[thkim]

Why is video surveillance a problem? It seems to be most efficient at protecting employees from being falsely accused & spares from witch hunting. It also helps prevent crime for society. If privacy is the concern, then regulation should be about proper viewing rights and storage control, not shooting down surveillance entirely.

[oaiey]

It is about the feeling of being monitored (and eg not trusted). A camera can also be used to punish you for being human (eg falling asleep for a second... Stupid example) instead of being a machine like your contract expects.

This argument is the same one why nobody should be scared of a police search since you have not done something wrong. It is a consequence of privilege.

[Aerroon]

The difference is that a camera can only see what another person could see if they were to observe you. A search will also see things that you didn't expect other people to see.

[sgift]

That's why searches are only allowed in very specific cases. You cannot institute a blanket search policy.

[yc12340]

Because employers can prevent employees from recording them, but not vice-versa.

An imaginary world, where everyone is allowed to wiretap everyone non-stop, might be fine. But in the real world such ability is hindered by the morals, right of private property and major imbalance of power between people. As such, it is better to explicitly whitelist the few select cases, when surveillance is permitted — lest the society engages in race to the bottom, where every employer will try to give their workers as little privacy as possible.

[thkim]

I'm not sure what you mean by "employer can prevent employees from taping them." Do you mean you assume management corner offices are not taped? That's a problem with corporate culture, not video surveillance.

I still don't see a problem with video surveillance, with full disclosure and proper access controls. What difference is there with police getting a warrant to search your house?