Doesn't make sense to me. But we recently has a request from our gentlemen's club client to reduce their retention from 30 days to 1. Apparently they didn't didn't want to deal with supeonas for video from soon to be ex-wives and such wanting videos of their spouses frequenting the club.
Interesting example, thanks!
IPVMU Certified | 05/24/13 04:08pm
Shouldn't they be more worried about employees having sex with each other? Dealing with harrassment suits and jilted lovers are bad for any enterprise. Ironically, even law firms.
I think this is a 'see no evil, hear no evil' type approach. It might be better for them to be blind to it. I don't know.
Thiel Strategic Communications | 05/24/13 06:53pm
Attorneys (Divorce, etc.) and subpoenas are a real factor in determining retention times for public video surveillance by law enforcement, but I never heard of this issue with indoor cameras in a private industry.
Law enforcement agencies do not the burden of administrative cost to respond to subpoenas.
It is no surprise in our current cultural climate where whistleblowers are regularly penalized.
Unless they were covert cameras, the participants had to know the cameras were in the stairwells... Exhibitionists? ;-)
"Dealing with harrassment suits and jilted lovers are bad for any enterprise. Ironically, even law firms."
I've known a few people who worked as staff at law firms. You would not believe the sexual shenanigans that go on there. Affairs, druken office parties, partners placing bets on whose gonna nail the next office girl....