IKEA: Cameras were hidden in the ceiling above warehouse toilets for 'health and safety' IKEA has removed hidden security cameras from its warehouse in Peterborough, England, after an employee spotted one in the ceiling void while using the toilet. Workers at the Swedish flat-pack furniture giant were concerned that they may have been spied on while in the bathroom. The discovery was made last week when the …
Installing the cameras in 2015 is recent enough for some serious data protection legislation to have been violated. The 'excuse' that is was done concerning drug use in an establishment that has fork-lift trucks and other heavy machinery is no good. When my former company wanted to install CCTV cameras to record who was stealing laptops from the IT team that built them and sent them out, they needed the police to approve them as essential to an ongoing police investigation. You cannot just install cameras on the off-chance that illegal activity by your staff might be recorded.
This sounds like a criminal act to me.
Hmmm, a possible opening for a pre-lined plastic or glass credit-card-sized pocket tool that allows one to create measured, exact lines of rice, wheat, oats, sand, medications and other substances for such activities as cooking?
It could also be used by dealers of such items to supply small quantities.
Kickstarter?
You might keep your supply tucked behind a particular ceiling tile, so if the cameras are only observing the above false ceiling space then there's some argument for it. I think the principle of having to be told that you're being watched still applies, though. But... you could be told that, perhaps without being told where all the cameras are.
>so if the cameras are only observing the above false ceiling space then there's some argument for it.
The area above the false ceiling is usually continuous (office walls are partitions) so you don't have to have cameras above the toilets in order to observe the roof space.
If they're not needed then you can easily turn them off -- just unplug them (they're likely to be powered by their network cable).
Must admit, if I suspected and then found video cameras that could be monitoring the toilets, I'd not be reporting that to a line manager. I'd be reporting it direct to the Police. After all, it might be the line manager who is the criminal perv! Clearly, lack of trust works both ways.
Totally right, this is unacceptable in the extreme, a private landlord would be prosecuted for this, as should IKEA. A total and unacceptable invasion of privacy, monitoring of toilets by using drug wipes etc is doable, potentially videoing people in the loo.. criminal.
In many places, it's actually illegal to film in break rooms or toilets. Others specify certain types of filming equipment as illegal in toilets (surveillance mirrors). England's different because they've been "all-in" on surveillance since they put up all those cameras in London.
"In Connecticut, employers may not operate surveillance equipment in areas designed for employee rest or comfort -- such as restrooms, locker rooms, or employee lounges." https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/workplace-cameras-surveillance-employer-rules-35730.html
"Installing the cameras in 2015 is recent enough for some serious data protection legislation to have been violated"
IKEA, as an employer, must hold digital data on identifiable employees. as a commercial entity, it must hold identifiable data on customers.
Would those mean that the video footage would be required by law to be disclosed to an employee or customer who requested it, as is true of some other records?
I am definitely no lawyer so I have possibly misread the statutes.
In the UK companies must register with the Information Commissioner's Office stating what personal data they hold on individuals, and the lawful reason for its collection. This applies to CCTV cameras as well, there is even a Surveillance Camera Commissioner to regulate this specific issue:
https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/surveillance-camera-commissioner
And yes, you as a subject can make a Subject Access Request for any personal information held on you by a company, including CCTV images. The company must provide it in a readable form unless to do so would be too onerous - when the Commissioner can decide if it really is too onerous. For example if you requested the images of yourself taken on Monday 9th August outside Paddington Station, that would be far too difficult to provide. If in addition you stated that you were at the Eastern end of the station front on Praed Street at 11.02 a.m. and performed a pirouette, that would be difficult for them to refuse.
how could they state that installing cameras in a toilet void is part of health and safety to record people doing drugs?
Why would people do drugs in a ceiling void.
what else have they got? are there microphones in toilets too just in case they can listen to people talking about or doing drugs?
@Fr. Ted Crilly
Have an upvote for making me look up the meaning of "cloacal" and then for making me laugh out loud at the thought of influencers fighting over getting tickets to take part in a game of "Celebrity shit in a bucket".
I needed a laugh to start the weekend.
Thank you, and have a groovy weekend yourself.
On the basis of the state some people have left toilet facilities in at some places I’ve worked (and I’m quite sure it’s deliberate, you don’t accidentally smear shit all over the walls, smash fittings to pieces, rip plumbing out of the walls, and flood the place by shoving things down the bog which clearly and obviously don’t belong there, aren’t going to flush, and are going to cause a blockage) I’d suggest that sometimes it *absolutely* *is* justified on health and safety grounds…
One place I worked, we had a lot of trouble with broken plastic bog seats, parts of which were dropping into the toilet and causing a blockage. Eventually it was traced (I don't know how) to certain members of the shop floor, of middle eastern origin, who did not sit on the seat when defecating, but squatted on it, and their work boots were cracking the bakelite. Manglement decreed that one of the european toilets was to be removed and replaced by an eastern, hole in the floor, type, and that solved the problem.
Odd article. The end bit about Hancock...? WTF?!
Especially when there was a Spanish judge today who ruled CCTV in public areas that recorded women urinating and subsequent footage was released on porn sites was not to be investigated because there was no expectation of privacy on a public road (back street).
The "regulator" problem. Instead of laws being thrashed out in detail in the democracy with courts precedence thrashing out anything they missed in public. A bloke in an office ("the regulator") asked his drinking buddies how to rule on a case by case basis.
Hancock being a ridiculous "his privacy was violated by being recording in a public space" false negative. The regulator obviously wanted to please the group that employs him, which is never a good thing.
There's zero doubt here what should happen, even Ikea clearly know they're in the wrong and are bullshitting and backtracking, but I don't think Ikea managers homes will be raided, because Ikea is big and the regulator is a small man in a small office, thankful for his easy money.
The situation in the UK is not good, not good in any sense.
(playing devil's advocate here a bit)
It's down to the expectation of privacy. In an office, you would expect your colleagues to potentially see what you're doing, but not the general public. Releasing CCTV in that situation to the public/media would be breaching the expected level of privacy.
If he'd happened to have had sex in the office and caught on camera doing so, would we all have the right to gawp at his exposed rear end? It's different if the behaviour happens on the street.
If you believe Hancock was recorded in a public space I suggest you walk in there and have a try at how public it is ...
From a regulation perspective it is entirely the same thing with a significant difference in how it came to light. In Ikea someone found a camera but (for now) no proof of abuse, in Hancock's case there was obviously "abuse" from a privacy perspective as it was only discovered after publication in a tabloid. If someone would have posted pictures of Ikea employees on the toilet doing something unbecoming there had been a significant chance of a raid too.
I know right? I mean Tories as a whole are such a lovable bunch of huggable rascals. With their little button eyes and kewpie doll lips you just want to gatherer them all up in your arms and smother your face into them.
They're so clever too. Every one of them can tie their own shoelaces and all their shirt buttons are in the right buttonholes. If they ever chewed gum they'd be able to chew it and walk at the same time.
And they are so generous. If anyone needs a helping hand they just get out their public purse and hand it over. And don't forget they can get you a Knighthood for less than cost price.
Ah, the Spanish judicial system, the same that consider a gang rape a simple case of harassment because the woman did not fought back (as if she could...), the same that consider violently storming a political act with physical aggression a case of freedom of speech as long as the perpetrators are right-winged and the attacked left-winged, the same that consider sneezing at the national flag an offense worth of a prison sentence... yeah, good example you picked up of "justice"
presumably, this is the only Ikea warehouse in the whole of the UK eh? And the only Ikea store? Oh, btw, I'd check customer toilets too, cause you know, those rogue Ikea engineering, roaming (pre-brexit) round the continent, breaking into Ikea stores and warehouses, installing those (never connected) cams and mikes! Like hell's grannies, wild and totally out of control!
I've read a few articles on this and none of them have confirmed where the cameras were actually pointed.
Was it horizontally in the crawl space with no view of below, or pointing down at the cubicles/rest of toilet area?
One of those is a non-story, the other a big deal.
Given that the red light on the camera was visible from below, and that red lights on CCTV cameras tend to be on the front of the camera... I suspect the camera was pointing roughly in the direction from which the light was observed (or at least, a lot nearer to that than the opposite direction). I doubt the light would be sufficiently noticeable from the side of the camera, or significantly below it.
>Given that the red light on the camera was visible from below, and that red lights on CCTV cameras tend to be on the front of the camera... I suspect the camera was pointing roughly in the direction from which the light was observed ...
Not at all. The front mounted LED typically isn't shielded; the camera's I've installed the dome of the LED cover is proud of faceplate and so it is visible within a 180 degree arc.
Also note how the camera was discovered:
"The discovery was made last week when the lights were switched off. A member of staff spotted what appeared to be a small red light between the panels of a suspended ceiling."
Firstly the lights were off so the red glow (and its reflection) of an LED would be more visible, secondly it was seen between (suspended) ceiling panels ie. through a crack, note it wasn't until the source was investigated that a camera was discovered. I suspect that if the camera really was intended to pick up users of the facilities, the discoverer would have seen and thus reported a camera lens hole in the ceiling tiles.
But then that does assume the "infrared light" seen was the camera LED and not light being used to illuminate the ceiling void so that the camera can perform its smoke detection/void monitoring function.
"I suspect that if the camera really was intended to pick up users of the facilities, the discoverer would have seen and thus reported a camera lens hole in the ceiling tiles."
IKEA already admitted the cameras were there to pick of "users". Therefore the cameras and tiles were arranged to make that possible.
>Therefore the cameras and tiles were arranged to make that possible.
"The cameras were only ever intended to film activity in the roof space or corridors."
Which would suggest the cameras were attached to a smoke detection system: smoke detected, member of security goes and investigates...
As has been noted by others no one is actually saying where the cameras were actually pointing (or what they were connected to), and if mounted above the ceiling tiles just what view of the users of the toilets they actually had.
I suspect once all the facts are known, the case will fall into the same category as 5G causing CoViD.
@Anony...
Thanks for the interesting link. But wow - I hadn't realised just how bad my 1970's school-induced French had become!
Back in the early 2000's I worked on a concession (let's call it "Home of Boxer") in a huge department store that was selling certain Scottish crystalware. We had a sister-consession (same over-manager) in another rival department store ("Deborah Ham") at the other end of the mall.
It turns out that someone noticed that expensive goods (designer coats, electrical goods, etc) were being 'returned' sans-receipts to the 'Deborah' ScotGlass concession and cash refunds given.
All tills in both dept stores are run by the stores' accounting departments. All tills can process concession and store goods alike.
The aforementioned over-manager, had been running this scam that had cost the 'D' store many tens of thousands of pounds.
Cameras had been covertly placed above ours and the Debby concession tills. The Debby cam caught the O-M and cronies in the act. The dodgy O-M had till access at our store as well, but my awesome line manager (after I found junk substituted for our CrystalWare in our stock room), became suspicious of the O-M and never let the woman out of her sight when she was on our 'Mat.'
I get it, but if it hadn't been for the cameras over our till in HOB, we would have been tarred with the same crap-loaded brush. As it was, we came out smelling of roses, and the O-M and her mob got criminal records.
Cameras watching staff are not always bad. Just not in the areas like the bogs ffs!!!!
The reporter might wish to note that earlier this year IKEA France's upper management copped a two year prison sentence, and the company a €1M fine, for a case possibly along similar lines.
https://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2021/06/16/ikea-france-juge-coupable-pour-sa-politique-institutionnalisee-de-surveillance-des-salaries_6084351_3224.html
Bashing the IKEA. Maybe they were testing their meatball throughput time from mouth to pan? Maybe their head of security is a perv? There is no way in hell anyone, anywhere, in any company, is going to think putting cameras in bogs is a goer, so trying to blag your way out of this shithole (no pun ) just makes the whole thing worse. I mean their excuse is like the old casualty joke of "I was hoovering naked when..."
There are NO EXCUSES whatsoever for such disgusting behavior.
IKEA needs to be formally struck off the companies registry for this unless the managers, installers etc and anyone connected to this hand themselves in to the authorities immediately and they accept a (very generous) 5% profits seizure for the time period concerned to be handed to women's safety charities.
If I found anyone at any company I worked for had done this, serving notice would be the least of my concerns because the evidence would be handed directly to the Met and forwarded to the Press in encrypted form, with the key also handed to the Met with instructions to release it when the case was heard in court.
Anonymous has spoken.
I stand by my comment, women have suffered enough recently.
As it is we can't even trust that the almighty Police haven't signed off on each other's vetting forms, or other such BLATANT CORRUPTION let alone that they found another scumbag in the exact same force.
We all know it goes on, now enough is enough. Name and shame.
Downlighter are installed in the ceiling void and light up what they are pointed at. They where spying on people below the ceiling not above it. That is why when the lights where off they could see the red lights of the cameras, which would indicate they where turned on.
Unless the government demand it
"In July, ICO officers raided two homes in Southern England after pictures of former health secretary Matt Hancock kissing a colleague appeared in British newspaper The Sun."
Yet that IKEA site had cameras up since 2015 "No one has officially complained so we won't take action".
How many other IKEA sites has this been going on at? Who will no doubt have quickly removed the cameras once this story broke.
Hopefully there is a lawsuit and IKEA lose. They're can't be any reason why they won't lose.
You can buy cheap polarised torches, so called spy camera detector devices for a few quid. Use them. Many toilets have motion sensor IR lights to help prevent discovery, but a bit of black plastic over the sensor can allow you to do a good sweep after the timeout. You have options: collect the device and take it directly to the local cop shop (after taking a copy of the sd card). If wired, I hear a modified stun gun, or piezo stove lighter / (240Volt ac) sends a few too many volts to expensive video recorder might be ones cup of tea. Other places for camera are the office fridge (milk stealing) and photocopier room (non work copies). In some countries, middle earthers may stand on the toilet rim and squat. Some nasty problems if your behind or bowels are cut by a porcelain toilet that fails when you are on the job - because of this practice. This article did not say which way the cameras were pointed at.
er, was this not made illegal under the voyeurism act? unless g-men did it in which case it is legal under RIPA...either way these people were raped, repeatedly....some people need to be in jail and put on the sex offenders' registrar :-(
I also found cameras above my bed and in my bathroom once.....not allowed to talk about it :-(
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
