> 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.