Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How Surveillance Changes Behavior: A Restaurant Workers Case Study

bits.blogs.nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 71 posts

Re: How Surveillance Changes Behavior: A Restaurant Workers Case Study

#51

Post by petsos »

icegreentea wrote: post #24
gngeal wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have yet to sign a contract that would mandate that I be watched by cameras at all times.

I don't believe that that was his point. I think that his point was that a healthy attitude to take on in life is to generally take other people's words as true (thus trust), but to have mechanisms to ensure that (thus verify). The key point is that unless you have specific reasons not to trust them, then you do not set up an antagonistic relationship. For this to work, both parties must believe that 'trust, but veri…

How is that different from "don't trust, verify"?

Re: How Surveillance Changes Behavior: A Restaurant Workers Case Study

#52

Post by sn41 »

rustynails77 wrote: post #30
saraid216 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> few readers here will have been at the poverty line, where it might appear a little more ambiguous whether taking a small cut from a very successful business which pays minimum wage is so clearly immoral. WalterBright's comment indicates some confusion with this, so I'll help explain. There's a basic notion of fairness that what you've contracted to do (your job) in return for money (your wages) is fair. But a lot…

I don't agree with it, nor do I understand it. I see the same behaviour in corporate bankers are are earning many millions per year. It's OK to steal because I deserve more. People like this are common thieves - and nothing more. Growing up, my family went from poor to middle class. We did the hard yards. We never stole. Why? Because its about principals and ethics. Never, never excuse a thief. If your statement were…

I don't agree with your hardline ethics. This is one of the big points raised in "Les Miserables". Stealing a loaf of bread when you're starving is qualitatively different from corporate banking behavior. Humane empathy to the unfortunates is bigger than priniciples.

Here's another twist - by refusing to pay fair wages, the employer is stealing from the employee. "Hark in thine ear: change places and, handy-dandy, which is the justice, which is the thief?" - King Lear

Re: How Surveillance Changes Behavior: A Restaurant Workers Case Study

#53

Post by thaumasiotes »

Strilanc wrote: post #40
saraid216 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trust, but verify. Same reason contracts are written down.

Ah yes, the old "I want it both ways" statement. Trust is the belief that you don't need to verify.

Actually, there's a fairly sensible way to view the statement "trust, but verify" -- think of it as a policy of entering agreements without doing the necessary vetting / clearing / what have you in advance. You still do that, but afterwards. As long as the people you're working with are trustworthy, things will run much more smoothly, but if they're not, you'll still find out. That "verify" step is important to maintaining trustworthiness all around.

Re: How Surveillance Changes Behavior: A Restaurant Workers Case Study

#54

Post by saraid216 »

rustynails77 wrote: post #30
saraid216 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> few readers here will have been at the poverty line, where it might appear a little more ambiguous whether taking a small cut from a very successful business which pays minimum wage is so clearly immoral. WalterBright's comment indicates some confusion with this, so I'll help explain. There's a basic notion of fairness that what you've contracted to do (your job) in return for money (your wages) is fair. But a lot…

I don't agree with it, nor do I understand it. I see the same behaviour in corporate bankers are are earning many millions per year. It's OK to steal because I deserve more. People like this are common thieves - and nothing more. Growing up, my family went from poor to middle class. We did the hard yards. We never stole. Why? Because its about principals and ethics. Never, never excuse a thief. If your statement were…

> If your statement were true, i'd rip off the volunteer organisations that I _volunteer_ in ... because they don't pay me enough.

Presumably, you volunteer because you aren't interested in getting money from them. In that case, you wouldn't feel that the wages you're getting are unfair and thus wouldn't feel motivated to steal.

Re: How Surveillance Changes Behavior: A Restaurant Workers Case Study

#55

Post by lmakeppleave »

jtheory wrote: post #50
lmakeppleave wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing ever comes for free. $2,982 x .15 = 447.3 (best case) I don't have any good numbers but its safe to say that the amount of theft prevented (the amount the their income has decreased since this was implemented) is greater than the extra $20-$70 ish dollars that their income has increased from increased sales. In other words, their net income is down. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the net increase in sales…

I don't follow your math here -- their revenue increased by $2982/week after installing the monitoring software, not decreased, due to the effects of employees who felt observed being more conscientious.

2982 (increase in sales) x .15 (assumed tip amount) = + $447 divided by all tipped employees. But you have to remember even many small chain restaurants have 15-25 tipped employees this nets to very little increase in income per tipped employee and zero increased income for non-tipped employees. Next, subtract from that small increase all the money they used to make from theft and overall they are likely coming out of the deal with less income.

Re: How Surveillance Changes Behavior: A Restaurant Workers Case Study

#56

Post by zipfle »

jtheory wrote: post #50
lmakeppleave wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing ever comes for free. $2,982 x .15 = 447.3 (best case) I don't have any good numbers but its safe to say that the amount of theft prevented (the amount the their income has decreased since this was implemented) is greater than the extra $20-$70 ish dollars that their income has increased from increased sales. In other words, their net income is down. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the net increase in sales…

I don't follow your math here -- their revenue increased by $2982/week after installing the monitoring software, not decreased, due to the effects of employees who felt observed being more conscientious.

lmakeppleave is saying that the amount that used to be stolen was "income" the employees were making (albeit illegitimately). like, I as a waiter make $100 per shift and steal $20 per shift; my net is $120 per shift.

When they put in cameras and I start upselling instead of stealing, I need to upsell 20 / .15 (15%, the traditional tip amount) to have my net remain at $120. That means I need to increase the restaurant's gross by $133 to maintain my extra $20 of income. lmakeppleave is arguing that it's easier to steal $20 than to increase the restaurant's gross by the amount needed to make $20 legitimately.

Re: How Surveillance Changes Behavior: A Restaurant Workers Case Study

#57

Post by saraid216 »

Strilanc wrote: post #40
saraid216 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trust, but verify. Same reason contracts are written down.

Ah yes, the old "I want it both ways" statement. Trust is the belief that you don't need to verify.

If you don't trust someone, there's no point in verifying. Verification is for when you're wrong about being trusting.

Re: How Surveillance Changes Behavior: A Restaurant Workers Case Study

#58

Post by saraid216 »

petsos wrote: post #51
icegreentea wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't believe that that was his point. I think that his point was that a healthy attitude to take on in life is to generally take other people's words as true (thus trust), but to have mechanisms to ensure that (thus verify). The key point is that unless you have specific reasons not to trust them, then you do not set up an antagonistic relationship. For this to work, both parties must believe that 'trust, but veri…

How is that different from "don't trust, verify"?

It's not. It mostly depends on how pedantic you are.

Re: How Surveillance Changes Behavior: A Restaurant Workers Case Study

#59

Post by malandrew »

I don't dispute these findings, but the entire spin on this article made me feel like I was reading a PR piece. Who were these researchers funded by? It sounds like it was funded by a company selling a product that benefits from these findings.. Besides referring to specific software products by brand name, there was a conspicuous absent of any downsides from surveillance.

Re: How Surveillance Changes Behavior: A Restaurant Workers Case Study

#60

Post by malandrew »

mikeash wrote: post #39
sp332 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since law enforcement can demand your footage after the fact, your cameras are actually contributing to surveillance en masse.

Depends on what you consider to be "surveillance en masse" and what the laws are like where you operate. I would equate "surveillance en masse" to be cameras that are constantly watched by the government, tracking me in my daily life even though I have done nothing wrong. In a legal environment where police need a warrant to compel private shop owners to turn over surveillance footage, an owner who installs cameras a…

Makes me wonder if in the future there will be establishments that advertise that they are "surveillance free" as a benefit just like organic labeling on food.
Post reply on HN