The use of video surveillance on dairies has many benefits: cameras allow “eyes” on areas where it is not always feasible to physically monitor and provide insights into both animal and human behaviors on-farm.
While the benefits are numerous, it is also critical to stay within legal and ethical bounds in camera installation and use. Emily Skowronski of Cattle Care discussed details on this topic at the recent NMC regional meeting in Rochester, N.Y.
Covering the basics of areas acceptable for monitoring is the first topic Skowronski discussed. Public areas – or work zones – are appropriate for surveillance. This includes parlors, holding pens, and any area where animals are located on the dairy. Included in the definition of work zones are all feeding areas, feed or commodity sheds, and exteriors of buildings. She noted that areas where privacy is to be expected include areas such as locker rooms, break rooms, and bathrooms.
Skowronski discussed the importance of compliance with federal and state laws and regulations for on-farm camera systems. One of those federal laws is the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), which includes use of electronic surveillance for legitimate business purposes and defines data storage regulations.
Additionally, producers must comply with state laws as well as federal laws; these should be noted and clarified with local labor attorneys. Skowronski gave an overview of several states with specific laws that dairy owners and operators should be aware of. California requires a 14-day written notice before surveillance can begin. The state also has a more specific definition of reasonable expectations of privacy and audio recording. Wisconsin has a Privacy Statute that does not require employers to receive written acknowledgment of awareness of recording, but Skowronski noted this is a highly recommended practice. She also touched on additional considerations for Wisconsin, as smaller farms meeting specific criteria (10 employees or fewer) may be exempt from certain OSHA regulations. Lastly she covered New York, where employers must post visible notices, but only where video surveillance is occurring. Also, in New York, employers must provide written notice and secure written or electronic acknowledgement. Skowronski emphasized that physical signatures are strongest.
She added thoughts on overall best practices and ethical monitoring, reminding attendees that video is permissible where the cattle are located. If cameras are to be installed in inventory, storage rooms, and equipment, they must be located only in work zones. Other best practices include posting visible signs where video surveillance occurs, and keeping staff up to date with information on location and surveillance via the farm’s employee handbook.
Lastly, data security needs to be considered in video surveillance, as all footage that is stored is susceptible to a data breach. Skowronski recommended choosing videos to save for long-term purposes, saving that footage on an external drive, and permanently deleting unnecessary footage.
Skowronski closed by reminding attendees that camera technology can improve safety, efficiency, and compliance, but must be implemented ethically, legally, and transparently. Understanding responsibilities under federal and state laws, being transparent with employees, working with labor attorneys, providing translations where needed, and working closely with camera companies during the installation process and beyond.
