Mall security cameras...

[catabryna]

And am curious about your thoughts because I have yet to see this issue addressed.

The majority of us, by now, have seen the security camera footage of the woman walking through the mall. Because she is totally oblivious to what's going on around her, she falls into the mall's shallow pool. Yes, very funny, I agree.

Those cameras are supposedly there to prevent crime or to aid law enforcement in apprehending those responsible for events ranging from shoplifting to assaults, etc.

Those cameras, I assume, would be viewed only by the security personnel contracted by the mall, unless or until it might actually be needed for the purpose for which it was intended, i.e. law enforcement.

This is really a question of ethics.

What gives mall security the right to take clips taken from security cameras and post them to youtube?

How would you feel if you discovered that some security guard spotted your kid doing something stupidly funny (though not illegal) at a mall and decided to post it on youtube?

What gives someone the right to do this?

Do you believe that someone who engages in that type of activity should continue to work in security?

Where would you draw the line?

[elocs]

1. Interesting point. Although if you are in a public place, albeit privately owned,

what are your real expectations of privacy? I agree such footage should be kept private, but it is not a slam-dunk issue.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

2. Cameras are there for more than the reasons you mention

though those might be primary. Posting it on YouTube is not the best thing in the world, but unless there is a specific policy against it then I don't think they should be disciplined.

sP

[catabryna]

3. Which then begs the question...

do you believe there should be some sort of personnel rule that prevents mall security from releasing such footage...

But, now that you mention it, I agree that those cameras are probably there to protect the mall when it comes to liability issues.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

13. The mall may or may not choose to discipline its employees, but its clear they own the video

and can post it if they choose

[catabryna]

15. The point of my post was not related to the legality

of doing such a thing. My question involved the ethics of the people or corporations who engage in this activity.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

16. I actually find it sad that this sort of thing even has to be discussed;

it is terribly unprofessional. But my idea of professionalism might be a bit much these days.

sP

[ProgressiveProfessor]

17. I gave up on expecting civil let alone ethical behavior out of most people years ago

Call me a cynic...

[bobbolink]

19. If we actually believed in the right to the pursuit of happiness, we would protect dignity.

Using peoples' mishaps for the entertainment of others is actually cruel, but we no longer see it that way.

When people are treated with dignity and respect as a matter of course, we will see the decline of a lot of societies ills.

[pipi_k]

33. I think that video went a bit further than entertainment....

It was a very good real life demonstration of what can happen when stupid people pay more attention to texting than to where they're going.


That woman could just as easily have fallen down a flight of stairs and/or landed on top of an elderly person, breaking that person's hip, etc. Or on top of a baby carriage, collapsing it and causing serious injury to the baby in it.


As far as I'm concerned, self-absorbed, careless people don't have any "dignity" to protect.

If we want to get into a discussion on respecting the rights and dignity of others, then we would have to start with that woman (and others like her) who are so disrespectful of others that they assume they're the only ones driving on the roads/walking in malls/etc.

[Jokerman]

4. They most likely didn't have a "right" to post the video.

The images recorded would be the property of the mall, not the individual who posted it and the mall may be justified in disciplining the employee.

That being said, as long as no one could be personally identified in the images, little or no harm has been done.

[catabryna]

14. Not everyone can be personally identifiable by video...

but, some can.

I say this because some people do have certain features that stand out... perhaps a disability, or a limp, etc. Even if I couldn't see my father's face, I could easily identify him by the way he walks and so could many people who know him. Many people could easily recognize my son because he's so short and has certain facial features. The same could be said of a nephew of mine. Or perhaps my mother could be recognized because of her scooter.

Just some food for thought. :hi:

[Atman]

5. It seems to me to be highly unethical.

Those videos are not there for anything but security. Would it be different if the security company was able to profit off the video? They have no right to show it anywhere but in security-related instances for the mall. I don't think there is even much room for debate on this one. It's wrong.

[KansDem]

8. That's the problem I have with "reality TV"

I remember watching just one "show" back in the 1990s (I believe). It was one of those "videographer riding along with police" shows. Anyway, the cops see a car at a convenience store without a license plate, so they follow it as they now have "probable cause." Well, the car only goes a few blocks and pulls into a driveway. The cops, with videographer in tow, pull up and proceed to pound on the door, telling the occupants to open up. The befuddled driver opens the door and the two cops and the videographer enter and start looking around. One cop asks the owner if they have hot water(?) The kitchen sink is full of dirty dishes, which I was embarrassed for the residents. After a lot of brouhaha, the cops leave and say they're coming back. They do, with the videographer, and look around. The kitchen is clean, and there appears to be no malfeasance on the part of the resident/driver. So they issue him a driving without a tag ticket and leave.

I really didn't know what to make of this show, other than it made us, the viewers, out to be voyeaurs...

[ProgressiveProfessor]

12. If its in public, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy

As the occupant/owner I can bar cameras from my property but can not stop them from taking video or stills from the sidewalk. I do not have to let them in house.

Purportedly Dog and other reality shows will pay people to allow the cameras to come in. There have also been incidents where they were run off at the end of a hose or rake.

[Shagbark Hickory]

6. The video that was released did not reveal the person's identity.

As long as its not stalking and you're not using bag cams to look up ladies skirts, then it's OK.

At least thats what the cops told me when I was reporting some suspicious shutterbugs.

[WinkyDink]

7. IOW, you're saying a corporation can post security videos to YouTube?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

10. Its quite legal for them to do so

[Shagbark Hickory]

11. Yeah, why not?

If I'm at the park filming my dogs frollic in the meadow and some total strangers ride by on their bike and get in the shot, does that mean I can't post the video to you-tube? Of course not.

[WinkyDink]

28. What about "corporation" and "security videos" did I not make clear? The contract should preclude

releasing vids to the masses for &^%*% and giggles.

[Shagbark Hickory]

38. As for the contract the security workers have and the mall company..

Hell yeah, I think that was totally unprofessional to post the video, although not unexpected and certainly not the worst thing security guards have ever done.

But it didn't show the person clearly enough to be recognizable and for all we know, she could have signed a consent form and worked a deal to get $5 for every time the video is downloaded.

Or for all we know the security company and the workers could be history. Especially since that fountain looks to be a bit of a hazard.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

9. You have no right to privacy while out in public and they own the video

So they can quite legally do it.

[CBGLuthier]

18. Public Space.Public Event. Tough Shit.Learn to look where you are going.

[KansasVoter]

21. You sound like a real jerk!

[pipi_k]

36. Hah...let's tweak it a bit...

The unknown person caught on video falling into a fountain because of selfish disregard for her surroundings is, instead...


Rush Limbaugh

Sarah Palin

Ann Coulter

A gun-toting Teabagger

or someone equally vile


I'll bet it would be a real hoot then, right?

[catabryna]

23. Wow!

I don't even know what else to say. :eyes:

[Joe the Revelator]

31. Agreed

[KansasVoter]

20. They had a right to release t but I would never visit the mall again. Very rude and tacky to release

[Pithlet]

22. Exactly. May be legal, but certainly not an ethical thing to do.

Or very smart from a business perspective. If I think the mall is inclined to post security videos on Youtube, I'm not likely to shop at that mall. It's one thing if it's another patron taking the video and posting it, but quite another for the mall themselves to do so. I don't have an expectation of privacy at the mall, but I don't expect the mall itself, who is profiting off my patronage, to use my image like that.

[Sirveri]

24. The guard got fired. But they still have the right to release it.

They probably would not have released the video themselves though.

[catabryna]

25. Thanks for letting me know...

I expect that his will not be the last time this occurs, however.

I probably shouldn't have used the word "right" as it took away from the point of the post which was really more about "ethics" but, hey... it's too late to change it now.

[Sirveri]

27. I understood your point... but I'm not sure it's relevant in a corporate setting.

Corporations don't care about ethics, they care about money and bottom line. If they would have made more money by releasing this video, or using it in some way, they would do so, ethics be damned.

[IcyPeas]

26. No one would've known who she was...

if she hadn't blabbed about it herself to the media. She was the imbecile not looking where she was going.

Legal? I don't know. But it is funny (imo).

If it was me I would feel like embarrassed but I wouldn't be suing. Lot's of stupid things are posted on youtube. Sometimes ya gotta laugh.

It should be used as a lesson to everyone who walks around texting and not looking where they are going.

[WinkyDink]

29. How can anyone support this breach of ethics? THE PURPOSE IS SECURITY, NOT COMEDY FODDER.

Are some of you SERIOUSLY suggesting that SECURITY CAMERAS are the Internet version of "Candid Camera"?? No harm, no foul?

That, security risk or not, alleged criminal or not, we must accept seeing our walks through a Mall, caught on SECURITY cameras, on the INTERNET??

This is NOT some moron with a flip-cam; this is a company contracted for protection, for security, for safety----NOT FOR YOUR OR MY LAZY-BOY HUMOR.

Man, no wonder TPTB find erosion of our privacy so frickin' easy to accomplish, if some of you think that any place outside of your WC is fair game for Big Brother to watch AND show.

(Allow me: "Lighten up, Francis.")

[aikoaiko]

30. Its an issue between employer and employee and company policy.

Its not a "rights" thing.

Employees leaking materials and broadcasting them through a media like the internet or news is very common.

[seabeyond]

32. decency and right does not factor into society today. nt

[PavePusher]

34. Actually, I think the release of this video was a public service.

It dramatically points out that some people are almost too stupid to breathe unassisted, and that society has, by and large, circumvented evolution to a frightening degree.

Letting people like this continue to be free to breed does not bode well for the future of homo sapiens.

But at least we'll have funny stuff to watch on TV....

[Buenaventura]

35. security cameras do absolutely nothing to "prevent crime".

they may, at times, "aid law enforcement", but their primary purpose is to suggest that the institution - be it a mall, a college campus, an apartment building … whatever … is actually doing something to enhance personal safety and security. they're not.

[Brilliantrocket]

37. Somebody will always find a way to post this stuff on youtube.

I feel that it shouldn't be illegal. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy at a mall.

[Locrian]

39. double fucking standard

So the "security" crew can post videos.... but we cant record the police (aka public servants) in a public place w/o getting arrested for it.....

Fuck. What country do I live in?