Connecting the dots. Good point. Possibly not all the dots are visible yet. :-O
Why is it when discussions ensue. Some choose to only go back as far as it supports their understandings, words, beliefs??? Possibly keeping some dots from becoming known.
John, Consider these more questions and see what stance others may take.
Kinda like the questions posed when comparing companies processes, equipment, in this forum? Looking for some background that may support (or not) the data offered.
When were the camera(s) installed? And at what direction? Did the plan specify? Didn't ANY planners, installers, IT folk recognize the situation? Ergo walk the walk and likely prevent any occurrences that may be damaging? Who else had the control of the camera(s)?
Where is the culpability of the IT department?
Why choose to make a CD of events and provide that to one person? And not the hierarchy of the company. Did they? Seems the focus is on the feelings of one person. As it already has been asked. When did the harassment start. Can I offer when the presumed harassed was notified? As opposed to the chain of command? Couldn't that been stopped before Any harassment was specified?
Was this a botched investigation? Or, No investigation at all.
Can we go back from there. Lets say to the beginning.
Was this ALL planned by the 'looker'? Or just an opportunity assignment by lack recognition by the rest of the hands that put into place?
Could this be considered entrapment. With unsuspecting bait? Both the lookee and looker?
Seems things were thrown into a pot an stirred without considering the resultant color.
Might it been stopped Looonnng before it got to the making of a CD?
Another thought. If an office with a window looked out over an area, cubicle or cubicles. Are the eyes behind the glass automatically guilty of looking at what is out there? Only if a pair of binoculars (camera) were used?
Just my inquisitive nature. Something still seems missing as to how it got to where it did. :-(