ent work at the expense of actually productive activities. Nevertheless, an American Management Association survey found that 75 percent of large employers utilize electronic surveillance of some kind (Bowker).
Few laws regulate video surveillance because the technology is relatively new. That situation contrasts markedly with the severe limits placed on eavesdropping by federal law. Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 prohibits the interception, disclosure or intentional use of wire, oral or electronic communications. This bar applies to private actors (such as employers) as well as state actors (such as police agencies). The law does not apply in certain situations, including when the employer has the consent of one party to the communication. That is the only relevant exception to this discussion (Hymowitz 4).
Conversely, retail establishments have long utilized cameras, not to monitor their employees but to discourage criminal acts by outsiders. Markets, banks, and liquor stores, among others, often employ black-and-white cameras that help police identify perpetrators of crimes. These cameras usually do not record sound and usually are placed in obvious positions to deter criminals.
Today's more sophisticated technology allows employers to conduct video surveillance of employees without the employees' knowledge. Miniature cameras, placed in ceiling sprinklers and other unobtrusive locations, can provide complete videos, including audio. Of course, the federal ban on intercepting communications still applies to the audio of the video. But as two federal courtsùthe Ninth and Tenth Circuit Courts of Appealsùhave made clear, federal laws banning wiretapping and the interception of communications do not apply to video-only surveillance (Hymowitz 11-12).
In U.S. v. Koyomejian, 970 F.2d 536 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1005 (1992), the defendant attempted to overturn his conv...