Tweet
Trust is a complex thing. It isn't black and white, it isn't yes or no.
People drop their kids off at daycare or school all the time to be watched by people whom they barely know. Would they trust these same people to look after a suitcase filled with $10 million in cash? Probably not. And yet, those parents care more about their kids than they would care about that $10 million.
Trust is another word for confidence. It can vary by degrees. You take a risk when you rely on someone else to do an important task for you. The confidence you have in someone doing something for you depends on the risk involved. How well do you know that person? How competent are they? How important is this task? How many ways might something go wrong?
By having cameras monitoring what is happening to their children, parents are able to reduce the risk of harm being done to their children. First, people behave differently when they know the are being observed. A provider who was thinking of harming a child might reconsider if the odds of being caught is higher. And if harm does happen, having evidence of it can prevent further harm from being done.
Audio recording of an area can be difficult, particularly with the low quality microphones that are typically pieced together with cameras. When you are present in a room and hear something with your own ears, your brain filters out what sounds are unimportant and focuses on those it believes to be useful. It ignores white noise, it cancels out echos, it adjusts the perceived volume of things you're looking at. Microphones don't do that. They record everything equally, and play it back exactly as it was recorded.
Audio also tends to convey less information than video, so I don't think it's likely to be more intrusive than video. But that also means it's less likely to be useful. Combined with the difficulty of getting a quality recording, it tends to not be of high importance to people looking for surveillance solutions.
It's disingenuous to suggest that the respondent isn't concerned about the children merely because he/she didn't propose a solution to protect every child in every situation.
The data you provided says that many daycare providers actually harm children.
A blip is not nothing. Four tenths of one percent of a huge number is still a big number. And statistics are numbers; they don't tell the experience of the individuals included. Do you imagine the victims and families of those children abused in daycare would be comforted by being told that what happened to them is just "a mere blip on the radar?" Is improving the safety of a child in daycare not worth considering because abuse only happens to a couple thousand of them a year?
Does the respondent have it within his/her power to do something meaningful about child abuse outside of daycare?
How many other companies? What is the correct number of companies that there should be who offer this?
Do you have stats on this, too?
First, no, cameras are not only valuable after an incident. It's true that cameras are not crystal balls, and can only record what has happened. But people tend to behave differently if they think they are being observed. And there truly are a lot of studies showing this. It's referred to as the observer effect or Hawthorne effect. It's the reason why even conspicuously-placed fake cameras can improve security. People tend to behave better when they know someone might catch them doing wrong.
Second, no, cameras don't need someone constantly monitoring them to be useful. Most security cameras are not monitored live. They record the video to media, which is usually viewed only after some other evidence of an incident is discovered. Being able to view that recording allows corrective action to be taken.
A lot of people still need to be told by a trained technician to reboot their computers, modems, routers, etc when they experience problems. Setting up printers, programming DVRs, syncing an mp3 player... these are things that have gotten much easier to do since these devices were introduced to the market, and yet people are still paying for tech support to help them do it. I would be surprised if nobody was willing to pay for assistance setting up an IP camera and connecting it to a streaming service. You affirmed this yourself when you wrote, "Other companies do the same thing." Why would there be any companies at all doing this if everyone could just go buy a camera at a store?
People drop their kids off at daycare or school all the time to be watched by people whom they barely know. Would they trust these same people to look after a suitcase filled with $10 million in cash? Probably not. And yet, those parents care more about their kids than they would care about that $10 million.
Trust is another word for confidence. It can vary by degrees. You take a risk when you rely on someone else to do an important task for you. The confidence you have in someone doing something for you depends on the risk involved. How well do you know that person? How competent are they? How important is this task? How many ways might something go wrong?
By having cameras monitoring what is happening to their children, parents are able to reduce the risk of harm being done to their children. First, people behave differently when they know the are being observed. A provider who was thinking of harming a child might reconsider if the odds of being caught is higher. And if harm does happen, having evidence of it can prevent further harm from being done.
Audio recording of an area can be difficult, particularly with the low quality microphones that are typically pieced together with cameras. When you are present in a room and hear something with your own ears, your brain filters out what sounds are unimportant and focuses on those it believes to be useful. It ignores white noise, it cancels out echos, it adjusts the perceived volume of things you're looking at. Microphones don't do that. They record everything equally, and play it back exactly as it was recorded.
Audio also tends to convey less information than video, so I don't think it's likely to be more intrusive than video. But that also means it's less likely to be useful. Combined with the difficulty of getting a quality recording, it tends to not be of high importance to people looking for surveillance solutions.
It's disingenuous to suggest that the respondent isn't concerned about the children merely because he/she didn't propose a solution to protect every child in every situation.
The data you provided says that many daycare providers actually harm children.
A blip is not nothing. Four tenths of one percent of a huge number is still a big number. And statistics are numbers; they don't tell the experience of the individuals included. Do you imagine the victims and families of those children abused in daycare would be comforted by being told that what happened to them is just "a mere blip on the radar?" Is improving the safety of a child in daycare not worth considering because abuse only happens to a couple thousand of them a year?
Does the respondent have it within his/her power to do something meaningful about child abuse outside of daycare?
How many other companies? What is the correct number of companies that there should be who offer this?
Do you have stats on this, too?
First, no, cameras are not only valuable after an incident. It's true that cameras are not crystal balls, and can only record what has happened. But people tend to behave differently if they think they are being observed. And there truly are a lot of studies showing this. It's referred to as the observer effect or Hawthorne effect. It's the reason why even conspicuously-placed fake cameras can improve security. People tend to behave better when they know someone might catch them doing wrong.
Second, no, cameras don't need someone constantly monitoring them to be useful. Most security cameras are not monitored live. They record the video to media, which is usually viewed only after some other evidence of an incident is discovered. Being able to view that recording allows corrective action to be taken.
A lot of people still need to be told by a trained technician to reboot their computers, modems, routers, etc when they experience problems. Setting up printers, programming DVRs, syncing an mp3 player... these are things that have gotten much easier to do since these devices were introduced to the market, and yet people are still paying for tech support to help them do it. I would be surprised if nobody was willing to pay for assistance setting up an IP camera and connecting it to a streaming service. You affirmed this yourself when you wrote, "Other companies do the same thing." Why would there be any companies at all doing this if everyone could just go buy a camera at a store?
Comment