Loss Prevention Blog

The following data is derived from the University of Tampa. It provides some insight for those who may be striving to understand where the use of CCTV is headed and how you are currently using this technology. This will be of special interest and importance to those in the Loss Prevention industry and to business owners. The following is provided as “areas of interest” and “areas to further explore.” The bullet points themselves create areas of debate and the actual case histories may or may not support the argument of whether or not CCTV should be used or applied selectively.

Advantages of the British Model 

• Before cameras are deployed, the public is consulted.
• Frequent town meetings
• Privacy concerns dealt with
• Citizens can visit control rooms at will
• Cameras are controlled by the police, local authorities and private contractors
• Clear policy and procedures that are approved by the Home Office

The American Model 

• Use of CCTV technology by law enforcement in the US has not always been well received
• Little involvement of the community prior to deployment
• Citizens left to respond after the technology is up
• There is a need for standardized policies dealing with:
  • Storage
  • Use of the images
  • Chain of command
  • Digital image issues
  • Use & reuse of tapes
  • Access to control rooms
  • Public access

LEGAL ISSUES

• Surveillance in the workplace
• Does the use of video surveillance by landowners and businesses to reduce crime  fulfill their “duty” to protect
• Invasion of privacy claims
• Failure to use a video security system (negligence)
• Failure to protect
• Improper discretionary use: targeting minorities, those belonging to unpopular political or social groups
• Use of video surveillance to replace security guards or officers
• Potential misuse of digital images since they are easily manipulated
  

Cases dealing with privacy 

• Katz v. United States – use of electronic interception of a voice in a public phone booth violates the expectation of privacy
• Kyllo v. United States – the use of thermal-imaging technology into a home violates the expectation of privacy because the technology cannot go beyond what the naked eye can see
• O’Connor v. Ortega – there is an expectation of privacy in  a private office at a hospital
• Vega-Rodriguez v. Puerto Rico Telephone Co. – there is no expectation of privacy in a common room used by numerous employees  

Negligence Cases 

• Nebel v. Avichal Enterprises, Inc. – if a criminal act is foreseeable and there was no attempt to reduce the risk, the defendant is liable (case involved a motel patron)
• Shoney’s, Inc. v. Hudson – a business in an area subject to crime is negligent if they use video surveillance to replace security personnel in order to save money
• Kutbi v. Thunderlion Enterprises, Inc. – use of video surveillance that is not monitored creates a false sense of security rendering the defendant liable

Considerations for invasion of privacy claims 

• The degree of the intrusion
• The context of that intrusion
• Circumstances surrounding the intrusion
• Intruder’s motives and objectives
• Setting where the intrusion takes place
• The expectations of those whose privacy is invaded
• Was there a breach of duty to protect

Today, CCTV (Closed Circuit Television) is as much a part of your business as lighting, signage and cash registers. It was not that long ago when the only time a business owner would think of CCTV is when they discovered that an employee was stealing from them. The owner would install a camera—most often hidden—capture the behavior on video; then be nagged by another problem, namely, “Now what?” They would not know what to do with the incriminating evidence. Most often they would confront the suspect, inform him or her that he or she was “caught on tape” and then dismiss the thief. It would appear to be the correct approach, but it wasn’t then and it is not today.

The incorrect and often illegal approach used 10 or 15 years ago is still the same incorrect and illegal approach used today. The business owner’s reaction to a theft or fraud situation has not changed much and that is because our basic emotional reactions to events are static. What has changed is technology, laws and tactics.

What is the future for CCTV use in the workplace? Will we see less of it due to changes in privacy laws?