Security Versus Privacy Controversy

Subject: Employee Management
Pages: 2
Words: 557
Reading time:
2 min
Study level: College

Recently, with the advent of affordable technical opportunities for everyone, more and more offices have been equipped with surveillance cameras. And if this method of controlling employees is convenient and practical for employers, employees most often experience stress from such close attention from their superiors. Staff members often wonder if cameras can be installed in their workplace and if there are any restrictions. Indeed, under certain conditions, the employer can place video surveillance in the workplace.

Video observation in the office is, without a doubt, a reasonable measure of staff control. Setting cameras in the break room will not violate citizens’ most important legal right – the right to privacy. When creating a local regulatory act of the enterprise on the introduction of video recording with clearly defined goals, it will comply with the law. The employer has the legal right to install video cameras in the workplace or in rooms such as break rooms to ensure the safety of inventory items. In this case, it is reasonable to hang a sign in a prominent place that notifies employees about video registration. The very presence of video surveillance is likely to prevent ongoing crimes.

According to the legislation requirements, it is prohibited not only to interfere in the private life of citizens but also to collect or publish information that discredits their honor or dignity. It is forbidden to set cameras in medical offices, restrooms, changing rooms, and other similar premises. The installation of video cameras in the restroom is prohibited, as it violates employees’ right to privacy. In addition, it is illegal to make recording devices invisible to the naked eye, disguised as other objects. In those places where the employee can get on the record, the employer must put up special notifying signs. Therefore, in any case, managers’ advice regarding installing cameras in restrooms and without informing signs cannot be used because it is contrary to the law.

In my opinion, the installation of video surveillance over employees would not give the proper result. Since the law prohibits installing cameras in toilets, I would refuse to install cameras in break rooms. Employees would still be able to pass the jewelry to third parties in the bathroom. In addition, I believe that all the advantages of video surveillance are reduced because they create a nervous working environment instead of a work-friendly one. Most likely, I would use a system of access control and management — registration and restriction of entry and exit of people to a particular object. According to Gan, Chua, and Wong (2019), it is helpful to install time tracking systems (for example, Kickidler). This is an innovative employee control system that considers the working hours of workers, which can help identify negligent employees.

At the legislative level, it is allowed to install video surveillance cameras in offices. However, this type of control is not entirely effective if it is not supplemented with a system of working time accounting. In my opinion, the ideal combination of controlling the entire office is the simultaneous use of video surveillance and the Kickidler program. A single mechanism for combating negligent personnel and various types of threats to business is obtained by combining the two components. Thus, it will be possible not to turn a competent company management tool into micromanagement, leading to the loss of valuable personnel.


Gan, M. F., Chua, H. N., & Wong, S. F. (2019). Privacy enhancing technologies implementation: An investigation of its impact on work processes and employee perception. Telematics and Informatics, 38(2), 13-29.