Upper managers allegedly justified the camera’s installation as a security measure to monitor individuals attending Alcoholics Anonymous meetings in the office, according to the suit, which also claims that video recording of AA members at a meeting is illegal.
Incredible, even scummier than I thought it was going to be based on the title.
… Alcoholics Anonymous …
It’s right in the name, even.
They thought it was a hacking group drinking event.
Wow that is so fucked
If I had to work in an office with a security camera pointed directly at me all day, I would just start wearing a burka to work.
They don’t fucking own you.
They sure as hell act like it though
Well for one, I’m glad law enforcement are required to have body cams for accountability. Imagine if police unions lobbied so that the body cam requirement is be removed because of privacy reasons.
Except they have full control over those cameras and the footage they record.
Anytime there’s misconduct they just refuse to release the footage or they turn off the camera.
We should have civil rights organizations be in charge of the footage.
Make them automatically upload to ACLU servers.
Police brutality plummets.
Except even when they are filmed nothing happens, they just get paid leave or shuffled to another department.
Before video evidence became a thing, almost 0% of police brutality would face any consequences. With video, its now non-zero, should be ideally at 100%, but getting the statistic away from 0% is a great start. The murderer of George Floyd would’ve walked away without video evidence. When there’s more cameras, the odds of punishment is better than without cameras.
That’s a fair point, I’m just skeptical how much of a difference a new tech gadget can make on systemic issues.
At least then the victim’s family can get a wrongful death payout. It would be even better if they abolished qualified immunity.
And it works just like when people plead the fifth. I.e., immediately under suspicion.
Our cops here are increasingly being questioned when their cams aren’t ‘on’ as it’s procedure to turn them ‘on’ - they are on but not storing, and when activated they immediately dump the 30sec buffer to disk and then write new stuff - and anything that goes down a little hinky means they’re directly on the hot seat.
You guys need to pay your cops more, and get a better class of applicants.
It’s fine for cops to have less privacy than normal workers, considering they are given much more responsibility and power.
Those cameras aren’t pointing at them. This was pointed at her.
They are recording what the police do and say. It clearly doesn’t make a difference that the camera is technically pointing away from them. Do you think this person would have been ok with wearing a corporate bodycam because it isn’t pointing at her? No obviously not.
The thing that is different is that police have control of it, and they generally only use it in public where there’s no expectation of privacy, and they’re the bloody police and have guns and kill people!
deleted by creator
That’s weird. How does Vaseline keep getting on the camera lens?
So um…
The question is, are employers allowed to monitor you while you work?
I mean, cashiers are gonna have cameras pointed at them.
Bank workers…
Casinos…
Law enforcement (body cams are pointed away, but still one can argue its privacy intrusion)
I mean, you are getting paid so is it unreasonable for an employer to monitor you?
Like some jobs already has the norm of cameras monitoring your work. So do we all get rid of camera? Or should some jobs get monitored while other don’t?
Curious 🤔
I mean, nobody like being watched, but like if you think about it, a store owner has to make sure their cashiers don’t steal.
Counterpoint: all of those jobs have workers who know they are being filmed. This was done without this woman’s consent, secretly.
IDK, this case seems really complicated. First, it’s a state agency, not a private employer. And there is a difference between a camera in a public space and a camera pointed directly at an individual in a private office. The entire point of having an office in the first place is that it provides some level of privacy. If an employer doesn’t want to give their employees any privacy, they can have them work in an open-plan office. At least in that case, the employees will naturally feel exposed in a public space and will act accordingly. But a private office? That naturally encourages people to perform behaviors they wouldn’t perform in public. You might not take a phone call from your doctor in an open plan office, but it wouldn’t be unusual to take one in a private office.
I get that plenty of other employers have cameras. But there are some very key differences between cashiers and someone working in a government office. The cashier works for a private employer, and thus constitutional protections aren’t applicable. And cashiers are literally standing in a big room interacting with the public; it’s obvious that privacy is not implied. But if you, as an employer, put someone in a space that implies they’ll have privacy, but then secretly record them? Yeah, that could fall afoul of some privacy laws.
I don’t really know if they have a case or not. But the fact that an employment attorney was likely willing to take the case on contingency suggests that the case is, at the very least, not frivolous.
Laws can vary but generally video recording is allowed in US states except in private areas like bathrooms and changing rooms. Audio recording laws vary by state laws (single party consent). In most offices it is normal to have cameras watching doors and common areas but not individual workers.
but not individual workers.
And this is where it crossed the line here. Targeting individuals… Is not going to work out for you in court.
Upper managers allegedly justified the camera’s installation as a security measure to monitor individuals attending Alcoholics Anonymous meetings in the office, according to the suit, which also claims that video recording of AA members at a meeting is illegal.
Is this about theft tho?
Oh yea, I’m not specifically referring to this story. But like in a general sense of “Is surveillance at work ever okay? If so, when is it okay and when is it not okay?”
They do by counting the money at different points in the day like shift changes and close…
I had this happen once when I worked at a shitty movie theater I misplaced 20 bucks and for the next two weeks they followed me around doing random tasks… At the time I thought they were really stupid and I mean it was… But now a long time later I know they wanted me to quit but wouldn’t fire me…
I showed them I didn’t have the money but whatever they do check is all in saying
I know most people demand privacy while they work, but I’m on camera for most of my job, all day every day. I also don’t know what my point was…
Those jobs should also pay more in general… No reason someone in a cubicle needs to be monitored by a camera doing a desk job
That. Is an excellent point. I understand being on camera when I’m near cash or prescription drugs, but… Just working on spreadsheets and shit at a desk… That’s definitely abusive oversight.
dont ever get a job in a bank
Or at CamerasRUs
Or CamerasOnYou
deleted by creator
