Originally Posted by Unregistered:
Thank you, Small Batch for your insightful input. I would like to have a private convo with you to further discuss my new company and why I am doing this. You seem to get it, the motivation behind my plan. If you are interested in a chat, please email me,.
Not to be unkind, but I do not have an interest in your company or product. I don't know what you mean by "get it." I get the value of surveillance systems and I get the value of making a buck. Other than that, I am not sure what you mean. Best of luck to you though.
Originally Posted by nannyde:
Ummm isn't that what I said. They are useful AFTER an incident is discovered.
What you wrote seems contradictory, even from one sentence to the next. But I tried to interpret it charitably.
You wrote:
Originally Posted by nannyde:
The other issue is that cameras are useless unless a dedicated person is watching them. They are only valuable AFTER an incident.
...
Just as casino cameras are useless if there isn't staff to watch them... child care cameras are also. Centers must have someone dedicated to watching them or they are just parent pleasers.
Why would cameras be both useless unless someone is monitoring them in real-time,
and only useful later on after something has happened? Are they only useful in real-time, or are they only useful later on?
And, how might they be both useful only after an incident,
and be nothing more than parent-pleasers? Are they useful at all, or are they not?
Originally Posted by nannyde:
Even with the staff KNOWING I was watching they worked their way around many things until I figured it out. I had the ability to call directly into the room and speak to them LIVE as it was happening... they still tried to beat the system.
So you're saying that they did indeed change their behavior because they knew they were being watched.
Had they thought they were not being watched (or forgot that they were), they would not have sneaked into closets or rearranged furniture, or otherwise deliberately placed themselves in blind spots.
They were thinking, "I cannot do this here, because I am being watched. But if I could find a way to not be watched, then I can do this."
Originally Posted by nannyde:
People don't just do the right thing because there are cameras.
I didn't say they would. I said their behavior tends to change
when they know they are being observed. If they don't know about the camera, then they believe they are not being observed, and their behavior will not change. If they know about the camera but believe no one will ever look at the footage, then they believe they aren't being observed, and their behavior will not change.
Originally Posted by nannyde:
The ones who were corrected and didn't like the intrusion of being on camera and watched LEFT to go to a center where they just had cameras but no one watching or no cameras at all.
And the ones who were corrected and didn't leave? Either you fired them, or you allowed them to continue doing prohibited things.... or they changed their behavior because they knew they were being watched.
Originally Posted by nannyde:
All of these workers knew they were in rooms with cameras.
...and they know how to work around them or they know they have a low likelihood of the video ever being watched.
If they think that they will not appear on the video or that the video will not be watched, then they think they are not being observed, and so they will not change their behavior. They have to think they are being observed. It's not about the camera. It's about the observation... which is something for which a camera may be useful.
Lastly, those links you provided all underscore the value of cameras in a daycare. It sickens me to watch them, but I am at least glad there was clear evidence available showing what exactly happened to those children. Young children are typically unable to clearly explain what happened to them, if they are able to explain anything at all. At least those kids had those videos to speak for them.