I've always assumed that everything associated with a workplace was under surveillance. I'm not sure why anybody would be surprised or upset about security cameras. A bizarrely lukewarm take from the NYT here.
The difference is that the manager can't see everywhere at once.
I'm reminded of the famous office scene from Terry Gilliam's Brazil: [1]
and also of the Panopticon[2], which was just a Romantic fantasy of Jeremy Bentham's when he dreamed it up in the 1790's, but which has become reality in the 20th and 21st centuries, with the advent of supermax prisons, schools, factories, and offices, with their omnipresent surveillance.
Bentham described the panopticon as "a new mode of obtaining power of mind over mind". It's depressing and frightening that there are still many advocates of such oppression.
And nobody ever watches all of the security camera footage.
¹ Granted, that you're free to replace with another or try to start your own!
If it's the second, that's ilegal in a lot of countries.
At least in Europe that's the law. Besides that, you must have visible warning signs to let people know there are cameras recording them, and you also have to notify the national entity that's responsible for data protection that you will have "X" cameras (image, audio, or both) for the "Y" purpose.
- For security reasons: to protect people and assets;
- For monitoring: to control your employees activity.
Picking a ridiculous example: if your boss tells you that you're spending too much time talking/doing a task/eating, because he as been watching you via security cameras, he will be in a lot of trouble.
I’m against using vague threats like terrorism to increase surveillance, but the two are not equivalent.
If that workplace is a prison or sweatshop, yes.
If it's a place people with dignity work, then that shouldn't be the case, and for the most part of history, it wasn't.