I was talking to a friend of mine about this subject last week.

Many times investigative journalists will use hidden cameras and microphones to expose wrong doings at businesses, schools, or even government agencies. I remember watching many different types in the past. Car dealerships(service,sales finance), mechanic shops, doctors, advisers, all being filmed either cheating the customer or breaking the law in their dealings with the 'customer'.

Another tactic used by journalists is to feign a problem as to try and catch people in the act. Such as, pretending something is wrong with your car when it is perfectly fine in hopes the service shop will tell them all kinds of things are wrong with the car and need lots of work that will cost hundreds or thousands of dollars.

Questions for debate:

1. Are these legitimate tactics to be used to catch bad business practices in the act?

2. Should hidden cameras and microphones be disclosed before using

1. Are these legitimate tactics to be used to catch bad business practices in the act?

I would say that this can be a legitimate tactic to use as long as there is not entrapment. For example, the reporter should not ask the business to do anything illegal (accept a bribe or violate safety standards or whatever.) This is the same reason that I object to "sting" operations in which law enforcement officers offer the opportunity to break the law.

If the reporter simply makes use of the services of the business in the same way that a normal customer would, then reports on any improprieties, this could be a legitimate public service.

2. Should hidden cameras and microphones be disclosed before using?

I would say that the use of such devices should only be permitted in "public" situations; when there is a reasonable expectation that the activities could be seen and heard by others. For example, if someone working in an automobile repair shop says "You need a new engine" to the reporter in the middle of the auto shop, it would seem reasonable that the employee expects this statement to be heard by others.

It's a tricky balance between privacy and the need for the public to be informed.

1. Are these legitimate tactics to be used to catch bad business practices in the act?

I think so. Individuals have a right to privacy, but do businesses? It seems to me that any fraud which goes on during the process of business transactions with the public (like Jiffy Lube) is fair game. Such evidence might not be admissible in court, but it could be used to educate the consumer.

2. Should hidden cameras and microphones be disclosed before using?

That would sort of defeat the purpose, wouldn't it?

I remember recently where, I think it was ABC. Did an investigative report on military recruitment process. These were done using hidden cameras, and in some instances were not done in the 'public' where the statements could be heard by others. The practices used in the report are now no longer used by the military because of that report.

Questions for debate:

1. Are these legitimate tactics to be used to catch bad business practices in the act?

Some states have laws dealing with recording people without permission but I am not sure businesses are covered. In any case it is a valuable technique for documenting fraud, lies and abuse by business and, if you are lucky, government.

2. Should hidden cameras and microphones be disclosed before using

Not unless the law makes it a requirement. IMO cameras should be used more often in high crime areas where it is proven to reduce crime – but this could be for another thread.