Let me start by saying I live in Connecticut so if you have information about CT in particular it would be most helpful. Now the situation, I currently work for a private non-profit agency and there's been some ongoing concerns about the workplace environment. That aside, I, along with a co-worker, were informed by our boss today that we have been recorded for the past few months while working in our office. We have been aware that there were cameras present but had been told on several occasions that they captured video only. Now my boss stated today that the cameras also capture audio and she was listening in on our conversations earlier in the day. There is nothing in our employee handbook or any of our contracts that state anything about video or audio surveillance. Needless to say we were quite surprised by this information and it's quite unsettling. Does anyone know if this is legal? I had always thought that consent had to be obtained to record anyone. I'm not all that concerned about the video as we were aware of the cameras, but the news of the audio, plus direct statements that there was No audio recording is disconcerting to say the least. Any info would help. (And no, I didn't say anything that would be inappropriate).

I couldn't find anything about videotaping and recording audio in Connecticut.

I did find info about recording telephone conversations, and in your state consent is required to record telephone conversations.

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j...10151844,d.cGc

The thing is, you state that you were aware of the video cameras. Most video cameras capture video and audio. But you also state that you were told that no audio was being recorded.

Having said that, I wonder why the boss suddenly brought it up if there was nothing on the tapes worthy of mentioning. Especially since they previously denied recording audio.

I also wonder why you're concerned if there's nothing damaging on the tape.

Something doesn't quite make sense here.

I would review what your employee handbook says about use of company property. I will bet it says something to the effect that the premises are owned by the organization and that any improper use of the premises is prohibited. Assuming such a clause exists, they do not have to say anything about the level of surveillance. Their right to protect the organization gives them a broad latitude in how they do it.

So the first part of my answer is that I highly doubt that recording both video and audio is illegal. You titled your question "Right to Privacy", but this is a very misunderstood issue as the Constitution does not provide a right to privacy. The framers of the constitution had no concept of the level of surveillance that exists today. Your workplace is owned by your organization. It is private premises and they can do what they like on it. Whenever you enter private property, your rights to privacy are severely curtailed. You walk into my home and I can have hidden cameras and be recording you and its legal (with some restrictions like bathrooms). What I do with those recordings, however, could run afoul of the law.

The one point you have in your favor is this: "the news of the audio, plus direct statements that there was No audio recording". If specific statements were made that no audio was being recorded, then any audio recording could NOT be used against you in a court. If you were fired because of something learned on the audio and you can prove that was the reason, you might have a case against the organization. However, if the organization announces that the system has been upgraded to include Audio, then you are out of luck going forward. Any employee should assume that their actions on company property are being tracked. From the physical (video and audio) to the electronic (e-mails, internet surfing, etc.).

One question I would have is when the cameras started recording audio, or if they always did. I would write down the date of what and when you are told, and also anything else that might pertain to all of this, just to have fresh in case you ever need it. You could also ask (in a non confrontational way) why you had been told it was video only and why you have just now been told it included sound. It's possible that not everyone even knew, or maybe someone decided that lying isn't good policy and legal policy. Could be a combination. I wouldn't assume anything nefarious yet.

A side question I have for you is whether or not recipients of your services are on the premises or are known to staff as individuals. That would bring in HIPAA concerns about privacy rights of clients, if your place is subject to HIPAA laws. Have there been any concerns about staff discussing clients in ways that are out of bounds? If I were the employer, that would be my reason for listening in. But I don't like it personally. I wouldn't want to work there.... and I think it would be grounds for collecting unemployment after quitting.

A boss needs no consent to monitor his property or workplace for either security or quality control. That includes any use of his equipment or computers. I think you got fair warning of this going forward.

I agree, this is a workplace... and consent is implied as they own everything. You have the option of trying to find another place that doesn't do that. (And good luck finding one).

Unless you are in a Union in which case they can make stipulations with the employer in the contract of cameras pointed at your actual work positions. (personal experience on that one)

https://www.privacyrights.org/workpl...ng#videoinwork

7 and 8 seem to cover it, although not exactly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joypulv

A side question I have for you is whether or not recipients of your services are on the premises or are known to staff as individuals. That would bring in HIPAA concerns about privacy rights of clients, if your place is subject to HIPAA laws. Have there been any concerns about staff discussing clients in ways that are out of bounds? If I were the employer, that would be my reason for listening in. But I don't like it personally. I wouldn't want to work there.... and I think it would be grounds for collecting unemployment after quitting.

---

HIPAA is in regards to doctor/nurse/etc./patient privilege. There are audio and video recording devices at my nurses station to ensure professionalism of the nurses and staff.

Yes, I know... I worked at a clubhouse for those with mental illness, and HIPAA law was applied (rightly or wrongly) to all staff, whether medical or not. That was the image I had in mind when I asked.

They may do so, except in areas like bathroom or dressing rooms. You are under video, almost anywhere you go now adays, in public, on streets, in subways, In almost every store. And the majority or work places have video.

Audio is used a lot, most of the Federal buildings I worked in, where both video and audio.

I would suggest that the employee handbook be amended to indicate that video and audio may be recorded. While the OP now knows that, other and new employees should be aware of that also, particularly since Connecticut laws seem to be out-of-date (and apparently only pertain to telephone communications).

Since the legal experts are all here, I have a related question that this question brought to mind.

You see so many video recordings online, some very embarrassing for the people being recorded. I highly doubt that those people would have consented to strangers posting many of these videos for the world to see. Could those people sue? If they could find the person that posted the video?

Also, if, for instance, I put up a camera in front of my house, and record my neighbors, but never post the videos online, or anywhere, would I need their consent?

Wouldn't it be the same thing here, even if it weren't a part of the employee handbook, and even if there weren't laws about recording employees in your workplace? If the videos are only being monitored, but not shown to the public, would the OP even have a reason to be upset?

That's not worded very well. Having a hard time figuring out how to word it. Hope you get the gist.

When you are out in public you lose a lot of the expectation of privacy. So any recordings made in public places are perfectly legal. If you had a surveillance camera on the front of your house, that is perfectly legal. Use of that video may also be legal without consent depending on content. If a person is damaged by displaying the content, then yes there might be a case to sue. But being embarrassed is not necessarily damaging.

As far as recordings made on private property, again how they are used is pertinent. A private property owner has the right to protect their property with surveillance.

There is no expectation of privacy in the public places, however your private videos are subject to consent in many cases before they are made public and failure to do so may indeed wind up in a court. As Scott points out though, the burden of damages isn't always met, no matter how "viral" the video may be.

Your neighbors antics may be funny, but caution is advised before sharing that particular moment of humor with the rest of the world. Different story when there are criminal acts involved though.