The Office of the Privacy Commissioner pulls no punches in criticizing employer’s use of web cameras, calling them omnipresent and stifling
The Office of the Privacy Commissioner has ruled that an employer violated the rights of its workers when it used web cameras to monitor them.
A former employee of an Internet service provider made the complaint to the commissioner. The employee felt the company was acting contrary to the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) when it installed the cameras in 2003 to monitor the performance of employees.
The cameras were put in two locations in the office. One was pointed towards the sales and marketing staff and the second was pointed toward the technical support employees. The cameras were fixed, and had no zoom or pan function. They were set to low resolution and did not record. The individuals captured on camera were in sharp focus and easy to recognize.
The sales and marketing staff were located in one room, working behind moveable partitions. The camera was focused on the common area in the room and not on any one individual. It was possible to catch a glimpse of a person who moved away from her workstation into the common area and the camera captured anyone entering or leaving the room.
The setup for the technical support staff was similar. But the room was larger, there was no common area and the camera captured about half of the staff.
The audio content of both cameras could also be monitored. Although the cameras were operated continuously, they were only accessed by managers when they were off-site.
The company gave two reasons for installing the cameras:
•to ensure security; and
•to manage employee productivity.
The Assistant Privacy Commissioner zeroed in on the appropriateness of the company’s reasons for installing the cameras.
The security argument was dismissed because the cameras only focused on areas where the employees worked and did not monitor the office’s entrance and exit points.
The company further argued that if an employee accidentally tripped the alarm, the security company would call a manager who would then go online to view the camera to see if everything was OK. But the assistant commissioner was of the view that a much less intrusive method of addressing the same issue existed — the employee who tripped the alarm could simply call the security service or have the service call them.
The company also pointed out that the cameras helped with theft and harassment, and no incidents of either had occurred since the cameras were installed. But the assistant commissioner said she was not convinced that the problem with theft and harassment was so compelling that it justified the introduction of such a privacy-invasive measure.
On the basis of these points she deemed that a reasonable person would not likely consider security an appropriate purpose in this circumstance.
On the performance front, the assistant commissioner made note of the fact the employer used a variety of means to measure the productivity of its staff, including:
•an automated phone system;
•supervised telephone calls;
•monitored e-mail;
•progressive discipline;
•performance reviews; and
•policy statements.
Despite these measures the company maintained that it needed to use web cameras during the hours when management was not present (the company operated 16 hours per day Monday to Friday and 10 hours per day on weekends.) It cited financial reasons for not hiring additional management staff.
But the assistant commissioner said the company did not appear to be open to other options, such as having staff members function in a supervisory role or modify the work schedules of existing managers to cover off-hours. Such measures could be cost-effective and would be less privacy intrusive, she said.
She also expressed concern that such surveillance was tarring all employees with the same brush and questioned the rationale of subjecting an employee who excelled on all productivity measures or another who was not under theft of suspicion or harassment to the same ongoing monitoring as the employee who rated poorly or who was thought to be a thief or harasser.
In her view it was not appropriate to intrude upon the privacy of all employees, regardless of their level of productivity, their attitudes or their behaviour, because a few employees posed problems for management.
She concluded that it would be unlikely that a reasonable person would consider employee productivity an appropriate reason to use video and audio surveillance.
The assistant commissioner said the underlying purpose for the cameras really appeared to be one of deterrence of theft, harassment, malingering, criticism or other behaviour an employer may not like. She said privacy-intrusive measures can always fulfil such objectives at minimal financial cost.
But PIPEDA demands that the cost of human dignity form part of the equation. Continuous, indiscriminate surveillance of employees is based on a lack of trust and treats all individuals with suspicion when the underlying problems may rest with a few individuals or with a management plan that may not be entirely sound, she said.
The effect of such an omnipresent observation was stifling and while it may prevent undesirable behaviour, it also forces the employee to call into question every potential action, every potential comment no matter how benign.
“The goal of ensuring adherence to the company’s vision comes at too high a price to our individual autonomy and freedom,” read a statement on the website of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner related to this case.
The assistant commissioner determined that by using web cameras in the manner described in this complaint, the company was not fundamentally recognizing the right of privacy of its employees as enshrined in PIPEDA. She could not, therefore, support the use of cameras to monitor employees at work since, in this case, it would undermine the purpose of the legislation.
She recommended that the company remove the web cameras from the sales and marketing and technical support areas and confirm this action in writing within 45 days.
A former employee of an Internet service provider made the complaint to the commissioner. The employee felt the company was acting contrary to the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) when it installed the cameras in 2003 to monitor the performance of employees.
The cameras were put in two locations in the office. One was pointed towards the sales and marketing staff and the second was pointed toward the technical support employees. The cameras were fixed, and had no zoom or pan function. They were set to low resolution and did not record. The individuals captured on camera were in sharp focus and easy to recognize.
The sales and marketing staff were located in one room, working behind moveable partitions. The camera was focused on the common area in the room and not on any one individual. It was possible to catch a glimpse of a person who moved away from her workstation into the common area and the camera captured anyone entering or leaving the room.
The setup for the technical support staff was similar. But the room was larger, there was no common area and the camera captured about half of the staff.
The audio content of both cameras could also be monitored. Although the cameras were operated continuously, they were only accessed by managers when they were off-site.
The company gave two reasons for installing the cameras:
•to ensure security; and
•to manage employee productivity.
The Assistant Privacy Commissioner zeroed in on the appropriateness of the company’s reasons for installing the cameras.
The security argument was dismissed because the cameras only focused on areas where the employees worked and did not monitor the office’s entrance and exit points.
The company further argued that if an employee accidentally tripped the alarm, the security company would call a manager who would then go online to view the camera to see if everything was OK. But the assistant commissioner was of the view that a much less intrusive method of addressing the same issue existed — the employee who tripped the alarm could simply call the security service or have the service call them.
The company also pointed out that the cameras helped with theft and harassment, and no incidents of either had occurred since the cameras were installed. But the assistant commissioner said she was not convinced that the problem with theft and harassment was so compelling that it justified the introduction of such a privacy-invasive measure.
On the basis of these points she deemed that a reasonable person would not likely consider security an appropriate purpose in this circumstance.
On the performance front, the assistant commissioner made note of the fact the employer used a variety of means to measure the productivity of its staff, including:
•an automated phone system;
•supervised telephone calls;
•monitored e-mail;
•progressive discipline;
•performance reviews; and
•policy statements.
Despite these measures the company maintained that it needed to use web cameras during the hours when management was not present (the company operated 16 hours per day Monday to Friday and 10 hours per day on weekends.) It cited financial reasons for not hiring additional management staff.
But the assistant commissioner said the company did not appear to be open to other options, such as having staff members function in a supervisory role or modify the work schedules of existing managers to cover off-hours. Such measures could be cost-effective and would be less privacy intrusive, she said.
She also expressed concern that such surveillance was tarring all employees with the same brush and questioned the rationale of subjecting an employee who excelled on all productivity measures or another who was not under theft of suspicion or harassment to the same ongoing monitoring as the employee who rated poorly or who was thought to be a thief or harasser.
In her view it was not appropriate to intrude upon the privacy of all employees, regardless of their level of productivity, their attitudes or their behaviour, because a few employees posed problems for management.
She concluded that it would be unlikely that a reasonable person would consider employee productivity an appropriate reason to use video and audio surveillance.
The assistant commissioner said the underlying purpose for the cameras really appeared to be one of deterrence of theft, harassment, malingering, criticism or other behaviour an employer may not like. She said privacy-intrusive measures can always fulfil such objectives at minimal financial cost.
But PIPEDA demands that the cost of human dignity form part of the equation. Continuous, indiscriminate surveillance of employees is based on a lack of trust and treats all individuals with suspicion when the underlying problems may rest with a few individuals or with a management plan that may not be entirely sound, she said.
The effect of such an omnipresent observation was stifling and while it may prevent undesirable behaviour, it also forces the employee to call into question every potential action, every potential comment no matter how benign.
“The goal of ensuring adherence to the company’s vision comes at too high a price to our individual autonomy and freedom,” read a statement on the website of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner related to this case.
The assistant commissioner determined that by using web cameras in the manner described in this complaint, the company was not fundamentally recognizing the right of privacy of its employees as enshrined in PIPEDA. She could not, therefore, support the use of cameras to monitor employees at work since, in this case, it would undermine the purpose of the legislation.
She recommended that the company remove the web cameras from the sales and marketing and technical support areas and confirm this action in writing within 45 days.
