Mystery Shoppers

[smellyloo]

One day we might all adopt a style of clothing that leaves only the eyes peeping through a letterbox in order to protect our privacy ...............

Then, of course, a law will be passed to prohibit the wearing of such garments in order to allow snooping to continue.

I think the answer can be found at the bottom of a bottle of Bushmills!

[MauriceMynah]

I'm yet to find any question who's answer doesn't lie there Smellyloo

[TheQ]

I was for a while responsible for moving security cameras around in a supermarket chain, most chains have one or more over the till areas, some have them over every till. It is not just to check on staff, but has been used to catch the odd customer trying some trick at the tills.

 There are also cameras in High value areas , AND can be installed in toilets and Changing rooms where there is reasonable suspicion of crime and there is no sexual intent (by those viewing) , Toilet cameras (staff or public)  are normally fitted in the roof so the least body parts are visable.

[Wussername]

7 minutes ago, TheQ said:

 

 There are also cameras in High value areas , AND can be installed in toilets and Changing rooms where there is reasonable suspicion of crime and there is no sexual intent (by those viewing) , Toilet cameras (staff or public)  are normally fitted in the roof so the least body parts are visable.

I'm amazed. Is the retailer under a legal obligation to inform their customers of this intrusion.

On a slightly different matter but still relevant I suppose I have often thought that it would be nice to have live images from Ranworth at Malthouse Broad ( you could see if there were any moorings free perhaps)

But would there be resistance from the boating public with regard to invasion of privacy due to the close proximity of camera's and of course the ability of camera's to zoom in?

Just a thought.

Andrew

[Gracie]

I would be extremely uncomfortable if there were cameras in changing rooms or toilets, now that to me is a complete invasion of privacy, I am not a criminal and don't wish to be treated like one when I shop or use a ladies room

I cannot for the life of me help but think that somewhere along the line there will be  a Security guard with the values of a worm who wouldn't think twice about viewing ladies in changing rooms for sexual gratification

I understand the need for security and glad of the cameras when at cash points and the like but surely there are things in life that should remain private and ladies in changing rooms is one of them

From now on when I try something on in a changing room I shall ask if there are cameras, not because I am up to no good but for my own peace of mind at not being ogled by security staff, if there are cameras then I will take my custom elsewhere

At a supermarket (superstore) where I sometimes shop, I have been chatted up by a very young security guard who, I'm sure and given the chance wouldn't think twice about looking in changing rooms

Grace

 

[TheQ]

There is no legal requirement to inform the customer, as that would somewhat defeat the object. The only time I have heard of (but not involved with) the customer toilet cameras was at the request of the police to do with drug dealing.  I was about to install a camera in staff toilets,  when the suspect was caught anyway, so I didn't have to do it.

 You do see signs around saying there a security cameras fitted, But there is no legal requirement to do so, but there is a recommendation that you do so. Many places that say there are security cameras actually don't have them, they just buy the signs .... it 's cheaper.

Saying that I was in a Lowestoft craft shop  last week there appeared to be no less than 6 cameras in a very small place, and from what I know they looked real.

Cameras being viewed by staff of changing rooms / toilets,  would normally be done from tape and would not normally be by a security guard.  But by a manager of the appropriate sex or with a member of the appropriate sex present.

[Bound2Please]

2 Like this

I am very much with Grace on this one, some where in the chain of use/viewing some person male or female would find a way of getting sexual gratification, from cameras fitted in toilets/changing room's of either sex.

I am sure some where there must be a law against it, because if some can be jailed for being a peeping tom. These cameras are in fact doing exactly the same thing, and there fore in my eyes those viewing them or tapes are no more than peeping toms.

Charlie

[kfurbank]

TheQ is mostly right in what he has said, BUT there is a legal requirement to ensure the camera's are as un-intrusive as possible and the public MUST be informed normally by prominent signage. Below is an extract of advice taken from Ben Jones, a qualified UK lawyer. 

"Generally, it is legal to have CCTV in areas where one would normally expect privacy, such as toilets or changing rooms. However, guidance from the Information Commissioner's Office states that this should only occur in exceptional circumstances and should only be used to deal with very serious concerns. For example, if there have been a spate of attacks, incidents of drug dealing or criminal damage in the past, this could be a justifiable reason. If you believe the reasons are justifiable then you must ensure that their position means they are as little intrusive as possible and that there are prominent signs advising their users that there are cameras in use."

[TheQ]

The legal definintion of a peeping tom is roughly that the person is CHOOSING to look for THEIR OWN gratification. Otherwise every policeman on investigation work, say reviewing peadophile tapes, would have to be arrested. 

The fact that you see on camera or in real life, parts of a human body as an incidental fact of your required work or by accident is not illegal. Over the years of sailing on the broads there is no part of the human body I have not seen (unfortunately in most cases) and that probably goes for the many on here, should they all be arrested?

 Grace there would be No point asking if there are cameras,

A, The floor staff generally do not know where they are.

B, If you ask a manager, They may not know, They may not tell you,  they may say there aren't and there are. They may say there are, and there aren't.  or they may just say they don't know...

[Gracie]

That's fair enough TheQ, it's just my opinion and how I personally feel on the subject, I really do believe also that most things in life are open to abuse and cameras in changing rooms is very much one of them

Thank you for the information just the same

Grace

[kfurbank]

25 minutes ago, TheQ said:

The legal definintion of a peeping tom is roughly that the person is CHOOSING to look for THEIR OWN gratification. Otherwise every policeman on investigation work, say reviewing peadophile tapes, would have to be arrested. 

The fact that you see on camera or in real life, parts of a human body as an incidental fact of your required work or by accident is not illegal. Over the years of sailing on the broads there is no part of the human body I have not seen (unfortunately in most cases) and that probably goes for the many on here, should they all be arrested?

 Grace there would be No point asking if there are cameras,

A, The floor staff generally do not know where they are.

B, If you ask a manager, They may not know, They may not tell you,  they may say there aren't and there are. They may say there are, and there aren't.  or they may just say they don't know...

The Q, whilst you are largely right, you are also in danger of creating a sense of paranoia for people who use public toilets, or changing rooms in stores. The law states that you must notify people if they are being recorded.

https://www.gov.uk/data-protection-your-business/using-cctv

[Wussername]

You will find that the ICO  (Information Commissioners Office) and the SIA (Security Industry Authority) demand strict control over public surveillance. 

It is inconceivable that high street stores would have camera's in toilets, changing rooms, frequented by the general public and in particular children.

Drug addicts and dealers tend not to frequent super market toilets or high street stores. The footfall is not conducive to their operation.  Isolated car park toilets and purpose built isolated toilets are their chosen area of operation.

Andrew

[Viking23]

I now use the disabled toilet where possible, I don't have a wheel chair, but I need to be able to wash my hands at various times when using my catheter, I would be devastated if I was being watched during this intimate procedure. I guess the poor guys watching the screen would be too.

On a similar topic, To be fair I have not been challenged for using a disabled loo, I know I have to use one, I have a radar key too. I was in Morrison's the other day and I was pleased to see a sign on the disabled toilet, "Not all disabilities are visible"

10/10 for Morrisons. I have enough to put up with without having to explain to strangers. If they asked, I would be calm, polite, straight to the point, they would be left with no doubt as to my eligibility for using the loo, and I would hope they apologised. Maybe they might be more considerate next time.

There are a few that take the pi** of course, excuse the pun. It was intended lol

Back on topic...      There are more cameras in schools, stick a camera in a childrens toilet or changing room and you will be carted off and labelled a Paedophile.

If cameras are placed in public areas, even hand wash basins, then signs have to be put up with appropriate warnings. 

So if these cameras in public places like shops etc film a child, then surely they should be labelled too.

Any camera with an internet link, can be hacked from anywhere in the world, most systems still have their start up password. 

We are being watched virtually 24/7 and did you know, if you accidentally download an iffy app it could have 24/7 access to your cameras on your ipad, phone or PC camera etc  it can watch, and/or listen to what you are up to.

Apple have this security feature, if set up, that if your ipad is stolen, you can see who is operating it. By GPS, you have the location too. 

Richard

[TheQ]

As I said at the start, the cameras were only fitted where there was a reasonable suspicion of a crime, not left on all the time, just when the crime was suspected to occur.  No security system I ever worked on connected the cameras with the internet, all were locally recorded as evidence. It is a extremely rare occurance that they were required anywhere, but for the shop floor and the internal cash office.

As for drug dealers, all maintenance men, in all our stores, were instructed to regularly remove the blanking panels behind toilets (and under sinks) and look for "foreign substances and objects"  as some drug dealers had taken to storing their stash there. They were meeting people out in the car park and then going to the loo to complete the deal. If you know how, those panels can be very quickly and quietly removed.

 I have not heard of cameras in the disabled Loos, which doesn't mean it hasn't happend. I have prevented managers having shelves removed, which were meant for the placement of bags attached to catheters.(especially as we had a member of staff who needed it.).

 I have never seen signs refering to individual placement of cameras, they are always on the outside saying there are cameras in use at this store.

Whilst the law may have changed since I was moving these cameras around, I have read elsewhere ( but I can't find the reference) that the Instruction on the government web site for signs is not backed up by a law. As for the having to register with ICO I would bet that the big chains have a blanket registration saying simply to prevent stock loss and theft by criminals, not individual  placement registrations.

[smellyloo]

Occasionally one needs to consider whether the legalisation with subsequent control of current illegal substances might help to alleviate the ever growing burden on policing.

Indeed a lot of drug pushing occurs directly as a result of the profits associated with illegal trading.

As far as I can see the current system doesn't seem to prevent addiction and merely pushes people into the twilight world of the black market & maffia contolled crime rings.

[SPEEDTRIPLE]

Bringing this thread back on topic, although in principle, i support secret shoppers, i DON`T, and will NEVER condone any form of secret filming of an individual, unless they are, or are suspected of criminal activity.  It does`nt matter whether i`ve got nothing to hide, or be afraid of, it`s just that i don`t like it, and the issue will NEVER be up for discussion or justification to anyone.  I also take the point by others that the fundamental problem with secret shoppers is that they themselves can be involved in unscrupulous goings on, and abuse their position. I`ve seen, and been a victim myself of unfair goings on by management while at work, can you imagine how a situation on film can be twisted to seem like a completely different situation and used against you?.  I wonder what the management of a store would say, if the staff started a similar action, but aimed at highlighting management bullying?. Now THAT would be very interesting indeed.

[Siddy]

Working in the banking sector the sites I work on are full of cctv, they shouldn't cover a person sat working, they cover reception desks for staff protection, I also thought you had to display sign showing cctv even on your house. Still not put it on this house but my last had the yellow warning sign, one of these things about no warning so can' be used in court etc. that may have changed over a few year.

 

Now back to the top 99% sure they will have general coverage of the tills but the shopper could be recording audio as well, the staff don't just scan and collect payment on the tills these days now they promoting cover/store cards etc so this is what they could be trying to catch to ensure promotion is happening.