Managers on camera: visibility and leadership in media environments

Managers on Camera

In order to be able to decide whether or not the company is guilty of an "illegal wiretap," we must first analyze and see what the law says on this subject. As we have learnt from the last sentences of the case, the federal and state wiretap laws "block the secret interception of the transfer of a human voice." We have to read very carefully between the lines of this statement: they block the transfer of HUMAN VOICE, the laws say nothing about the transfer of image, of a human face, of human actions, that is, of nothing relating to video, but only to audio (the VOICE).

Hence, if we have another look at the case study, we will discover that the manager's office was endowed with a video camera with no audio pickup. Clearly, this is in no way against the federal or state laws, because there is no audio, no sound, hence, no voice transfer. Additionally, the company had no need to install a video camera with audio pickup, because they had no interest in what the manager was saying, but only in what he was doing.

Had it been that he had been making unorthodox remarks towards the company's higher management (for example), then a video camera with audio pickup may have been necessary. But as such, there was no need for one.

If we resume what we have discussed in the lines above, the laws do indeed forbid video cameras if these implicate voice transfer. As I have proved above, here there is no case of voice transfer, as the company specifically (and it is clearly stated in our case) installed a video camera with no sound pickup. Hence, strictly according to the laws, there is no illegal component here.

2. We have decided there was no law against videotaping with no audio, but now we are entitled to raise two moral issues: the first, whether or not the action of placing the video camera was immoral, and the second, whether the transfer was a direct consequence of the manager's raising the issue of his right to privacy.

We should mention that the case is rather explicit in the manager's attitude towards the surveillance camera in his office: "he noticed the camera with HR department but made no effort to have it removed." If we examine his attitude, we may see that the fact that he makes no effort to have it removed actually means that he has nothing against it and is a clear acceptance of the new state of facts. His attitude was probably something like "hey, I noticed a video camera in my office. I don't mind it..." And it clearly shows that he had nothing against it being there. It is very strange that all of a sudden he is discussing his right to privacy when he clearly refused to use it when it was discussed. I am assured that a strong reaction against it would have led to the camera being removed.