[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.