Business owners scored a small victory in August, when the California Supreme Court ruled that a corporation was justified in using a hidden surveillance camera.
Two women workers, Maria-Jose Lopez and Abigail Hernandez, had brought suit against Hillsides Inc., a nonprofit that runs a group home for battered children in Pasadena, Calif. The women said they were horrified and alarmed when they discovered their employer had been running a surveillance camera in the office they shared. One woman said she used the office often to change into gym clothes after work and the other admitted there were occasions when she showed her coworker parts of her body, proving that she had lost weight after pregnancy.
Hillsides’ executive director set up the hidden camera in an attempt to catch an employee who allegedly was downloading pornography from a corporation computer.
At issue was not so much whether the employer had a right in this case to set up a surveillance camera in the workplace. The court agreed that Hillsides had reason to suspect an illegal activity by an employee; and that the activity, if unchecked, might cause harm to clients, customers or employees.
The ruling more accurately stemmed from whether the women’s rights were violated because the placement of the surveillance camera was in a semi-secluded office where they expected some level of privacy.
The potential good (the surveillance camera exposing dangerous behavior) far outweighed any potential harm to employees.
The court failed to make a blanket statement that surveillance cameras were okay in the workplace. In fact, statements were quite to the contrary, indicating the issue of surveillance cameras in the workplace is bound to be debated in the future and considered on a case-by-case basis.
The main justice who wrote the opinion for the California Supreme Court said that the court did not intend to encourage employers to install secret surveillance systems, but said that employers do have a right to monitor company computers to see that they are not being misused.
In support of employees, justices also seemed to suggest that hidden surveillance camera use would be highly questionable, even illegal, in rest rooms, dressing rooms and showers, where modesty is still at stake. In some surveillance camera cases, voyeurism is the intent; not crime prevention or misuse of company time or property.
But in the Hillsides case, the taping was done late at night, when the office should have been empty. No one but the executive director operated the surveillance camera. He came into the office specifically to turn it on and off. The women feared that they were taped, but they never were, and there was no embarrassment or disciplinary action to them, resulting from the surveillance.
An attorney for the women argued that employees should have been told that the area had a surveillance camera and that their actions may be recorded. The defense said it would defeat the purpose of the surveillance – to catch a pornographer who was likely one of the employees.
The conclusion in this case was that surveillance was limited, and the hidden camera was used for a good reason.
The alleged pornographer was never found and it is not known whether he or she is still an employee. The surveillance camera was disabled and Hillsides has installed Internet monitoring software that blocks employee access to offensive Web sites. Another computer surveillance solution is computer keyloggers, which record keystrokes. By monitoring what the employee is typing, keyloggers reveal text messages, e-mails and Web downloads.
You don’t have to be “good” or “evil” to be a spy. You don’t even necessarily have to be clever or smart.
PENSACOLA, FL – Police gained important clues about the July 9 murder of a wealthy Florida couple from 
High-tech