Supermarkets like sainsburies, airports, etc, spying on disabled and sick people

[treelover]

Well, i am back, for now, I also want to respond in future to excellent posters like Athos, and McGinty, 39th Step, who have more nuanced ideas of the growing culture wars, the rejection of globalisation, etc, than many others on the left.

Anyway, no one has posted about this truly disturbing example of a hostile environment for disabled and sick people. indeed, the truly hostile environment they face, including huge loss of life, is with some exceptions,still not being challenged by the left, union's, civil society. i also wonder how much traction this issue will get, both on here and wider society. The author of the piece, Dr Jay Watts, a psychologist is on Twitter, Dr Jay Watts (@Shrink_at_Large) on Twitter, maybe folk can get it trending, she is also very very good on M/H issues.I have felt for some time this was going on, but the scale of it is huge, and very alarming, both in the private and public realm. If this was any other minority, groups like Liberty, privacy international, the liberal left, Trot fronts, would be going ballistic.

btw, Sainsburys is also attacking workers by stopping paid lunch breaks.

"No wonder people on benefits live in fear. Supermarkets spy on them now"


Jay Watts
It’s bad enough that we demonise the poor and disabled – now they can’t even leave their homes or use social media in peace

"Until a few years ago, if a patient with a diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia told you that they were being watched by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), most mental health practitioners would presume this to be a sign of illness. This is not the case today.

The level of scrutiny all benefits claimants feel under is so brutal that it is no surprise that supermarket giant Sainsbury’s has a policy to share CCTV “where we are asked to do so by a public or regulatory authority such as the police or the Department for Work and Pensions”. Gym memberships, airport footage and surveillance video from public buildings are now used to build cases against claimants, with posts from social media used to suggest people are lying about their disabilities. More and more private companies are being asked to send in footage. The atmosphere is one of pervasive suspicion, fuelled by TV programmes such as Benefits Street and successive governments’ mentality of “strivers v skivers”.

The DWP argues that video and social media footage is only used in extreme circumstances, and some are happy to brush this off as no big deal. But that ignores a key psychological truth. One does not need to have done anything wrong to feel that one has done something wrong. You know that feeling one has of getting caught out when going through airport security? That need to “perform” innocence, even though you know that you don’t have a kilo of cocaine in your hand luggage? It is this, a thousand times worse, 24 hours a day, seven days a week for claimants, whose homes and leisure time are being invaded in unprecedented ways."

 

[treelover]

Here is a very good description of how it works and the impact it has

No wonder people on benefits live in fear. Supermarkets spy on them now | Jay Watts

"To make sense of this, it can be useful to think of the metaphor of the panopticon. The social reformer Jeremy Bentham designed the panopticon in the 18th century as a building with a tower surrounded by cells which allowed a watchman to observe occupants – workers, prisoners or children – from above without them being aware if they were being watched or not. The shining light from the tower was so bright that people had to act as if they are always under observation, permanently exposed, isolated and paralysed under the gaze of potential judgment (for how could they know if there was a watchman there). The philosopher Michel Foucault took up this metaphor in Discipline and Punish to describe how disciplinary power functions, as people internalise the idea that they are being watched, monitoring their behaviours accordingly and shaping their sense of themselves. This produces what Foucault called a compulsory visibility. “It is this fact of being constantly seen, of being able always to be seen,” Foucault wrote, “that maintains the disciplined individual in his subjection.”

Claimants today live this subjection, this sense of visibility and targeted surveillance, with devastating effects on their mental and physical health. They often feel unable to go out, attempt voluntary work or enjoy time with family and friends for fear this will be used as evidence against them. The atmosphere is so hateful, so degrading, so ill-informed about the vicissitudes of energy and ability with regard to mental and physical disabilities, that they become imprisoned in their homes, or in a mental state wherein they feel they are constantly being accused of being fraudulent or worthless."

 

[Pickman's model]

this doesn't really tell us much which was either already known or suspected. for example, there are 470 articles in the guardian alone talking about the pantopticon. bentham's panopticon and foucault's use of the notion in his 1975 'discipline and punish' (it was never actually built by anyone in bentham's day) is a staple of basic surveillance studies and was much talked about in the early days of that discipline - i heard a lot about it at a surveillance studies conference in 2008, while by 2010 things had moved on to look at social media. there's a lot about surveillance of consumers in susanne lace's 2005 book 'the glass consumer'.

but this isn't really about the panopticon, as that was watching in real time and cctv doesn't do anything in real time outside public order. it's far more used to provide evidence than to actually watch people as they're going about.

but the policy doesn't say 'this is our cctv sharing policy'. it is the sainsbury's privacy policy and it makes absolutely no mention of sharing cctv with anyone.

this is the bit on personal information:


nothing there about cctv.

and this is the bit about who they might share that with:


the article's full of shit. there's NO WAY they're going to wade through cctv to spot someone on benefits, when you'd have to go through hours and hours to spot things. what photos would they have to compare people with? how would they even know they're in the store? ime people on benefits tend to pay in cash. when i was on the dole i didn't have a reward card, and i imagine there's many thousands of people on benefits who don't have reward cards. so how would sainsbury's or the dwp get a time around which to search?

 

[MickiQ]

This sounds very paranoid to me to say the least, Having someone sitting there looking through the CCTV from even a single supermarket for someone (who they would have to recognise) acting in a manner that isn't as disabled as claimed would a very labour intensive and therefore very expensive process, doing so on any kind of national scale would probably cost far more than any saved benefits (the whole point of the idea).
Beside I gain the impression that someone's disability payments can be stopped pretty much on the basis of the assessor not believing them, why go to so much trouble?

 

[Pickman's model]

This sounds very paranoid to me to say the least, Having someone sitting there looking through the CCTV from even a single supermarket for someone (who they would have to recognise) acting in a manner that isn't as disabled as claimed would a very labour intensive and therefore very expensive process, doing so on any kind of national scale would probably cost far more than any saved benefits (the whole point of the idea).
Beside I gain the impression that someone's disability payments can be stopped pretty much on the basis of the assessor not believing them, why go to so much trouble?

some time ago we tried to find out how someone who stole some stuff in the library had got in - there was no sign of him entering through the main entrance. and after about 20 hours of staff time trying to work it out we gave up. it remains a mystery to this day. it's very labour intensive, cctv.

 

[danny la rouge]

This sounds very paranoid to me to say the least, Having someone sitting there looking through the CCTV from even a single supermarket for someone (who they would have to recognise) acting in a manner that isn't as disabled as claimed would a very labour intensive and therefore very expensive process, doing so on any kind of national scale would probably cost far more than any saved benefits (the whole point of the idea).
Beside I gain the impression that someone's disability payments can be stopped pretty much on the basis of the assessor not believing them, why go to so much trouble?

It's not just the DWP, though:

"we will share your personal information to e.g. insurers, solicitors, employers etc. which have a legitimate interest in your personal information." Privacy Policy | Sainsbury's Privacy Hub

And it's not just CCTV:

"This policy applies if you interact with us through our stores, over the phone, online, through our mobile applications or otherwise by using any of our websites or interacting with us on social media (our “Services”)."

I'm not keen on that myself.

 

[Pickman's model]

It's not just the DWP, though:

"we will share your personal information to e.g. insurers, solicitors, employers etc. which have a legitimate interest in your personal information." Privacy Policy | Sainsbury's Privacy Hub

And it's not just CCTV:

"This policy applies if you interact with us through our stores, over the phone, online, through our mobile applications or otherwise by using any of our websites or interacting with us on social media (our “Services”)."

I'm not keen on that myself.

yeh. i'd be more concerned about this



than about sainsbury's handing over cctv of claimants, being as for the reasons i give above and others i believe it wholly unlikely for there to be any routine surveillance of claimants shopping.

e2a: the standard length of time for retention of cctv footage is one month, and usually unless a crime has been committed or rather detected it will be deleted at that point. you can see the privacy policy doesn't refer to cctv as personal information as under the how long will we retain personal information they say seven to twelve years.

 

[treelover]

No one said it was routine, but the collusion is there.

 

[Pickman's model]

No one said it was routine, but the collusion is there.

the policy does not say what your article stated. you have adduced NO evidence beyond one article of supermarkets handing over cctv to the police. where is the collusion? show it to me.

 

[treelover]

again, it is not just about supermarkets, but public and private entities sharing information, cctv with the DWP, it has caused quite a storm on other fora, and Liberty are being pressured to challenge it, benefit claimants not a priority for you?

 

[andysays]

The idea that supermarkets, etc are spying specifically on sick people does sound a little paranoid to me.

But it is of course true than many businesses and other organisations collect info about all of us without our consent or knowledge, and may then pass it on to third parties without or consent or knowledge.

 

[Pickman's model]

again, it is not just about supermarkets, but public and private entities sharing information, cctv with the DWP, it has caused quite a storm on other fora, and Liberty are being pressured to challenge it, benefit claimants not a priority for you?

yeh. one thing which hasn't changed in your year away is the order in which i like questions answered. i asked above - where is the collusion? show it to me. second time of asking.

 

[Pickman's model]

i'm sure you've seen this treelover, the 1000+ page guide for fraud investigators https://www (dot) gov (dot) uk/government/publications/fraud-investigations-staff-guide

the 2016 edition, presumably still current. doesn't mention running round supermarkets chasing claimants using cctv

going back to 2011 people were being caught for fraud through the medium of cctv (and tip-offs, after which the person was surveilled). there's this foi request Use of Supermarket CCTV in investigations of benefit fraud - a Freedom of Information request to Department for Work and Pensions made yesterday, we can go back in a month or two and see what's come back

and while the dwp said in 2013 it does use cctv Microsoft Word - WDTK Template 913.doc nothing there about supermarkets. it's my opinion that in the main cctv footage would be used after people have grassed claimants up for fraud - or, more precisely, made allegations of potentially fraudulent behaviour. i can't see cctv being used against your run of the mill dolee or disabled claimant, it would just be far too labour intensive and offer far too little return.

 

[gosub]

This sounds very paranoid to me to say the least, Having someone sitting there looking through the CCTV from even a single supermarket for someone (who they would have to recognise) acting in a manner that isn't as disabled as claimed would a very labour intensive and therefore very expensive process, doing so on any kind of national scale would probably cost far more than any saved benefits (the whole point of the idea).
Beside I gain the impression that someone's disability payments can be stopped pretty much on the basis of the assessor not believing them, why go to so much trouble?

Pull their mobile phone data first then you can narrow down what you have to look through...Number of bodies that have been powers that used to be reserved for spooks should be an issue

 

[treelover]

Its not about supermarkets snooping on claimants perse, its that lots of organisations are sharing cctv when asked by the DWP(and other agencies) the DWP is then using it to build fraud cases, frequently the footage is taken out of context.

 

[treelover]

there's this foi request Use of Supermarket CCTV in investigations of benefit fraud - a Freedom of Information request to Department for Work and Pensions made yesterday, we can go back in a month or two and see what's come back

Great to see the article is having a direct impact in some circles, someone has asked for this as a consequence of reading the article, i may even know who it is.

 

[Pickman's model]

Its not about supermarkets snooping on claimants perse, its that lots of organisations are sharing cctv when asked by the DWP(and other agencies) the DWP is then using it to build fraud cases, frequently the footage is taken out of context.

you haven't yet given one instance of this sharing occurring so it's hard to see how you get to 'frequently the footage is taken out of context'.

 

[Shechemite]

It’s a good comment piece on the general environment that claimants live within - and the psychological impact it has. As a news article it doesn’t really add anything.

Didn’t this sainsburys/cctv/DWP story first appear on the canary?

I think this article reflects the risks of conspiracism/ists to the MH SU movement.

 

[Shechemite]

The DWP has been colluding with Sainsbury's to spy on disabled people | The Canary

Yep. The fucking canary

 

[Pickman's model]

The DWP has been colluding with Sainsbury's to spy on disabled people | The Canary

Yep. The fucking canary

don't know where they got that we'll share cctv bit from which isn't in the sainsbury's privacy policy

 

[Shechemite]

What do you think of groups/movements who espouse concern for the disabled/claimants/MH sufferers; who take their real struggles and problems, and construct paranoid theories for ulterior motives, treelover ?

This phenomenon isn’t exactly new (in any sense, including in MH politics). The ‘left-wing’ version appears fairly novel: ‘The tories are spying on you at sainsburys with CCTV! CORYBN4PM!!!!’

 

[Shechemite]

don't know where they got that we'll share cctv bit from which isn't in the sainsbury's privacy policy

Your Rights | Sainsbury's Privacy Hub

You have to tap through the sections to get to the CCTV bit

 

[Supine]

Surely this spying is being done on people who are pretending to be sick, disabled, on benefits. It's the criminals they want to catch is it not?

 

[Shechemite]

Surely this spying is being done on people who are pretending to be sick, disabled, on benefits. It's the criminals they want to catch is it not?

Are you taking the piss?

 

[andysays]

Its not about supermarkets snooping on claimants perse, its that lots of organisations are sharing cctv when asked by the DWP(and other agencies) the DWP is then using it to build fraud cases, frequently the footage is taken out of context.

It would be helpful to the thread if you could give a concrete example of a supermarket giving CCTV footage to the DWP which was then used in an actual fraud case, but if you're unable to do that perhaps you could explain how, in hypothetical terms, such a thing might happen.

Perhaps my imagination is lacking, but I really can't see how footage of me shopping in my local Sainsburys could be used to demonstrate any sort of benefit fraud, TBH

 

[Shechemite]

It would be helpful to the thread if you could give a concrete example of a supermarket giving CCTV footage to the DWP which was then used in an actual fraud case, but if you're unable to do that perhaps you could explain how, in hypothetical terms, such a thing might happen.

Perhaps my imagination is lacking, but I really can't see how footage of me shopping in my local Sainsburys could be used to demonstrate any sort of benefit fraud, TBH

Alleged fraudelence over eg mobility, vision, communication, ability to cope in social settings

 

[Pickman's model]

It would be helpful to the thread if you could give a concrete example of a supermarket giving CCTV footage to the DWP which was then used in an actual fraud case, but if you're unable to do that perhaps you could explain how, in hypothetical terms, such a thing might happen.

Perhaps my imagination is lacking, but I really can't see how footage of me shopping in my local Sainsburys could be used to demonstrate any sort of benefit fraud, TBH

yeh they'd have to find you first, and if you don't pay with a credit or debit card and you're not using a nectar card it's very hard to see how they could find you without going to an unreasonable amount of trouble.

 

[Pickman's model]

Alleged fraudelence over eg mobility, vision, communication, ability to cope in social settings

most people in sainsbury's seem to barely grunt at the cashier as they pass through the checkout, which is as social as it gets most of the time.

i'd have thought mobility would have been demonstrated by simply getting to sainsbury's, as would vision. and as for communication, how much of it do you need when shopping?

 

[andysays]

Alleged fraudelence over eg mobility, vision, communication, ability to cope in social settings

I was actually asking treelover to back up his claims, but thanks for your answer.

So treelover, are there any actual examples you can point to?

 

[Supine]

Are you taking the piss?

I'm not keen on being spied on but it's the way of the world these days. Why shouldn't investigators of fraud use it.