[tmpxgdqrcKFuG]

How would "random" bag checks be milder than video surveillance?

- They're typically not going to be watching it 24/7. They'll only look at the tapes if something occurs.

- Random bag checks, like in programming, is not really random. You either have a particular target or type in mind or you apply it to everyone and bag checks are a lot more invasive than video surveillance.

[bigiain]

> They're typically not going to be watching it 24/7. They'll only look at the tapes if something occurs.

This is the kind of tortured thinking that lets The NSA look a judge in the eye and not laugh out loud as they say "Bulk internet collection is not 'surveillance' and so it doesn't require a warrant. It's only after we've keyword searched the data and then have a agent look at the returned results that it becomes 'surveillance'."

I'm sorry but words have meanings, and you don't get to make up your own meanings just because the law prohibits you under the well understood meaning of a word.

Video recording your employees 24x7 is creepy and wrong, no matter whether you never view the recordings or not.

[nickff]

Speaking as someone who worked at an electronics retailer (many years ago), I would prefer the video surveillance over the constant searches.

You shouldn't be so quick to accuse someone of tortured thinking. From HN guidelines: "When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3.""

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[josefx]

> Speaking as someone who worked at an electronics retailer (many years ago), I would prefer the video surveillance over the constant searches.

You probably would prefer neither over both. This case only says that doing constant video surveillance without sufficient cause is illegal. It doesn't say anything about the legality of constant searches without sufficient cause either, just that it may have been a better solution if they actually had a cause.

[esperent]

> constant searches

Where did you pull this from? It's random searches, occasional, and only if there's enough theft happening to justify it otherwise the searches would be illegal too.

[Aerroon]

I consider random bag checks way more invasive than constant video surveillance. With video surveillance I know where it is and the contents of my bag will remain private. If my employer could do a ransom bag check on me then I would have no such guarantee.

[levosmetalo]

> How would "random" bag checks be milder than video surveillance? > > - They're typically not going to be watching it 24/7. They'll only look at the tapes if something occurs.

And they can claim they didn't watch it at all? Total surveillance without specific reason and without information and consent is exactly what the law is trying to prevent.

> - Random bag checks, like in programming, is not really random. You either have a particular target or type in mind or you apply it to everyone and bag checks are a lot more invasive than video surveillance.

And that's the whole point. If there's a reasonable suspicion that someone stole something, they can ask to check the bag. The Person has the right to refuse that his bag be checked by company employees and ask to involve the police.

[oaiey]

It is about the feeling being monitored. It is even illegal to have a fake camera installed because of the implications on the persons emotions.

[avar]

> The Person has the right to refuse that his bag be checked by company employees and ask to involve the police.

Why would the employee ask to involve the police? You can just refuse, period.

If your employer has evidence of a crime they're free to try to convince the police to get involved.

[bonzini]

They can also fire you. Even in countries with stronger employee protection laws, not complying with office building rules is probably sufficient grounds for termination.

[GuB-42]

I am in France, and we have strong employee protection laws.

The interesting part is that your boss can't do much if he suspects theft besides calling a criminal investigation. I.e. it is difficult to fire an employee for that.

However, when safety is involved, things change. You can get fired for unboxing with the wrong knife. It is actually a side effect of employee protection laws. The employer is responsible for the safety of his employees, and if the employer have set rules for that purpose, not only he can take serious action if they aren't followed, but he has to, otherwise in case of an accident, he may be found responsible if the rules are not enforced.

So if you really want to fire someone, the best way is to argue that he is putting himself or others in danger. It includes hygiene concerns.

[bawolff]

I find that hard to believe. I dont think employers can search your bag unless they have reasonable suspicion in most countries. For example in canada https://bccla.org/privacy-handbook/main-menu/privacy5content...

[duckfang]

> - They're typically not going to be watching it 24/7. They'll only look at the tapes if something occurs.

Didn't we just have an article a few days ago about Google automating everything, and having absolutely meager human level support?

When (not if) those "Video Surveillance AI tools" come out, and can be hooked to a video surveillance system for 'automated anomaly detection', will they just be used as probable cause because some programmer with a classifier thinks you're at fault?

It's not hard to extrapolate 1 step into the future. Even Kroger and Walmart are doing that here. If an "anomaly" (aka: assumed theft) occurs, then flag a attendee to come over.

[estaseuropano]

The issue with video is that you never know who might be watching or even how long it is kept or what it is used for. It can even be used days/weeks/months later to find evidence against an employee, say to nit-pick scenes and use them against the employee (e.g. to fire someone). This also offers a huge asymmetry as of course the employee themselves have no acces to the video.

[zbentley]

> They're typically not going to be watching it 24/7. They'll only look at the tapes if something occurs.

Search the web for "panopticon".

[Spooky23]

People in charge of cameras watch them. The waving off that “it’s too much to watch” is BS. The security risks associated with boobs are well investigated. They are frequently used for various abusive behaviors.

Random searches can be done effectively if they are truly random. Usually effective pilfering is done by employees who wouldn’t be tagged as a thief.

[mrtksn]

They put a device in the exit door that beeps randomly on your way out, if the device beeps you get a bag search.

That’s how it is random. It’s milder because you get in trouble only if you have something in your bag that’s not supposed to be there and since it’s random you don’t feel targeted.

[Rebelgecko]

Speaking for myself, a bag search is a lot for invasive feeling than video surveillance. If I'm in a break room or another shared space at work, I already have an expectation that people are looking at me.

Since I already expect to be seen, one more person looking at me isn't a big deal. My public appearance is public, but my private things in my bag are not. It's incredibly uncomfortable (and IMO demeaning) to have someone examining the extra pair of underwear in your gym bag or skimming through your journal looking for proprietary info.

[guitarbill]

Surveillance isn't the same as a person looking at you, especially with 60 days retention.

They would (presumably) not be allowed to read a journal for the purpose of theft detection. And if you would be made uncomfortable by something you brought to work, and it wasn't required for your job, you could leave it in a vehicle or at home. Sure, being able to bring it into work might be a personal convenience, for example if you take public transport and wanted to go to the gym before, during, or after work - but it's a choice. It isn't possible to opt out of surveillance.

[skeeter2020]

how can you not have random bag checks? It could be as simple as every nth bag, or everyone one day a year, or rolling a die for each person and a 2 means you get searched. This is not the same problem as police using racial profiling. Mexican customs does something similar and I'm pretty sure they're not picking out the whitest tourists.

[lostlogin]

The problem is that it gets abused, it’s not that randomisation isn’t possible.