The use of surveillance video by way of body cameras on employees by a Fraser Valley chicken catching company was an inappropriate 鈥渜uick fix鈥� to stop the problem of animal abuse.
READ MORE:
That鈥檚 according to acting information and privacy commissioner Drew McArthur who said the cameras also violated the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA),
| As soon as a farm services company announced the use of body cameras on chicken catchers in the wake of violent undercover video, B.C.'s privacy commissioner started to investigate the practice. |
鈥淰ideo surveillance, as we all know, has become pervasive in our society,鈥� McArthur said in a message accompanying a report released Nov. 8. 鈥淭oo often, organizations like this one turn to surveillance believing it will fix their crisis or problem. Organizations need to understand the privacy risks associated with surveillance and take all reasonable efforts to avoid them.
鈥淲e found that the company was not authorized to collect the information under PIPA because the purposes for which it was collecting and using personal information were not reasonable.鈥�
READ MORE:
Wednesday morning, McArthur released 鈥淚nvestigation Report P17-01: Use of employee surveillance by a B.C. chicken catching organization.鈥�
The report is the culmination of his investigation into whether Elite Services out of Abbotsford was authorized by the PIPA use video surveillance to monitor employees.
Back in June, animal activist group Mercy for Animals released undercover footage that showed live birds being torn apart, stomped and thrown.
WARNING: This video shows disturbing images of animal abuse that may upset some viewers
Following the release of the video, Elite Services president Duane Dueck said the company pledged big changes. Three Elite workers , and Dueck said new operating procedures included a video system for the chicken-catching service hired to round up and transport chickens.
That move came on the advice of a crisis management consultant.
鈥淓ffective immediately, it will be mandatory for one supervisor and two staff members in each barn to wear cameras on their safety vests to capture the activity within the barn,鈥� said Dueck, in a follow-up news release in June.
Following the media coverage McArthur said this week he was concerned the cameras were 鈥渂eing used as a 鈥榪uick fix,鈥� without thoughtful consideration of its potential privacy impacts.鈥�
For her part, Mercy for Animals Canada vice-president Krista Hiddema said in June that the use of body cameras was 鈥渁bsolutely ridiculous鈥� without third-party monitoring.
This week she reiterated that.
鈥淓very farm and slaughterhouse in Canada should install video monitoring systems and live-stream the footage to the Internet or a third-party auditing firm to help prevent animal cruelty and increase transparency in food production,鈥� Hiddema said. 鈥淲ithout third-party checks in place, video monitoring will be ineffective.鈥�
McArther鈥檚 report found that the company collected personal information without the consent of the recorded individuals, which included employees, farmers and other contractors. The company did not conduct a privacy impact assessment prior to implementing the surveillance and did not have the appropriate policies and procedures in place.
His report comes with seven recommendations, which include stopping the use of video surveillance, deleting stored footage and creating a privacy policy.
The Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia also released a guidance document, for organizations considering employee monitoring in this way.
The Progress is waiting for a response from Elite Services to the question of whether it will follow the OPIC recommendations.
paul.henderson@theprogress.com
Like us on and follow us on .
