Subscriber Discussion

Was This Landlord's Covert Video Sleazy?

Avatar
Ari Erenthal
Jan 16, 2017

A landlord used covert cameras to evict a tenant from his apartment. The landlord hired a private investigator to prove that the tenant was not actually living in the apartment, and the PI installed covert cameras in hallways and common areas to record the tenant's comings and goings. The case was reported in the Wall Street Journal.

This post on LinkedIn calls the case 'sleazy', acknowledging that the landlord's actions were legal but that it would be better to be transparent when installing video, not adversarial. 

If there is transparency allowing people to understand the scope, quality and depth of the information being gathered they are more likely to come to a reasoned response, opinion and reaction.

What do you think? How much should bosses tell their employees and landlords tell their tenants when they install cameras?

 

Avatar
Michael Anderson
Jan 16, 2017

I am a firm proponent of being open and honest about where you place cameras, what they are looking at and the reason they are there - along with corresponding signage.  The case in question could have been made using cameras in the open rather than a covert setup.  

UI
Undisclosed Integrator #1
Jan 16, 2017

I think it would be an intrusion of privacy, but you're saying it conducted in a legal manner so, with that out.  I think it might have been better to let the tenant know cameras would be installed and, to have them installed on the exterior of the building/apartment. I think it accomplishes the same results.  It does give a vibe like the landlord was "stalking" the tenant. 

On the other hand, what can you do when a tenant refuses to pay and/or, move out?  I haven't read the story, but with what little knowledge I have of the situation, I would call the landlord desperate over sleazy.

Avatar
Josh Hendricks
Jan 16, 2017
Milestone Systems

If cameras were only installed in common areas and not inside the apartment itself, then it sounds like the owner is completely in his rights. He probably chose not to do it because of cost, but it would have been ideal if he simply had a surveillance system installed and sent notice to all tenants that a system was being installed for safety and security. If said system was also used to demonstrate non-residency, that would seem much less sleazy than a PI installing covert cameras and likely would have resulted in the same outcome.

New discussion

Ask questions and get answers to your physical security questions from IPVM team members and fellow subscribers.

Newest discussions