Security Cameras: Risks versus Rewards

Author: Heather Kim

Many business owners are conflicted when deciding if the installation of security cameras is a good business decision for their company. On one hand, the employer would like to maintain employee and client safety, protect business property, deter any would-be thieves or assaulters, as well as fulfill any legal requirements to protect those on their property. On the other hand, there are some liability risks that come with the installation of security cameras, not to mention that security cameras may intrude on the privacy of those legally on the property. Employers must make a cost-benefit analysis in their decision to implement this security measure, as well as effectively communicate the nature and extent to which the cameras will be used after they are installed. 

Very rarely are security cameras required by law. At the federal level, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) requires that banks maintain a security camera to record activity within the banking office, in accordance with the Bank Protection Act. At the state level, banks in New York are required to install security cameras around automated teller machines (ATMs). Various municipalities have enacted codes which require the use of security cameras within specific industries, including banking, firearms dealers and convenience stores. In fact, the majority of law concerning security cameras is related to protection of the privacy of clients and employees when cameras are going to be installed on the property. Generally, cameras are not permitted in places where a reasonable person expects privacy. For example, the courts have held that video surveillance is not permissible in places such as restrooms and locker rooms. Numerous states have more specific laws regarding the permissibility of video surveillance. For example, the state of Connecticut prohibits recording any contract negotiations between an employer and employee. Generally, however, in public spaces, such as malls, hallways and parking lots, there is no expectation of privacy; therefore a camera that records only video could likely be placed in these locations without restriction.

There are, however, instances where business owners have a duty to their clients, and that duty can be related to safety. For example, property owners owe tenants some degree of reasonable protection, which includes some measure of security. However, this protection is most often ascribed to door locks, fire detection and protection equipment, and perhaps intercom systems in the entryway.

While a business may have a responsibility to its clients, when it comes to liability, more is not necessarily better. If a business owner takes on that responsibility, the owner is then required to carry out that duty in a reasonable manner. For instance, if a property owner installs security cameras with the intent to protect tenants from harm, the owner creates a duty to provide a reasonable measure of protection. This may mean that the cameras’ live feeds need to be monitored at all times, or that an on-duty security guard needs to be prepared to respond to any incident at any time. It may also mean that the owner is responsible for injuries sustained on the property because the injured party may claim that the owner knew about a hazard due to the presence of security cameras and that the owner did not act in a timely manner to address the hazard.

In general, security cameras do very little to prevent crime, because they are rarely monitored live, and when they are, the response time is generally poor. In fact, there are estimates that as little as five percent of video feed from security cameras are monitored live, primarily because the cost of 24 hour per day monitoring is expensive. There is little support that cameras deter crime, and increasingly, cameras are becoming the targets for vandalism. To varying degrees, security cameras can help in documenting a crime and can be used as evidence in prosecuting criminals after the fact; however, the usefulness of the camera depends on the clarity and quality of the recording, the lighting in the area, and it assumes, of course, that the recording has been preserved and has not been recorded over.

When a business chooses to install security cameras, they often do so in order to protect against property damage. In this instance, it is important to clearly identify the exact purpose of the security cameras. For example, a landlord may want to note in their advertising material that they utilize security cameras to detect property damage and that the cameras are used after the fact to seek legal action against those who engage in acts of vandalism. Property owners may further want to note that the cameras are not monitored live and, as such, are not used to prevent criminal acts or to be interpreted as a sense of security.

Given that security cameras may cause a business more problems than they solve, an organization must decide when it is appropriate to install cameras and when they are better off without them. In general, business owners ought to examine what they hope to gain in utilizing security cameras and whether or not their goal is both a best practice and is best met with this method. Further, the employer then needs to effectively communicate the reason for having security cameras to educate employees and clients, such that the company does not assume any additional legal duties.