reasonable expectation of privacy. In certain areas with a higher level of expected privacy, such as near toilets, changing rooms, kitchen and break areas, it is unlikely to be acceptable to have cameras.
Maintaining integrity in these areas is essential. Employers need to be aware that staff can request to see the recordings kept of them by making a subject access request, and the data must be provided no longer than 40 days after a request is received.
"
It seems that the UK law is reasonable. (At least for a country that has a high level of surveillance)
- arethuza 7y agoA few years back my employer took over a floor of offices that had previously been occupied by a small financial services company - they had installed loads of very obvious cameras in the ceilings. Although I was pretty sure they weren't connected to anything I went around and disconnected all of the cables going into the cameras just to make sure!
- marcoperaza 7y ago>An employer cannot then use the information collected for any other reason. For example, if the organisation is using CCTV to monitor crime, it cannot then use it to monitor staff. >Employers need to be aware that staff can request to see the recordings kept of them by making a subject access request The second kind of undermines the interest sought to be protected by the first. I can imagine nefarious reasons for wanting to see the same frames of footage that you happen to be in. What function does this access serve anyway?
- ceph_ 7y ago> What function does this access serve anyway? Oversight
- marcoperaza 7y agoOversight how? If they’re not supposed to have certain recordings, why would they then admit to having them when you ask?
- Spooky23 7y agoThe process betrays that type of evasion. Usually this stuff is part of a broader system, and there’s evidence of whatever omission is taking place.
- lozenge 7y agoConsidering the subject access request will have to be processed by somebody watching the video with you in it, I can't imagine a nefarious use for making a subject access request.
- sametmax 7y agoI don't find it "reasonable" to be filmed all the time while I'm at my desk. Things like that always end up being abused, not matter that "the ICO must be notified as to why they intend to use it". Plus it create a terrible working culture. The work place feels not part of my social life anymore. Why would I feel motivated to do better ? Do be part of a mission ? To feel some meaning ? I'm not doing my part anymore, I'm doing my time. Cameras on the parking ? Sure. Cameras on the shops and other places receiving customers ? Ok. Cameras on areas with risky data or money ? Make sense. But keep the cameras outside of my freaking office. I've quit for less than that.