Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Video Surveillance Laws in Nevada

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Video Surveillance Laws in Nevada

    My employer uses video surveillance to monitor their employees, unfortuneately, they listen to all conversation to try and bust their employees using those recordings. I understand that an employer can watch videos of their employees for the sake of stealing, and for other things as well. But isn't it illegal for them to record you, isn't that against the privacy act ?? Or is it because we are in an at will state that they can do anything to bust their employees ??

  • #2
    Let t this right. You "know" your being recorded! So your worried about what you say or do being sued against you?
    http://www.parentnook.com/forum/

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by panther10758 View Post
      Let t this right. You "know" your being recorded! So your worried about what you say or do being sued against you?
      Yes, that is true. We have been worried that if we report them to the over all manager and or lawyer that we would get fired. We just need to know what our rights are.

      Please don't roll your eyes at me.. I am just trying to figure what we can and cannot do. Thanks!!

      Comment


      • #4
        Read the first paragraph in the link below, if these conditons are met there is nothing you can do.

        http://www.polarisusa.com/The_Law_Re...rveillance.pdf
        "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate'' - Sir William of Ockham, a.k.a. Ockham's Razor

        Comment


        • #5
          Heres a suggestion do not do or say anything that will get you fired in front of cameras or with hearing distance of a mic!
          http://www.parentnook.com/forum/

          Comment


          • #6
            Thanks for the files. Well, they do have a posting that there are surveillance cameras on the premises, however there are NO notices up that people are being recorded. We just happen to know about it because he just installed the newer cameras about two months ago.

            Thanks for the info.

            Comment


            • #7
              There are some incorrect statements of the law on the Polaris document so I wouldn't necessarily go by that.

              Comment


              • #8
                I had a situation like that. We spoke gibberish around the pickups.

                Have fun with it.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by escaped View Post
                  There are some incorrect statements of the law on the Polaris document so I wouldn't necessarily go by that.
                  It would be helpful to point out the inaccuracies. Citing references that show why some of those statements are inaccurate is even more helpful (reduces the chances of some unfruitful argument).
                  Senior Professional in Human Resources and Certified Staffing Professional with over 30 years experience. Any advice provided is based upon experience and education, but does not constitute legal advice.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I'm curious exactly what "Privacy Act" the poster thinks is being violated.
                    The above answer, whatever it is, assumes that no legally binding and enforceable contract or CBA says otherwise. If it does, then the terms of the contract or CBA apply.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by cbg View Post
                      I'm curious exactly what "Privacy Act" the poster thinks is being violated.
                      I believe op is referring to the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and Nevada being an "all parties consent" state for recording conversations.

                      And IMO it is an interesting question. Unfortunately, I don't know enough to answer. My knee jerk reaction is that ECPA doesn't apply to video surveillance of one's own property but I look forward to finding out what better informed people think.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        The reason I ask is that on this topic more than any other, I see posts from people who have found what they think is an applicable law they think is being violated, only to find that it is not a US law. Often, on this subject, it is an Australian law, which of course does not apply here.
                        The above answer, whatever it is, assumes that no legally binding and enforceable contract or CBA says otherwise. If it does, then the terms of the contract or CBA apply.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by cbg View Post
                          Often, on this subject, it is an Australian law, which of course does not apply here.
                          Picky, picky, picky.
                          "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away".
                          Philip K. **** (1928-1982)

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            this is getting...

                            I feel like apologizing to the OP. At first I thought it was kind of a dumb question, but now that I have thought about it a little I don't. I understand and agree that e-mail and computer work can be monitored, but I think that there is a case to be made about the presumption that private conversations actually are private, even at work.

                            What about the future ramifications to the company? I seem to remember reading something about a fella named Nixon doing some recording in his office and it didn't work out so well.

                            I know I over simplify a tad, but even as a completely above board employer I can think of six conversations I had this week that I would rather nobody ever heard.
                            Last edited by EHSKen; 06-24-2008, 08:24 PM. Reason: spelling error, I wasn't even drinking

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by ScottB View Post
                              It would be helpful to point out the inaccuracies. Citing references that show why some of those statements are inaccurate is even more helpful (reduces the chances of some unfruitful argument).
                              The poster says:
                              "The First Amendment of the Constitution provides that any conversation between individuals is private, unless otherwise notified."

                              The First Amendment says:
                              "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." Nothing in the First Amendment is in any way relevant.

                              The poster says:
                              "Covert video surveillance is illegal when: The subject has a reasonable expectation of privacy (Fourth Amendment rights);"

                              The Fourth Amedment restricts the federal government - not private parties (this is assuming the employer is a private party and is NOT the federal government).

                              I could go on, but just suffice to say, don't rely on the information on the poster.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X