Comments on: Did cameras violate employees’ privacy?

By: HRMorning.com » Blog Archive » When are surveillance cameras illegal?

HRMorning.com » Blog Archive » When are surveillance cameras illegal? — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 11:02:49 +0000

[...] we reported earlier, a judge initially sided with the women anyway. He said that just the possibility that they [...]

By: Randi G.

Randi G. — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 23:45:58 +0000

Maria, it’s not the employees’ personal space — it’s their work area within the company offices. I agree with the company that there should be no expectation of privacy (except in the restrooms) at work.

Keith, good point — let’s hope the CA Supreme Court has more sense than the appellate court.

Joe — also a good point. Cameras are everywhere in our lives, and I believe the company had a right to watch their workspaces.

By: Keith

Keith — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 18:44:56 +0000

Based on the info in this article, it sounds like the original hearing/court found that this did NOT violate the employee’s privacy, but this was overturned by an apellate judge. If the CA Supreme Court doesn’t hear the case, then the appelate court ruling stands.

By: Maria

Maria — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 23:12:18 +0000

Enough is enough. When we hire an employee, they are hired based on certain criteria that they must meet to be considered for the job. If we start infringing on employees personal space, forget about the interview processes. Lets just put them through a lie detector test. Some companies are just paranoid.

By: Joe

Joe — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 18:43:55 +0000

What about camera’s that watches a showroom floor or a cashier, or the sending and receiving dock?

By: mtoomey

mtoomey — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 15:44:15 +0000

Wow, California Judges are at it again. California Judges are some of the most ignorant Judges in the world. Under this decision as much as it states this judge could find that a person that drives and also occasionally drinks could in affect drive while he is drinking and therefore be pulled over by the highway patrol for driving under the influence because of probable cause.

Employees should not expect privacy while at work; although camera images should not be made available to anyone without a company reason to view them. This same Judge is the one that would release a terrorist because he was filmed by a concealed video camera in a shopping mall carrying a bag of explosives to the site of a bomb blast.

The California Supreme Court should have refused to hear this case.