Do they have cameras in your apartment? No? Than shut up. It's a good policy and one that protects all the tenants and their property. Be grateful for it. That or move.
Just smile for the camera!...good God! Don't make something out of nothing....unless of coursr you have something to hide?
2
Having something to hide is not the point, and is often misused to justify surveillance. The point is do we have the liberty to move freely in society? Increasingly, we do not.
9
We have a new problem I've never heard before in our condo/strata.
While we (on the committee) have installed CCTV cameras in our basement carpark (and caught two lots of thieves), we do not yet have them in our other common areas.
Yesterday I was advised that a tenant has a camera facing out from inside the window of their ground-floor bedroom - which also happens to look across into the bedroom of the unit across the courtyard.
So now I'm wondering - I would like to knock and ask – but the tenants are rarely seen - they may be concerned about security with a ground-floor bedroom facing the common courtyard - but can we require them to remove it - hmmm …
1
If their unit gets broken into are you going to pay for damages?...I didn't think so...there's no crime in protecting yourself & it makes things alot easier when dealing with the insurance companies...here's are some clues...curtains, drapes & blinds.
1
Someone may be able to justify training surveillance on their immediate external residence, ie the immediate approach to their home where someone goes from being in the wider common public space to being an individual making a specific approach to this specific home, intent on interacting with this specific residence... stepping onto their porch or doormat, knocking on their door, climbing in their window. But surveillance of the wider public area, conducted privately not in the name of the coop or building management, is an intrusion and oversteps reasonable boundaries.
If this zealous resident wants to angle their personal security camera to capture the direct approach to their home rather than the entire public area they may be able to justify it. But to appoint yourself sheriff over everyone else to the point of creating a permanent database of the public area, to intimidate residents because you have a cybereye trained on the purview into their private residence is an intrusion and intimidation.
No one should have to hide, Kafkaesque, behind a permanent scrim of curtains and closed blinds because a permanent camera awaits them should they desire a glimpse at the morning sun or sky. That is why we have windows in homes, not just walls. Imagine if this zealous resident just stood outside their neighbor's bedroom window 24/7... this security camera is the equivalent to someone standing and looking into this neighbors room continually and no, it's not be acceptable.
1
We had to make visitors sign in, listing the time and date, showing ID. The condo owner was also called before they were allowed to use the elevator. We also had a video camera over the reception desk. Why? We had a lot of visitors to one apartment between midnight and 6 AM every night. We suspected the owner was involved in an illegal activity, but we had no proof. We called the local police unit specializing in security and had them evaluate our whole building. The police also suspected illegal activities in that one apartment and suggested we do this. Traffic slowed down dramatically to that apartment. I doubt the super could do this, as described in the article, without the co-op board's approval. The board could not spend the time having the doorman do this unless there was a reason that they could not disclose. In our case, the owner was a LAWYER.
8
Yet again I am giving thanks that I do not live in New York City.
4
New York City is thankful it doesn't live in you.
4
Susan...this is not about NYC, security is good to have no matter where you live.
5
I would imagine that at some future in the near future, CCTV cameras will photograph each person who enters a building, friend or potential foe, and that facial recognition software could be enabled to look for certain people. I am glad I don't live in a part of the worold where I will ever enter a co-op. However, at first reading I was reminded of the episode from "Seinfeld" in which Kramer made every resident of their building post her or his photo and name so that the residents would all know each other.
6
This makes me wonder if an owner in this building was using call girls or taking illegal drug deliveries--because this level of surveillance should discourage both of those nefarious activities. I assume the co-op has a board; residents should decide if they want that level of surveillance, not let the super decide that for them.
11
Rather like visiting a prison, don't you think?
6
It really depends on the motivation for doing this. We only hear one side of the story in this Q&A.
2
Is this Trump Tower? Otherwise, why the big need for such security? If it's a messenger service dropping off a package or envelope, wouldn't they leave it with the doorman anyway? It's safer that way--and most buildings probably have a way to keep packages stored until the tenant retrieves them (better than leaving them outside the resident's door for anyone to pick up).
If it's a visitor, the person requesting access will either be turned away, presumably, if the resident isn't home or will be allowed up (or not) according to the resident's preference. I can see the doorman getting names, and a security camera recording (we have that in my building), but not I.D.'s--especially for a database storage. Again, why involve the doorman unless there's an obvious threat and then the police get called anyway. What's the purpose of invading everyone's privacy and storing sensitive information? This sounds really odd, especially for a private residential building.
6
Divorce attorneys must be cultivating relationships with building supers as we speak. Or blackmailers.
8
Recording such data is one thing but does anybody wonder what level of security exists in protecting the repository of such data?!
A database of portrait pictures and id details are ripe target for id-theft and generally better neighborhoods mean juicier targets.
What kind of liability does that put the super and rest of management under in case of the information being stolen or illegally accessed ?
10
Did you ask that question of your employer (of how they handle the CCTV data and visitors' log) where you work? I bet not.
My response to being asked to provide this type of personal information in this case would be to present a document to the doorman which would make the co-op, managing agent, and all share-holders legally responsible and liable should any of that information be leaked, misused, or fall into the wrong hands --
The parties would be required to compensate me for any and all damages - including legal and court fees - and essentially make me whole by returning me to the state I was in before the damages occurred as a result of the misuse of the information they insisted I provide as a requirement for entry --
I would politely present the document to the doorman - explain what its purpose - and then smile and say - "Now, all you need to do is sign here and put in today's date" ...
13
And the door,mn would reply that he is not a legal representative for the building and that his job requires that you follow the rules or he is not permitted to allow you to enter. Your response would however, be a good line of argument for the letter writer to address with the coop board for how they are exposing themselves to litigation.
Bottomline is, the building has a right to do that. If you are such a hardcase, you just won't be allowed entry. Your choice.
1
This practice raises serious questions. What makes this particular building so sensitive? Is it worth the bother and legal risk that this practice entails? If you collect this information, you become responsible for keeping it safe. If a breach occurs, you can and will be held liable. There may even be criminal penalties. To avoid this the best thing to do is minimize data collection. If you must collect data, you need to securely store it and have policies and procedures to manage it. This all gets very expensive. The building does not house a facility that requires this level of security. Many businesses, even those that manage highly sensitive data use paper visitor logs, CCTV monitoring entrances and require visitors to be met at the front desk by the person they are visiting to be escorted. In short the security practices employed by the building are legally risky, expensive to implement and maintain, are not commensurate with the activities that occur in the building (as far as we know).
13
I found out that one of my neighbors was on hospice care because I overheard the visiting nurse being interrogated by the doorman. I knew my neighbor was gravely ill, but it was her place to tell me - or not to tell me - that her illness was terminal. Within the hour, people in the laundry room were gossiping about her decline.
I realize the doorman was doing the job with which he was tasked: eliciting and recording ID. However, recording the identifying information from the visiting nurse's badge and having her image captured on the security camera should suffice. "Purpose of visit" is an unnecessarily intrusive question, especially if the visitor is a health professional.
The doorman's desk isn't a place where confidential information should be elicited or stored. The superintendent may sift through the collected data, but every passing tenant gets informed in real time.
25
I'm surprised that the nurse would have gone into any detail at all. "I'm a nurse here to visit Ms. So and So" should have sufficed, and is really all that she could say if she's following HIPAA regulations.
4
If I live in a building it's not the super's business to collect the personal information of my friends and family. At the entrance, they would be asked to provide their names verbally and the doorman would contact the resident to confirm. Maybe one way to protest this violation of privacy at this particular building is if some people that have a bad reputation among society (if you know what I mean) start to show up stating that they are friends of the superintendent and demand to be fully registered in this identification system. Then at the next meeting the records would be shown to everybody. You're welcome.
5
This was the "Super's idea" and "stores their personal information in a database and has access to the files"? Seriously? The building's Co-op board should have a talking-to with the Super double pronto -- there's a lawsuit in waiting.
27
It seems odd for the super to decide this is good or appropriate policy for the building.
Rather, this is something the coop board should certainly vote on and perhaps even put it up for a vote at the annual shareholders meeting.
32
@Hugo: Agree! The super does NOT have the right to do this without written permission from the Board - and the Board should definitely be consulting & informing the shareholders as to WHY this policy would be considered appropriate or desirable.
18
Creepy, but if the wealthy who have collective ownership control what happens in their building are OK with it, then they (and their service employees/guests) have to live with it. I'm willing to put money on it that well dressed white people are repeatedly subject to this process far less often than deliverymen, nannies, caregivers and other service employees of color who "violate" white spaces, even those who come into the building on a daily basis.
And, is there any evidence that this has reduced crime in condo buildings, which probably was low to start with?
10
Jzzy, I'd bet the same thing. And of course, that would extend to friends, colleagues, and other guests who are people of color.
Good security cameras and the residents' OKs when guests and service employees are announced should be enough.
3
I think the missing question is whether those who have collective ownership control are in fact OK with this policy. It's clear that the letter writer is not OK with it, and based on his report that it was the super's idea, there's no evidence that the other owners are OK with it either. The super may be doing this for his own gain without any explicit authorization. The policy needs to be vetted and written into the rules.
4
IMO, this is a lawsuit (or multiple lawsuits) waiting to happen. The Board and management are out to lunch, and should consult a good lawyer. As should the concerned shareholders!
Is the super bonded? What happens if you get a new super who may be more or less trustworthy? Who has all that personal info spilling into their hands on demand? Sounds like the Board (which has ultimate responsibility) is clueless.
I'd love to know the location of this building, just so I never go there.
BTW, over time, this policy has a good chance of ultimately tilting things so that only paranoid people will live there. I surely would NOT live in such a poorly-run building.
24
Yet another indignity and insult that coop owners put up with - and for a hefty price, too.
Why do people put up with these ridiculous restrictions and invasions of privacy?
What's next - your management, super, or board gets to approve or disapprove of your visitors?
It's one thing to have a security camera - it's quite another for visitors to have to show ID and have that ID info recorded.
If I give the OK for visitors to come upstairs, whether those visitors are friends, family members, visiting nurses, delivery persons, political group, whatever - that's my business.
19
I knew there was a reason why Winona Ryder wasn't visiting me.
7
Great idea, I was accosted in my co-op's laundry room recently by either a visitor, a person subletting or a new co-op owner.
I have no way of identifying this person if our security cameras are not up to date. I was bullied and was the target of an attempt to ram me with a laundry cart. Needless to say he was the opposite gender, more than half my age and much taller than me. He also was wearing sunglasses at 6 AM.
In this era ID is really necessary.
5
There are no security cameras in your laundry room?
You can't report the incident to your building management and the police using a description?
How would keeping invasive ID info on all visitors to the building prevent this person from using the laundry room if he's a legitimate subtenant, new co-op owner, or a guest of a resident?
32
If this system could keep my mother-in-law from visiting, I'd be all for it. Suggest to your building's management that she may be a terrorist. Make sure they have a good picture of her.
10
Remind me to take along a brown paper bag with to holes cut in it next time I visit NY.
10
Seems odd that the board and management can implement this type of rule without a shareholder vote.
28
This is all thanks to 9/11.
I can hardly wait for us to get normal again, where we can come and go anywhere we please, when we can walk our friends to their gates at the airport, when I can walk into a ballpark and not get wanded.
6
Perhaps this was meant to make certain that people were not violating coop rules and letting airbnb in the building?
18
@Lynn: Competent doormen + surveillance cameras would be among the best lines of defense against someone renting their apartment on airbnb.
Presuming that *everyone* who enters the building may be doing so for bad or fraudulent reasons is way beyond reasonable.
5
Sounds like a ripe combination of statistically baseless paranoia, overzealous security theater, and golden opportunity for identity theft. Create a fake security problem, and then create a real security problem as a solution to the fake one.
19
Storing personal information - especially if it includes information such as driver's license number, date of birth, and address is serious business. Basically that is enough information for identity theft.
The ONLY places I have had PII collected is in medical facilities. In the health insurance industry such information is one step below PHI - Personal Health Information. Both types are mandated by law to be kept secure. A co-op is an amateur organization in the sense that it will not have databases that are adequately secured from hackers, and will not have security auditing that will track who has accessed the data and when.
The collection and retention of personally identifiable information may be illegal, depending what is being collected and how it is being stored and secured
27
If they have any visitors from Europe and don't have any policies in place, then they are almost certainly in violation of the newly implemented GDPR regulations.
1
Huh? Unless the co-op is a business established within the EU, EU's laws do not apply. The USA is still a sovereign country with its own local, state and federal laws. The only reason US companies like Facebook, Google, etc. have updated their policies in compliance with GDPR is because they do business in Europe.
That said, some jurisdictions in the USA prohibit the possession, without their parents' or guardian's consent, of photographs of minors wearing revealing clothing. I hope this co-op is ready to get such permission in writing the next time a toddler in a sundress comes to visit.
After working in mid-town and downtown for over 30 years I'm accustomed to showing my company ID and swiping into the building and then at each floor I might go into. When I go to the Federal Building and City Buildings or regular office buildings or at I have to show my driver's licence and get photographed. Its par for the cource for anyone needing access to most office buildings in New York. In the past, were people gaining access to the co-op property who should't have been there? Did anything bad happen? I suspect that the co-op board implimented such a system because it was necesary and would improve security and safety for the residents. One of the reasons the information would be kept on file is if a person got in and then did something bad their contact information would be available. If a burgular or a rapist or someone trying to cause damage had to show their ID and be photographed they more then likely would go to the co-op building down the block where they dd not have to provide that information.
5
I get your point, and have no problem showing my ID to show that I am giving my real name; even them taking my picture and giving me a visitor's pass is perfectly Ok. What I find creepy is the collection of all information on the driver's license, which includes home address, whether I am an organ donor or not, and whether I have any restrictions (corrective glasses etc.) None of that is in any way required to secure the building. None of the many regular office building's I visited and visit has ever captured all that information in a database for later use; all they care about are a verified name and picture. Now, if you visit the FBI or One Police Plaza, that's a different story, but that is a different "need to know".
32
Outrageous. Another reason why am glad I don’t live in New York
12
Stay out of any state that allows gated communities, then.
14
MainLaw,
It happens here on the prairie, too. It is not exclusive to New York.
5
We're OK with that.
2
Could these photos ever be retrieved and used for legal, investigative or blackmail purposes?
13
Ask Donald Trump, Michael Cohen, or Robert Mueller.
26
I hated this. Feels so invasive.
I now refuse to go to a friend's apartment because of this.
16
Did the co-op Board make this decision without informing or consulting with residents and owners? At minimum, the ID storage needs more than just a mention in Board meeting minutes. If I lived in the co-op, I'd want full communication on the issue and a community vote on the ID storage. Too few Boards make a good-faith effort to communicate with the co-owners.
29
In terms of privacy, how is this any different or worse than having a security camera in the lobby? No one is complaining about those.
5
Taking information from "official" IDs, i.e. Driver's Licenses, State Issued ID's and entering that information into a database , saving it and having access to it make it different than having a security camera in the lobby.
67
This doesn’t happen in the majority of Coops due to the simple fact that it’s a waste of shareholders’ money. Surveillance is already costly if it’s any good.
And, the reality of maintenance and paying for stuff is at the center of all Coop Boards and their relationship to shareholders.
Management could care less either way. They just exist to siphon funds from shareholders in exchange for doing absolute nothing most of the time.
12
Another example of abusive overreach by coop boards -
3
"The doorman said this was the superintendent’s idea and the super has access to the files."
It's extremely unlikely that the super did this on his own, for no other reason than that such a system costs money. The board and/or management company had to have made the decision. The letter writer should take up his concerns with the board.
I find it particularly objectionable that the super has access to the files. Why would he need that? The LW should talk to the management company about restricting access if this program continues.
59
Like another contributor already wrote, it's amazing how readily many of us hand over their private data to people who have really no need to have them. I get that people show their ID when signing in, so that the security or doorman can verify that their name really is what tgey sign in as, but that should really be all the record keeping required, unless you live in Trump Tower, in which case you have my condolences.[I know that's a condominium]
If the co-op collects most or all the information shown on a visitors driver's license, it's not only 1984-like creepy, but might also make you and your fellow cooperators potentially liable in case the database in which the information is stored is hacked, leaked or stolen, and the co-op might have to contact all affected individuals captured in that database to let them know.
Also, could that information be subpoenaed as evidence in divorce proceedings, custody battles, and many other situations a large number of us can find ourselves in? Seems like a legal minefield to me, unless the sign-in constitutes a waiver.
Lastly, this kind of data collection could be worth real money to criminals - knowing that you're visiting someone in that building right now means your definitely not at home (address conveniently provided) in the moment, so, burglars rejoice.
52
Is this about Airbnb or selling their information or illegal immigrants coming to visit with fraudulent ID?
14
As a European and a naturalized citizen I am amazed to read how Americans will give up huge chunks of their privacy with ease while paying large amounts of money to own and use their property in New York City. Have they no pride?
This is a huge country with many welcoming communities where you can live comfortably for a fraction of the money and your dignity in tact.
61
Living in New York City can be tiring, but as someone born here and whose family has lived here since the 1910s, and therefore whose "memory" extends back to that time, I can say that living in New York City is also wonderful.
That's why we stay.
Georgia is a beautiful state, but I would not insult you by demanding why you stay there, especially given its politics outside of Savannah.
44
I would rather live in New York, than in Georgia, a state with minimal humane laws; a state which hold captive marine mammals in an aquarium; a state in which it's a free-for-all on the lives of raccoons.
New York may have its problems, but it is stronger on environmental and humane issues,
10
I bet they have no theater, no jazz and no museums. And no vibrant diversity and street communities. I'll take Manhattan.
6
The question asked about the legality of the process. That is only one avenue. While the Co-op entrusts the day to day duties to a Board and its Management team, they are in the end responsible to the shareholders.
Approach the Board with your concerns, if they are not adequately addressed, speak to your fellow shareholders and open discussion at the next general meeting regarding the issue. The running of the Co-op is meant to serve the shareholders' needs.
This does not guarantee that the others will agree with you but it will help ensure that there is an open discussion of the issue on its merits
43