However, resource constraints including the limited number of surveillance cameras, limit the capacity of police to respond to every case where criminal activity is suspected. Employers have argued that limiting the conduct of covert surveillance to police would not be reasonable, because in situations where the theft was not repeated and on a large scale, it might not be feasible for police to respond. The policy issue to be considered is whether it is possible to introduce a level of control on covert surveillance which finds an appropriate balance between the interests of employers, customers and employees. Covert surveillance is introduced only when all other reasonable measures have proved ineffective in solving the problem. Covert surveillance is conducted only for the purpose of protecting the employer against an identified risk to the security or safety of property, assets, employees, or members of the public.
Employers have substantial grounds to believe that unlawful activity is being undertaken.
Covert surveillance is limited in scope, targeting only areas in which unlawful conduct is likely to be recorded. Covert surveillance does not intrude unreasonably into the privacy of employees or customers who are not under suspicion. Covert surveillance is conducted only for a limited time period, such as until the perpetrator of the unlawful activity is identified. Strict controls exist over the operation of the system, including authorisation of who may receive and view tapes, secure storage and erasure of recordings. The operators of the system are accountable for their conduct to an external agency.