
Cameras Came to the Newsroom - tysone
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/01/opinion/surveillance-cameras-work.html
======
kartan
UK: " [https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/surveillance-the-legal-
iss...](https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/surveillance-the-legal-issues-of-
cctv-use-at-work/)

\- 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)

~~~
marcoperaza
> _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_
> What function does this access serve anyway?

Oversight

~~~
marcoperaza
Oversight how? If they’re not supposed to have certain recordings, why would
they then admit to having them when you ask?

~~~
Spooky23
The 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.

------
geofft
I think not uproaring is a very rational response to the threat model:

\- You already have little expectation of privacy at work. Your computer has a
sysadmin account for the company, and probably _not_ a sysadmin account for
you. Your Springsteen tickets are logged and potentially cached in the
printer's memory. At most places, coworkers can see what you're doing in
person. So there's no strong reason to expect more crackdown on occasional
personal use of work time/resources than there has been in the past.

\- There are easy options (especially for people who get an NYT salary) for
private work and private computing: doing things at home, using your cell
phone (not on the corporate network, no corporate login, and probably too
small to see on the cameras), taking a quick break to a nearby cafe, printing
your tickets at FedEx, etc. (Many of those are much more anonymous than
possible at work, e.g., leave your phone at your desk, email to
printandgo@fedex.com from a throwaway account, and pay in coins.)

\- The stated rationale—responding to violent attacks—makes sense, is quite
worthwhile individually in expectation (even a slight reduction in your chance
of getting killed is quite valuable), and if believed implies insufficient
staffing to effect a panopticon. There's probably just one security guard
downstairs, at most.

\- There's other personally beneficial reasons to want cameras at work, e.g.,
helping you (whichever side you find yourself on!) in harassment claims. In
particular I'd actively want low-resolution cameras, enough to identify people
but not enough to read standard-sized text on paper or screen, covering every
office or conference room with a door that closes.

My own workplace has cameras everywhere other than the bathrooms. We're told
this at orientation, and also told that nobody is actively watching them. This
seems totally fine to me. If there were security cameras in the bathrooms /
privacy rooms / etc., or in my apartment, or in hotel rooms, or anything else,
that would be quite different.

~~~
IfOnlyYouKnew
\- as evidenced by this article, and some of the posts here, people who
haven’t gotten used to permanent surveillance do have an expectation of
privacy. And cameras are different than people watching you because it’s one-
way, and at scale.

\- allowing people to do minor personal tasks at work is expected in a
professional career such as journalism. It’s not a sweatshop, peoples’
productivity doesn’t neatly correlate with hours worked anyway. And you’re
expected to be readily available outside of work hours anyway, so this should
cut both ways.

\- shooting happen within just a few minutes and the effect of cameras is
debatable, especially if there is no armed and trained security.

\- The NYT is a sort of high value target. I would not expect to get into
their offices without proper ID.

\- Is there some epidemic of false harassment claims everyone is worried
about? As far as I know there was one case that had consequences at the Times
(Glenn Thrush) and he admitted to the behavior. Also like 90% of harassment is
verbal, which cameras don’t capture. The rest seems to happen in hotel rooms
and bars, which these cameras also don’t address.

~~~
jimmaswell
> And you’re expected to be readily available outside of work hours anyway

Really? I'd never agree to that. It's definitely not universal, certainly not
tolerated in France for example I'm sure.

~~~
vidarh
Almost everywhere, including as far as I know in France, such limitations
tends to disappear for anyone who can control their own working hours to at
least a certain extent (whether or not that control is _genuine_ is often a
matter of contention) to make up for it.

------
lostmymind66
When I was younger, I had a boss that had security cameras around our small
office. When he was at home (which was half the week), he would watch us
through the cameras.

These cameras also had two-way audio, so I would be having a conversation with
my co-worker and he would butt into the conversation..through the camera.

I only lasted about 3 months before I quit. There is still an active, private,
Facebook group with ex-employees of this company. The boss was so
horrible..it's almost like people needed a support group.

~~~
Theodores
Same but different tyrant-boss but no two way audio.

We didn't have gigabit broadband back then, therefore whenever the boss was on
the cameras the internet went slow. Therefore we always knew that if the
internet was slow we had to be on best behaviour.

We never told him how we knew when he was watching or let him know that we
knew, it was an office wide open secret amongst us though. Funny times.

The off topic highlight was when a young French girl was being interviewed. I
happened to be in earshot and I almost fainted. Straight up she was asked
about her plans to start a family. They didn't want to hire someone who might
cost them maternity pay down the line, hence the opening question that
brazenly got straight into the sexism. She took the job.

I too only lasted three months before I quit.

~~~
JudgeWapner
you should have hacked the camera drivers, a-la _Speed_ , to show the same
footage of people diligently staring at screens with their hands neatly placed
on the home row.

------
firefoxd
In the name of security, Big Blue decided to add keycards to go through every
single door. It's understandable. They first added the card readers over the
span of months, getting people used to them even if they weren't functional.
Then they added the turnstile at the entrance. It's a good idea to allow only
authenticated people into your building.

What they didn't take into account was the number of people that go in and out
of the building every single day. Imagine a 12 story building with at least a
hundred people on each floor on the average day. And they had to be funnelled
through a single turnstile. Then there is the elevators.

One morning, everything was activated at once. The line backed all the way
outside the building and wrapped around. You could spend up to twenty minutes
to get into the building. Then once you are in, you have to wait for the
elevators. You have to scan your keycard to get to your floor. Now try doing
that with 30 people in the elevator and they all want to go to a different
floor.

"Can you press 11 for me?"

They couldn't, because their card only works for the third floor.

In less than a week they shut everything down and went back to the designing
board. They had to rebuild the reception to add 4 turnstile. The elevators
keycard readers were never reactivated again.

I started taking stairs and never looked back.

~~~
icebraining
In the buildings I've seen with that kind of security, the elevator lobby on
each floor was unsecured, and then you had a door to the secure area.

Of course, during high-traffic hours people just hold the door for each other,
defeating the purpose.

~~~
phantom784
That's better for security as well. Elevators with keycards have to have
overrides for firefighters.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBERTNSuZR8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBERTNSuZR8)
is an interesting talk on the subject.

~~~
anticensor
Or just declare them firefigter unsafe by making it carry less than 250kg at a
time (rescue via elevators an elevator capable of at least four persons at a
time).

------
legalreasons99
Cameras were installed at a previous company where I worked. This was just an
office - there was nothing to see anyone doing other than sitting at desks and
walking between desks.

The management told the staff they were only going to be on after working
hours, to catch thieves. I noticed a week or two later that some young, male,
technical members of staff, including the one who did the installation, were
in the server room watching staff on the monitors, laughing at people’s
appearances and talking about the sexual acts they would like to perform with
some of those visible on the monitor.

I reported this to management, who said they’d fix it. A week later, the same
was happening. Again I reported, again it carried on. Then I saw that (male)
management were using the web viewer from their desks to watch the women in
the office (selecting particular views) from the comfort of their desks with
monitors towards the windows. Which are reflective, so they weren’t as private
as they perhaps thought.

I told one of the women concerned. She complained to the same management -
they told her they were off during work hours (which they weren’t) and nothing
happened.

I kept spotting them sitting watching the staff from their cosy corners, so I
logged into the system (it wasn’t hard to find the credentials) and
reconfigured it so it wouldn’t appear on the network any more.

It took them a few days to factory reset the box and they were off again. I
left shortly afterwards - the general attitude towards employees being one of
my main reasons.

~~~
kyberias
That is absolutely horrible. What country was this? Isn't that illegal?

------
dontbenebby
This seems like a security issue in addition to a privacy issue.

If these cameras are hacked, now you can watch someone entering their
passwords, working on stories pre-release, communicating with sources, etc.

This makes the CCTV system a very juicy target.

~~~
manigandham
Security is a trade-off in everything. Someone can hack the laptops too, does
that mean laptops should be avoided?

~~~
nitrogen
Given laptops are interacted with directly, a compromise is more likely to be
noticed and prevention more likely to be in place.

------
Consultant32452
This smells an awful lot like classism to me, and so do a lot of the comments.
It's gross that people would be okay with and even supportive of monitoring
poor/blue collar work environments but suddenly educated wealthy people are
being treated the same as poor people and it's a big problem.

------
nullc
All people considering leaking evidence of unlawful behavior by powerful
entities like governments should take note: The New York times is much more
risky an outlet than it used to be.

If someone wants to find the source of a leak published at the NYT they
probably only need to hack or seize the DVRs recording those cameras.

~~~
untog
The article mentioned that the video is kept locally and not stored anywhere
in the cloud, so if you want to hack it you're going to need physical access
to the building. And if you have that then NYT has a whole lot of other
problems it should be dealing with before worrying about the cameras.

(besides, I very much doubt many people leak to the NYT by walking into the
office and announcing their presence. They do it online or send things in by
mail in the stories I've read)

~~~
casefields
The point is the government can force the NY Times to hand it over. And they
will. First amendment protection for sources applies to the journalists but
not so much third party data.

~~~
untog
I'm still not sure exactly what they'd be handing over that would be of note.
Confidential sources surely wouldn't meet with journalists in the office, it
would be a crazy risk to have them walk through the front door and keep them
in view of the entire newsroom.

------
JustSomeNobody
Specifically to desensitize people. “Look! Cameras are ok. Everyone should
stop worrying.”

------
noodlesUK
The part of this that worries me is that journalists will often have
embargoed, confidential (classified?) information open on their monitors from
time to time. Obviously this doesn’t matter in the part of the newsroom that
reviews restaurants, but imagine this at the Guardian or Washington Post
during the snowden leaks etc. It’s much easier to seize a DVR containing
videos of all the secret communications than to get a source some other way...
I hope most news outlets that deal with truly sensitive data have something
akin to SCIFs, but you never know what pops up in someone’s cubicle...

------
ggm
People are right to focus on the downsides, but I do want to intrude one
consideration: Newsrooms have already been the target of attack. There are
people out there with skills and weapons, who view journalists as "the
target".

Maybe one day, the security camera footage will be materially useful?

------
jeffrallen
If you work from home you decide how many cameras are in your workplace. Just
sayin'

------
posbehsf
Isn’t anything you do on a company issued machine or network monitored as is?
I think the question is not whether or not your activity is monitored but
whether or not you work for an employer who cares that you occasionally browse
Facebook, in which case the problem is your employer and not the fact that
you’re activity is monitored.

------
philwelch
I've always assumed that everything associated with a workplace was under
surveillance. I'm not sure why anybody would be surprised or upset about
security cameras. A bizarrely lukewarm take from the NYT here.

~~~
libertine
I guess the question is: is it for security or for monitoring?

If it's the second, that's ilegal in a lot of countries.

~~~
paganel
The article implies that the cameras were installed against terrorists. Some
people are pretty happy to throw their privacy away in this illusory fight
against terrorism. Needless to say, the terrorists have already won, we’re
slowly giving up everything that separates us from them.

~~~
jameslevy
Unfortunately there is a good reason to believe that organizations like NYT
could be targets. This should not be compared to, say, the Patriot Act.

------
craigsmansion
So, nothing a spray can with black paint couldn't have fixed, but let's blog
about it instead.

~~~
jrockway
Destroying office equipment seems like a good way to become unemployed. Not
everything has to be absolutes; before burning the building down, you could
just ask "hey, what's with the cameras".

~~~
craigsmansion
Normally I'd agree, and there are plenty of work sites where cameras can work
in the employees' favour, but for a journalist of a large respectable
newspaper?

At the very least they would have had something to write about, because this
article is lukewarm at best and feels like a complainy blog post.

Also, getting fired at a news paper for blacking out the cameras in the
vicinity of your desk as a protest because a new security chief wants to feel
important is probably a blessing in disguise.

------
Causality1
I'd much rather have a security camera over my desk than a manager's head
hanging over my shoulder. Yes, there's a privacy tradeoff, but for me
personally it would be worth it to cut down on workplace drama. No more he-
said she-said fights that end in both people being terminated. No more false
accusations of sexual harassment or racism, and a lot fewer genuine instances
of both. I'm especially in favor of them if the footage is archived and only
viewed if there's a specific need to, as opposed to being available live.

~~~
EliRivers
Do those things happen to you a lot? None of them have ever happened to me.
The security should match the risk; I'll keep going without a camera, but
perhaps you could simply have your own camera recording yourself all day, if
you need this protection.

~~~
Causality1
Not to me, but they have to coworkers. We have a lot of seasonal low-wage
workers whose lives are...interesting. There was a non-fatal shooting in the
parking lot several years back between a woman and her ex-boyfriend.

