Posted by
M
16 yrs ago
I am a full-time working mother with a toddler and a baby. Unfortunately for financial reasons, I have to work and leave my children under the care of my helper.
Can anyone recommend a spy-ware/CCTV or any monitoring device that I can place discretly at home for peace of mind?
Thanks in advance!
Please support our advertisers:
This has come up before. This is probably not what you want to hear but my recommendation is to find a helper you can trust. If you can trust her, there is no need for this kind of thing. A few surprise visits by yourself and your friends during the first few weeks/months will assure you that nothing weird is going on. Also you can see it in the kids if things are not all right.
Please support our advertisers:
axptguy38 and greenvalleys are right. Don't hire a DH then pester her life with a spy. If you're paranoid then don't hire a DH else if you hire one then at least lend some trust. axptguy38's suggestions are the way to go...
Please support our advertisers:
Green Valleys
You will find that a private home is exempt from the provisions of the Privacy Ordinance (requiring the person operating the cam to inform others they could be filmed). So it is open to the OP to place a discreet camera (they're not called "nanny cams" for nothing!) in her home.
Even if you trust a helper (and she must, if she is prepared to leave her children with her in the first place) it may be reassuring to have a camera so she can see for herself what is happening in the home while she is away, especially if she has to return to work before she is able to properly train the helper. A new helper is a stranger and the mothering instinct is strong.
My advice to the OP would be to go ahead if you want to - no idea about where you get the equipment though - I suggest you contact a security firm.
Please support our advertisers:
smallfry, the domestic home is not exempt. Complaints of covert surveillance can still be reported and will be investigated. It is up to the employer to convince the Commissioner of the privacy ordinance that it is for the purposes of "concerned only with the management of his personal, family or household affairs".
It is not a given.
Please support our advertisers:
Trust is trust. Either you trust the helper and leave your kids with her, or you don't and don't hire her.
Please support our advertisers:
EvilDeeds
i have set out below the relevant sections. The fact that the camera will be placed in the family home for the purpose of household and family management makes it extremely (overwhelmingly) likely that a complaint made in this situation would be dismissed. Section 52 is clearly intended to apply to situations such as these. I do not think that an employer would have any trouble convincing the Commissioner that a nanny cam falls under the section 52 exemption.
PART VIII
EXEMPTIONS
51. Interpretation
Where any personal data are exempt from any provision of this
Ordinance by virtue of this Part, then, in respect of those data and
to the extent of that exemption, that provision neither confers any
right nor imposes any requirement on any person, and the other
provisions of this Ordinance which relate (whether directly or
indirectly) to that provision shall be construed accordingly.
52. Domestic purposes
Personal data held by an individual and—
(a) concerned only with the management of his personal, family
or household affairs; or
(b) so held only for recreational purposes,
are exempt from the provisions of the data protection principles,
Parts IV and V and sections 36 and 38(b).
Please support our advertisers:
This could be a tricky one as it may be your home but it is also a work place and if you are using it to watch your employee then this is clearly not just a normal family setting.
Please support our advertisers:
axpatguy
"Either you trust the helper and leave your kids with her, or you don't and don't hire her."
It's kind of naive to say "don't hire if you don't trust", i think.
At the start of any relationship, there is no trust - more the hope that you will be able to trust the other person (and this is true of all relationships, not just those with FDHs). So, at the point you are hiring a FDH, you are hoping that it will all turn out for the best but you have no real way of knowing how that relationship will work.
If the OP needs the reassurance of a nanny cam, she should get one. If it makes her feel that she is doing all she can to ensure the welfare of her children, then that emotion will over-ride any feeling of injustice to the helper.
Incidentally, some nurseries have set up cameras in their play-spaces to allow parents to see their children at play. It need not be a covert thing - the employer could tell the helper that she misses her children and would like the helper to play with them in view of the camera so she can see them during the day.
Please support our advertisers:
smallfry,
When you post please post the full original which is thus:
51. Interpretation
Where any personal data are exempt from any provision of this Ordinance by virtue of this Part, then, in respect of those data and to the extent of that exemption, that provision neither confers any right nor imposes any requirement on any person, and the other provisions of this Ordinance which relate (whether directly or indirectly) to that provision shall be construed accordingly.
52. Domestic purposes
Where, following the completion of an investigation, the Commissioner is of the opinion that the relevant data user-
(a) concerned only with the management of his personal, family or household affairs; or
(b) so held only for recreational purposes, are exempt from the provisions of the data protection principles, Parts IV and V and sections 36 and 38(b).
It states following an investigation and at the opinion of the Commissioner.
But overall, as mentioned trust is the key.
Please support our advertisers:
I may be wrong about s52 of the Privacy Ordinance (but don't tell my husband - I've told him I'm never wrong...)
Raymond Wacks, a HKU professor has written a very clear article, "Home videos:is surveillance of domestic helpers lawful?" in which he concludes that, although the matter is unclear,
"Personal data relating to a domestic helper held by their employer in the normal course of employment are, I suggest, not exempted from the DPPs under s 52. The scope of the s 52 exemption is restricted in the manner I have suggested above. Even if I am wrong on this point, the surveillance by employers of the activities of their helpers at home is, in any event, caught by DPP1 since it involves the collection of personal data, rather than data being held (the focus of the exemptions in Pt VIII of the Ordinance). Domestic helpers, despite their being employed in the home, ought not to be distinguished in this respect from employees in general. Their personal data warrant equal protection."
The article is available on line.
Please support our advertisers:
sorry evildeeds
I did copy the whole section but got distracted by kids and phone calls and somehow deleted the first part of section 52.
Prof Wacks' concluding point, "Their personal data warrant equal protection." makes me think that he wants this data to be protected (ie it should be potected) but that it probably isn't.
Please support our advertisers:
I think like many other ordinances, rules, laws, etc in HK there are many that are open to interpretation. HK government does not seem to be able to produce anything official that cannot be challenged. Many of these rules seem quite ominous
Please support our advertisers:
Dear M,
I am in the same situation and I got my helper's consent to have a CCTV installed in the living room of my home. PCCW installed that and I only need 1 camera for the whole living room as the head of the camera can move in different directions. I can use my computer at work and my 3 G mobile to control the camera remotely and videos can record on the server as well. I paid $ 1800 for the camera and a monthly fee of $ 185 (a package).
Once my friend's son injured his head at home and the other time he accidentally locked himself in at home, she could instruct her helper what to do by seeing how badly the boy was hurt and where to find the key through the camera. It's a good idea to have one installed in the "open" area at home with the helper's consent.
http://www.pccweasywatch.com/en
Good luck!
Please support our advertisers:
"Once my friend's son injured his head at home and the other time he accidentally locked himself in at home, she could instruct her helper what to do by seeing how badly the boy was hurt and where to find the key through the camera. It's a good idea to have one installed in the "open" area at home with the helper's consent."
If I wasn't fully confident that my helper knew exactly what to do in both those situations, I wouldn't keep her on. You're talking pretty basic stuff. She is in place and can best assess the situation. As for giving her instructions, a simple phone call from her will do just fine.
It is intrusive and more or less guarantees that there will never be full trust. You all do what you like but I find it exceedingly rude and generally a bad idea that can sour the best employee relations.
Please support our advertisers:
You must be logged in to be able to reply.
Login now
Copy Link
Facebook
Gmail
Mail