10 ms·
> According to the regulator, cameras recorded employees in workplaces, salesrooms, warehouses, and common areas. NBB claimed the aim was to prevent and investi
by Quanttek 6y ago
> According to the regulator, cameras recorded employees in workplaces, salesrooms, warehouses, and common areas. NBB claimed the aim was to prevent and investigate criminal offenses and to track the flow of goods in the warehouses.
> However, in order to prevent theft, a company must first use “milder” methods, such as random bag checks when employees leave the premises. Moreover, the LfD said video surveillance is only lawful if there is “justified suspicion” against specific persons, and even then, video monitoring may only be used for a “limited” time.
> The data authority found NBB’s video surveillance was neither limited to a specific period of time nor to specific employees. The recordings were saved for 60 days in many cases. Customers were also filmed in seating areas without their knowledge or consent.
> The regulator said “the allegedly deterrent effect of video surveillance, which is repeatedly put forward, does not justify a permanent and unprovoked interference with the personal rights of employees” in a translated press release.
> “We are dealing with a serious case of video surveillance in the company,” said Barbara Thiel, head of LfD Lower Saxony, in a translated statement. “Companies must understand that with such intensive video surveillance they are massively violating the rights of their employees.”
> Thiel added video surveillance is “a particularly intensive encroachment on personal rights” because it can pressurize employees “to behave as inconspicuously as possible in order not to be criticized or sanctioned for deviating behavior.”
Finally! It always amazes me how computer monitoring and video surveillance at the workplace have become so widespread.
Also, the idea of focussing on widespread breaches of the right to privacy is a great one. It helps spread a better understanding of the meaning of the right to privacy.
- detaro 6y ago> Finally! This isn't exactly a new legal situation in Germany at least. (Which obviously doesn't mean companies don't try, otherwise we wouldn't have headlines like this...)
- A4ET8a8uTh0 6y agoYep. WW2 legacy resulted in two major additions to the foundations of new Germany: spying on citizens is highly regulated, freedom of speech does not exist for certain types of speech.
- estaseuropano 6y agoI don't think that's really a WW2 legacy, rather lessons from east germany's dictatorship.
- vagrantJin 6y agoWhen was the German Democratic Republic a dictatorship?
- chrisseaton 6y ago> When was the German Democratic Republic a dictatorship? If someone wanted to leave the GDR, were they able to? If not, why do you think they weren't able to? Why do you think people wanted to leave, and why do you think people wanted to stop them? Why do you think they had to literally shoot people to stop them leaving the country if it wasn't a dictatorship and they were welcome on the other side? Are you confused about the 'Democratic' part of the name? North Korea also calls itself 'Democratic' today. Read some history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_East_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_East_Germany > Elections were held but were effectively controlled by the SED and state hierarchy, as noted by Hans Modrow [communist premier of East Germany] and others. The last premier of East Germany was literally convicted of electoral fraud after unification. > Modrow did not deny the charges, but argued that the trial was politically motivated and that the court lacked jurisdiction for crimes committed in East Germany It was a dictatorship. Any reasonable historian or even person there at the time will tell you this. The literal Premier himself didn't even deny it.
- bawolff 6y ago> If someone wanted to leave the GDR, were they able to? Why do you think that has anything to do with whether it is a dictatorship? Not having free elections makes it a dictatorship (or at least not a democracy). Not allowing people to leave makes it a shitty place to live, but that is separate from if its a dictatorship.
- alisonkisk 6y agoIs the problem is the surveillance or the lack of consent? Amazon had a problem where they charge employees for the spent doing bag searches. If rather be video-recorded (temporarily) than wait in a bag searches line. Also bag-searches seem more invasive than video.
- detaro 6y agoConsent basically doesn't work as a basis in employment situations, because it's almost impossible to argue that an employee is guaranteed to not be disadvantaged if they do not consent.
- Barrin92 6y agoThe problem is surveillance. Consent is a meme. People who work in warehouses don't get to shop among a dozen different employers like software engineers in the valley. >Also bag-searches seem more invasive than video. Then don't do either. Or only do some random searches or when you're suspecting someone of having stolen something. Treating employees like thieves by default is nuts. We don't accept petty theft as a justification for mass surveillance outside the workplace so we shouldn't accept it inside the workplace either.
- dghlsakjg 6y agoPetty theft is absolutely used as the reason for mass surveillance outside the workplace. The majority of the cameras that I see on a daily basis are for petty theft. So much so that it’s a given in my head that a retail environment will be under video surveillance
- jokethrowaway 6y agoConsent is not a meme. You are choosing to work for a company. If the company wants to record you while you do your job that can very well be part of the contract you accept when starting to work. Most of the offices I've worked at had surveillance, the supermarket I buy food from has surveillance, the shopping malls I visit have surveillance. Nobody is forcing you to go there and feel free to start your competing series of offices / supermarkets / shopping malls without surveillance; check if the market care instead of assuming this is what people want, before legislating and imposing regulations and fines.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- GrantZvolsky 6y agoHaving grown up in an area with an abundance of crime I prefer to live with the surveillance of public spaces. I'd wager that opinions on surveillance highly correlate with exposure to crime.
- IfOnlyYouKnew 6y agoThere's not much evidence that video surveillance is effective. If it exists, the effect is small. Street crime is generally not committed by people accurately evaluating their options and making optimal choices with a long-term view.
- stretchcat 6y agoI've heard that cameras aimed at cash registers are quite effective at stopping employees from stealing. From my observations of where cameras in shops are pointed, that seems to be their primary purpose.
- josefx 6y agoIsn't that redundant with modern cash registers? You know what amount of money was in it at the start of the day, you know what was sold, you know what was in it at the end of the day. Any difference between is and should would be quite visible without pointing a video camera at the employee the whole day.
- colejohnson66 6y agoTo be fair, registers aren’t used exclusively by one employee. At grocery stores, when someone goes on break, someone coming back might take their spot. That happens multiple times a day. And for restaurants, almost every employee uses the same few registers. The only way to know who is stealing is to either watch the drawer or to count the cash every time the employee walks away. Of course, most places go with the former as the latter is too time intensive (especially during a rush). The better solution (IMO) is to just count at the end of the day, and if there’s a discrepancy, mark it down. If it happens multiple times, you can compare who was at that register for each of those days and narrow it down.
- sneak 6y agoI don't understand how someone putting non-hidden video cameras in their own private building is breaching anyone's right to privacy. Entering the building is optional, even if you work there.
- t0astbread 6y agoEntering the warehouse is optional for a warehouse worker?
- young_unixer 6y agoIf they can resign from the job, then yes, it's optional.
- oaiey 6y agoSo stripping away legal rights you have.
- f1refly 6y agoYeah, but then all other warehouses have cameras too. Well, the warehouse worker can always choose to become homeless I guess? Seems to be a fair deal in your world.
- chopin 6y agoEven then better to live not in London. The ship of opting out of surveillance has sailed.
- detaro 6y agoBy that notion, all employment laws are unnecessary, because you can always resign?
- sneak 6y agoFor the most part, yes.
- tmpxgdqrcKFuG 6y agoHow would "random" bag checks be milder than video 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.
- mrtksn 6y agoThey put a device in the exit door that beeps randomly on your way out, if the device beeps you get a bag search. 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.
- Rebelgecko 6y agoSpeaking for myself, a bag search is a lot for invasive feeling than video surveillance. If I'm in a break room or another shared space at work, I already have an expectation that people are looking at me. 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.
- guitarbill 6y agoSurveillance isn't the same as a person looking at you, especially with 60 days retention. 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.
- 6y ago
- thegrimmest 6y agoI'd like to disagree. I think an employer (or any person) has a right to place a video camera any place on their property they could otherwise hire a person to sit and watch. This person can see things and testify to them, essentially functioning as a meat video camera. Why do employees expect not to be seen by their employers in working areas? or public break rooms? How is placing a camera different than hiring an overseer?
- still_grokking 6y agoPlease take note that this is form Germany. Computer monitoring and video surveillance at the workplace are outright verboten. This can be only a temporary measure in case of justified suspicion. That's nothing new and most companies of course comply. That's also why the fine is so high: That company behaved exceptionally bad. This regulation is also less about the right to privacy (in the end it's about working environments) but about general personal rights. Constant monitoring at the workplace is just not compatible with the notion of human dignity. (Also it's stressful for the employees, makes them ill and wears them out, which is bad for productivity. Maybe this part is the real reason? ;-))
- Someone 6y agoI think this is EU-wide, not just in Germany. Reading http://regulatingforglobalization.com/2019/10/18/video-surveillance-at-work-european-human-rights-court-approves-hidden-cameras/ http://regulatingforglobalization.com/2019/10/18/video-surve..., “outright verboten” probably doesn’t apply anymore, but it remains close. As you say, it’s a human rights issue. This case is GDPR. That could apply in cases where videoing itself is allowed, but, say, the videos are insufficiently protected against viewing by the general public.
- thkim 6y agoWhy is video surveillance a problem? It seems to be most efficient at protecting employees from being falsely accused & spares from witch hunting. It also helps prevent crime for society. If privacy is the concern, then regulation should be about proper viewing rights and storage control, not shooting down surveillance entirely.
- oaiey 6y agoIt is about the feeling of being monitored (and eg not trusted). A camera can also be used to punish you for being human (eg falling asleep for a second... Stupid example) instead of being a machine like your contract expects. This argument is the same one why nobody should be scared of a police search since you have not done something wrong. It is a consequence of privilege.
- Aerroon 6y agoThe difference is that a camera can only see what another person could see if they were to observe you. A search will also see things that you didn't expect other people to see.
- sgift 6y agoThat's why searches are only allowed in very specific cases. You cannot institute a blanket search policy.
- yc12340 6y agoBecause employers can prevent employees from recording them, but not vice-versa. An imaginary world, where everyone is allowed to wiretap everyone non-stop, might be fine. But in the real world such ability is hindered by the morals, right of private property and major imbalance of power between people. As such, it is better to explicitly whitelist the few select cases, when surveillance is permitted — lest the society engages in race to the bottom, where every employer will try to give their workers as little privacy as possible.
- 6y ago
- anothernewdude 6y agoBag checks sound like a more obtrusive measure than cameras. Can't believe it's illegal to record your premises