CCTV at Work

There’s news that we are going to get CCTV cameras put at my work place.  These are to specifically monitor me and my colleagues as we work.  The claim is that it will enhance incident investigation, and is not for monitoring by other people remotely, but that function will be possible.

While I agree that my job is safety critical (running the bridge of a ship at sea, doing oilfield work),  it seems a bit wrong in that it’s just the bridge getting this, not other safety critical areas. We already have a legally mandated data recorder that covers voice, radios, radars etc etc, and history recording of all the systems we operate.

This is all being driven by the person at the top of our department in the company, and that fact that two recent incidents were difficult to investigate properly (read:  Not able to pin the blame on anyone).

Anyone out there had battles with their management over this kind of spying?  What are the GDPR implications?  What are our rights to privacy? Do we have reason to push back?

Just on your bridge or all the bridges of ships the company run?

Where is the ship registered?

At the risk of getting into the weeds – “running the bridge” = are you officer of the watch?

At the moment, as far as I know it’ll be only on the bridge, and will be on all the other ships bridges too.  Nothing in the Engine control room, and other operating rooms that are equally critical to safe operations.

We already have CCTV covering parts of the ship, and the data is recorded. However, these are for watching equipment that is being operated remotely, and other similar control of safe work activities.  There are cameras in the various engine/machinery spaces rooms, but these have very limited view, and are there for us to see what’s going on in the engine room if a fire, or similar, problem occurs.  None of these camera can be accessed remotely from ashore, which will be the case for these proposed bridge Cameras.

And, Yep, I’m the OOW, also operating the Dynamic Positioning system and a multitude of other systems too.  there are always two of us on the bridge, and I’m the senior of the two.

If it was in your living quarters, it would be utterly unacceptable. On the bridge of a ship, I don’t see what the problem is.

Ask to see the data protection impact assessment.  This is not just CCTV that might happen to catch incidental passersby, this is targeted surveillance of known persons which is another step up. Probably lawful but needs some solid reasoning re justified, necessary and proportionate.

Is the obvious question not ‘What are you doing that you don’t want filming?’

Film can provide an alibi as well as prove guilt

Been quite standard to have CCTV monitoring factory shop floors where I’ve worked, bridge of a ship, I’m amazed it’s not already there. Your comment about being able to pin blame rather exposes your obvious resentment to them. Again someone being responsible for something as big as a ship being monitored seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Is the obvious question not ‘What are you doing that you don’t want filming?’

Could have been that incident a while back,when Louise had a private tour of the bridge, and there was almost a Costa Concordia moment .;)

Another who is surprised it’s not there already.

While I agree that my job is safety critical (running the bridge of a ship at sea, doing oilfield work), it seems a bit wrong in that it’s just the bridge getting this, not other safety critical areas.

I agree, it does seem wrong. You should be pushing for them to fit CCTV in those areas too.

Having CCTV seems a sensible approach – as someone else said, it also corroborates no wrong doing.
It does seem odd that it is only going in the bridge though, surely would be sensible to install it in all locations – unless they think the issues have been caused at the bridge – if so, surely they’d have a more focused investigation process.
I’m not against CCTV in the workplace but it needs to be sensibly installed and not abused. I’ve absolutely no way of knowing if it is though as I don’t see any of it.

What are the GDPR implications?

Basically non-existent. Its something implemented pretty routinely in a workplace.

What are our rights to privacy?

Again limited in the workplace.

If you have a union you could speak to them. Maybe argue against the remote monitoring option and also for the records to be deleted after 24 hours or so if there isnt a reason to hit retain.

There’s CCTV around most of our office  (9 floors, 4000 desks), there’s CCTV in Police custody suites, above tills in many shops – I’m not sure it’s illegal.

Im another one who is surprised that its not already installed on massive ships operating at sea and dealing with oil fields

Im on camera everywhere in work apart from the locker room, toilets and the canteen, never seen it as a problem

In this day and age im on camera pretty much all the time, going into the shops, walking past someone’s house (doorbell camera, cctv) in the car (dashcam) on the bike commuting (helmet cam) the only time im not is when at home and out of sight of our cctv system and when im in the countryside on the mtb (although im sure ive been captured by passing riders GoPro’s)

Dosent bother me at all

Another “what have you got to hide?” response here, and if you ask the question “officially” then it would probably raise eyebrows.

it seems a bit wrong in that it’s just the bridge getting this

Isn’t the bridge where the most critical decisions and actions are taken?

We put CCTV into the shop I own when we bought it – it’s been invaluable for investigating problems and some customer enquiries. We’ve not once had to use it for staff issues. It’s a tool that is used to make the business better – not spy on staff. I can’t see the bridge of a shop being any different.

I am astonished at the folk who accept this unquestioningly and think it normal and routine.  I am sure there are privacy and GDPR implications.

However on a ship I have zero idea how responsibilities and liabilities lie.

One for your union

I guess it’s a direct response to the Baltimore bridge disaster. I’m also suprised it’s not already in operation.
I get your resentment – I’m not sure I’d want all my daily working life to be recorded and potentially used against me in a court by people who weren’t there making the split second decisions needed under pressure but ultimately its probably never going to be used – I would look into the terms of who can access it and for what purpose other than an accident or near accident situation though

I manage a production facility that installed cameras in production areas to aide in investigations. I don’t have time to be logging into the cameras to spy on people and if an investigation is required I am not looking to pin the blame on someone, I’m looking to find a root cause and implement a corrective action.

When I’m at a workplace I assume I’m being monitored, for performance, safety and to identify any wrongdoing should it occur. CCTV is a part of that.

I’ve never seen that as anything other than part & parcel of work and the transaction that comes with it: I want paying for my work; they want the security of being able to check things are OK. If things go wrong, it’s an insurance policy of sorts. It’s been 30 years, so I don’t know any different, to be honest.
I don’t subscribe to the ‘I’ve got nothing to hide’ concept per se, but like having a dashcam, it can change some behaviour.
I can well imagine that there are some industries or workplaces where it would be verging on impossible to be implemented – like healthcare, due to privacy and sensitivity issues for patients. It could, however, remove a lot of malpractice if installed. Some high-profile cases would be resolved almost immediately.

We had cctv installed outside my office door due to a spate of thefts in that area. Once we had  assurances re security implications for people visiting my office it was all fine and there was nothing I, personally, could do about it anyway being a workplace with a legitimate need for the camera, signs up and all that gdpr stuff
I can’t see that the fact that cctv isn’t used elsewhere is a valid complaint, especially in a key function such as a ship’s bridge (presumably the brain’s of the ship?).

if an investigation is required I am not looking to pin the blame on someone,

God I work in the wrong place.

The “no blame” culture in full swing. The rigs are the same they try to push the “we need to learn from this” rather than blame someone but usually it’s the other way around.

Is it being driven by your company or the regulator? Wouldn’t bother me particularly. Having said that I work in an industry where voice recording of everything that goes on is commonplace, but that’s backed up with strict rules about access to the recordings. Has your employer set out a similar policy? (ie the recordings will be overwritten automatically after x hours and that a manager can’t borrow a tape to see what you’re saying about them?).

Unless you’ve had a habit of conning the ship in your underwear while glugging from a bottle of White Lightning it’s not like it’s going to reveal anything dodgy, and if something happens, will likely vindicate your side of the story.

If you’re concerned I’d suggest going to them with some of the already-agreed policies for cockpit voice recorders and ask that they copy those.

I’m not sure I’d want all my daily working life to be recorded and potentially used against me in a court by people who weren’t there making the split second decisions needed under pressure

If something has gone that wrong that I’ve ended up in court I’d want all the high quality evidence I could lay my hands on.

If that evidence points to me following the procedures I’m supposed to and things going wrong anyway then that’s exonerating me of blame and pushing it up the chain to whoever wrote the procedure.

There used to be CCTV covering my old workplace, I never gave it a 2nd thought. In fact this office job is the first one I’ve had that doesn’t have me on CCTV at my actual work, but ok sure they monitor my PC for umpteen reasons anyway.

As for real time monitoring, unless you’re goofing off so much that it’s blatant at a passing glance, none has time to actually watch you work all day to catch you taking n+1 tea breaks. So whether it is or isn’t seems pretty irrelevant.

I work with rigs quite a bit, and we have total CCTV monitoring  of the drillfloor etc. so we can work from onshore.

So this doesn’t surprise me at all, and honestly I’m surprised its not there, especially if you’ve had a few incidents. As a client I’d demand it because they go on my HSE stats as well

Add me to the list of people who think it’s a good idea and surprised it hasn’t been done already ( but can’t click a like button)

We have CCTV in my government office building, they’re probably noticing me on STW right now – eek!

I think this is fairly commonplace now?

I haven’t been an “Officer of the Watch” for over 20 years now but have been on and around a lot of shipping since.

I was told that some of the large Far Eastern container ship operators have live monitoring of the integrated bridge systems, they can monitor their radar, charts, headings, speeds, settings etc 24/7. I believe they do as well.

I can understand an operator want to improve over the current data recorders, I have had to listen to a couple of recordings from them and they were terrible. You could barely understand what was being said.

I can also appreciate the OP’s concerns, no-one wants someone looking over your shoulder at work but I doubt there’s anything he can do about it.

You could also argue that the random drug and alcohol testing is worse, I knew people who got sacked for smoking a joint when on leave.

If you work offshore, are you even within the scope of GDPR? In any case, here is what the ICO says: https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-resources/cctv-and-video-surveillance/guidance-on-video-surveillance-including-cctv/

Has the employer shared any controls/rules about how the video can be reviewed, by whom, and for what purposes? It’s one thing to use it after the fact to work out what happened in a crash – it’s another thing if they were using it every morning to check you had worn the right uniform while on duty.

Had a client dismissed a member of staff due to cctv footage. The member of staff did a staff subject access request foe all CCTV footage that they had of her which was 10 years. Our client tried to say it was excessive, she gave the reason to the client and the ICO that she wanted to prove how loyal she was and how much time she had worked without pay (unpaid overtime) The ICO upheld the request and she settled out of court. CCTV is a real double edged sword in the workplace.

Under GDPR they have to have a reason to hold and process data; you’ve already explained this in the OP, safety would likely fall under Vital Interests.

GDPR states that processing has to be transparent, ie, they can’t install CCTV covertly.  You know they’re doing it so that’s that box ticked.

They probably should have completed a Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) first – if you’re particularly concerned/bolshy that could be a question to ask.

Oh, and,

They need to control/restrict who can review the footage.  Only people who need to see it should be allowed to.

When I’m at a workplace I assume I’m being monitored, for performance, safety and to identify any wrongdoing should it occur.

Me too but i go on STW anyway ?

We have CCTV in my government office building, they’re probably noticing me on STW right now – eek!

No, the government office/internal fraud team will trace your STW usage via the Internet records against your userid.

You will then be pulled up for misconduct/fraud

Thanks for the replies, thoughts and information.

For context, it’s a UK registered vessel, operated by a UK based company. So the workplace, wherever it is in the world, is considered to be part of the UK.

While I can agree with the “What have got to hide ” and surprised it’s not there already, it’s the implication that it’s needed for my workplace, and not others on the ship.  This in addition to the legal requirement for our Voyage Data Recorder (blackbox) to capture a lot of information.

Our activities are very broad on the bridge, and we stick to the rules of watchkeeping and procedural operations as tightly as we can. It would take me masses of explanation….

We also deal with administration of some of the ships business too, not just “driving”.

We may have conversations that we want want others hearing. Also, by the nature of our work, I get no break from the bridge for 12 hours+, apart from quick loo visits and about 20 mins to get a meal in the middle of the watch. Knowing that for all that time i am being, potentially, monitored might be quite a stressful feeling. We get other crew mates on the bridge for a chin wag and time away from their desks too, that would effectively stop.

In my (ex) work we had cameras in the production facilities and on all our delivery vehicles – except Germany where it was basically illegal to risk getting video of random passers by.  This was to help in investigating incidents.

And as someone where part of my role was investigating incidents I am another one of those who is surprised this isn’t standard on a ships bridge, just like in a commercial aircraft cockpit.

Many years ago the unions did their normal of trying to block something that was being brought in to protect staff and patients, CCTV in ambulances. They spread scare stories of how managers would be watch the footage looking for stuff to pin on staff to sack them. I mean after all that’s all mangers have to do is sit and watch cctv footage all day looking for a single mistake.

The reality is they are installed internally and externally, there are only 2 people in the service I worked for who have access. A manager can request access in the case of incident but only for the specified time period. What has happened is the footage has caught thieves, provided evidence of assaults in staff and vandalism to vehicles and equipment. It has prevented false claims against staff and only in a very tiny amount has it been used for cases against staff.

There are signs and a voice recording to inform staff and uses that it is present.

All good and the unions suddenly became in favour.

just like in a commercial aircraft cockpit.

I dont believe airlines have video at least as standard. Plus as Flaperon alludes to there are rules about access to the recordings and the recordings are limited lifespan. So there isnt an opportunity for fishing expeditions which seems to be the concern here.

For the OP you mention the legally mandated recording so assuming its roughly in line with the aircraft rules I would try arguing that the additional recording should match.

With regards to other areas of the ship, you mentioned a couple of incidents. How many similar incidents occurred in the other areas?

In rail, Some non-European operators are adding in-cab CCTV (so beyond the ‘black box’ Onboard Train Monitoring + Recording (OTMR) device that’s already there in one form or another.

But there’s not enough political will to have this fight to add to the cab interior (forward facing ‘dash cam’ video is recorded by pretty much all operators these days + in-saloon stuff too for passenger trains.

If I was the train operating Co, I’d ask ‘who’s paying’ ? As arguably the legally mandated fitment of OTMR 20+ years ago was supposed to provide the accident investigators what they needed.

In our offices, the Co looked at adding CCTV after a spate of thefts (both some break-ins to steal computers, but also a few petty things).  There was a resounding ‘no’ from the masses so it was dropped (I’m in a part of the industry that is short of skilled  experienced people so the Co knew not to **** off staff otherwise some would walk out the door and join a competitor)