What is your view on this paragraph? Please see below.

Using surveillance in this case was a proper method. Since the perpetrator was paid in cash, documentary evidence didn't exist from pay stubs, bank records, or other income documentation. Surveillance is a personal observation that the investigator was able to use to obtain evidence. It's also a form of evidence that others can observe by watching the video surveillance to determine if the man was performing tasks that he claimed he was restricted from doing. Additionally, the interview with the owner, in my opinion, wasn't strong evidence alone.For one, as the reading suggest, there has to be predication to investigate fraud. When the potential act of fraud is believed to be occurring or occurred, securing the appropriate permissions is important to not violate any laws. Additionally, an organization and investigator should be knowledgeable about the extent of their authority and conduct the investigation with due care related to privacy concerns. Organizational policies are a great preventive control to reduce or eliminate the expectation of privacy in the work environment.