- as evidenced by this article, and some of the posts here, people who haven’t gotten used to permanent surveillance do have an expectation of privacy. And cameras are different than people watching you because it’s one-way, and at scale.
- allowing people to do minor personal tasks at work is expected in a professional career such as journalism. It’s not a sweatshop, peoples’ productivity doesn’t neatly correlate with hours worked anyway. And you’re expected to be readily available outside of work hours anyway, so this should cut both ways.
- shooting happen within just a few minutes and the effect of cameras is debatable, especially if there is no armed and trained security.
- The NYT is a sort of high value target. I would not expect to get into their offices without proper ID.
- Is there some epidemic of false harassment claims everyone is worried about? As far as I know there was one case that had consequences at the Times (Glenn Thrush) and he admitted to the behavior. Also like 90% of harassment is verbal, which cameras don’t capture. The rest seems to happen in hotel rooms and bars, which these cameras also don’t address.
While you need ID, all that proves is that you have been asked to attend. You can get access to the building (ok after hours) by signing up to a meetup and providing your name. Also by virtue of the work they do, relative strangers will come in frequently as sources, experts, etc.
Shootings tend to happen relatively quickly (though often longer than people think the Virginia Beach shooter wasn't contained for 15 minutes), but they tend to have very long and potentially dangerous sweeps to clear the area. You don't want a response team to accidentally shoot a guy holding a stapler or something.
The NY Times building is a single block from Times Square where there are enough heavily armed response teams to depose several island governments 24/7. Also being in the area somewhat regularly there are regular and counterterrorism police directly in front and across the street often during daylight hours.
The Times is kind of the exception that proves the rule. If you aren't literally feet from an armed response that can bring down everything from an armored car to a helicopter (only rumored, but repeatedly so) it probably won't do as much good. In their particular situation though, I suspect it could save lives if a rare event occurs. Which is always a hard thing to balance.
Also, more generally, I assume the NYT's security team has a more considered and more informed opinion on this than anyone in this discussion does. I stated that I think their rationale makes sense: that doesn't mean I think I agree with it. I'm not qualified to. I have no actual idea if it will help, but if they say it will help, it doesn't sound bonkers (the way that e.g. "making everyone in an airport stand in a long crowded line to take their shoes off will reduce mass casualty events" sounds bonkers).
Almost everywhere, including as far as I know in France, such limitations tends to disappear for anyone who can control their own working hours to at least a certain extent (whether or not that control is genuine is often a matter of contention) to make up for it.
I'm not an advocate of permanent surveillance, nor am I used to it. As stated in the comment I expect no surveillance in my home, at hotels, etc., and I expect little enough surveillance on the street that I can walk to a FedEx and pay in cash without being facially-recognized all the way. I am, however, used to the norms of my life at work being different from the rest of my life. When I do browse the web on my work computer, my employer might monitor it (and I have a personal laptop at work for this exact reason). When I develop copyrightable writing/code/etc., my employer owns it, even if it's not totally relevant to my job. I don't tell off-color jokes or flirt with people the way I could outside of work, nor do I have any desire to. Work is different from the rest of your life, because you're doing a task for your employer, and your employer controls the space. If your employer wants to install a camera, that's like you installing a camera in your own home—totally reasonable in common spaces, creepy in bathrooms. I think analogizing being surveilled at work to being surveilled in general makes as much sense as analogizing losing copyright over your writing at work with losing copyright in general.
(There might be a problem that people are at work too much of their lives, or that people should work for themselves or worker-owned coops instead of for bosses, or something, but those seem like independent problems; trying to solve symptoms of those problems and ignoring the underlying issue doesn't seem productive.)
Precisely because allowing people to do minor personal tasks at work is the norm in the industry, I think there is little risk that cameras will prevent people from doing minor personal tasks. Mine is the same: I feel quite comfortable checking personal email / IM / Hacker News on my personal laptop at work despite having a camera somewhere looking at me and easily being able to tell when I'm not looking at my work screen. Basically, I think that if they wanted to crack down, there are easier ways to do that than cameras, so they don't, and cameras won't make them decide to start cracking down.
And to be clear, I'm much more interested in video evidence to back up harassment claims than to deny them. I'm of the opinion that a lot goes unreported because complainants know there isn't much evidence. But you make a good point about lots of it happening off-site.
Expectation of privacy does not depend on you getting used to it. A workplace can be monitored by the business that's paying for it and is a good idea to reduce risk and litigation.
Nobody cares about a few personal tasks at work but it's important to have video evidence when something serious occurs. And yes there are false harassment claims, and having even a single case avoided because of footage is worth it for both the person and company involved.
- allowing people to do minor personal tasks at work is expected in a professional career such as journalism. It’s not a sweatshop, peoples’ productivity doesn’t neatly correlate with hours worked anyway. And you’re expected to be readily available outside of work hours anyway, so this should cut both ways.
- shooting happen within just a few minutes and the effect of cameras is debatable, especially if there is no armed and trained security.
- The NYT is a sort of high value target. I would not expect to get into their offices without proper ID.
- Is there some epidemic of false harassment claims everyone is worried about? As far as I know there was one case that had consequences at the Times (Glenn Thrush) and he admitted to the behavior. Also like 90% of harassment is verbal, which cameras don’t capture. The rest seems to happen in hotel rooms and bars, which these cameras also don’t address.