To be horrified by the idea of 'nurserycams'

[Splinters]

Apparently a friend's dtds are starting at a nursery where parents can log in and watch their children on a webcam. I'd never heard of this as our nursery doesn't have it, and I'm horrified! Totally different to an 'open door' policy imo, because a) once the footage exists you have no control over these images of your child, and b) other parents could give their login details to anyone, so anyone could be watching without the knowledge of the nursery staff.

Obviously this isn't an issue for us at the moment, but I can't stop thinking about it now! Can you refuse permission for your child to be in view of a webcam, or does accepting a place at a nursery with cameras mean that you have to accept them? Because there's no way I would if we ever had to move.

On second thoughts - who needs them? Mine are too old to be vulnerable now. We'll stick with checking the staff to see if their eyes are too close together. That is reliable enough.

Backonly, me too. When my kids were small I used cloth nappies that I made. Some people I knew who also made cute cloth nappies posted pictures of their kids wearing them. I don't know how it was found out but apparently a bunch of cloth diaper fetishists had taken the pictures and had them posted in a forum online.

There was no evidence of any kind of contact but of course the parents were completely and utterly freaked out. There was lots of talk about how damaging it was to the children. I completely understood being grossed out by it and being very angry and worried about possible implications and wanting police involvement but I can't honestly see how it damaged any children.

Yes a peado wanting to a grainy fuzzy B&W video of your kid mashing play dough is completely gross but I'm not sure how it is damaging your kid. However, I've seen childcare workers be consistently horrid and rough to children they watch when their parents aren't around. That is absolutely bad for your kid.

I'm not sure what special arrangements would be made for vulnerable children: "dear parents, I know the webcams are a particular selling point of this nursery but I'm afraid you can't have the login for the camera in your child's room but I can't tell you why other than general "child protection concerns""...?

Anyway, if parents are relaxed about the cameras they are free to choose a nursery with them. I'm glad mine are old enough that this isn't an issue for us, but I would always have chosen one without a camera.

Mass access to nursery cameras is exactly what's being suggested.

Not universal access, but access by large numbers of people legitimately associated with the nursery now or previously (if the nursery isn't really hot about taking people off the system - a common problem); by other people using the first set of people's devices and log-ins; and by hackers who have no business being there in the first place.

BTW, I've been through similar with an elderly relative recently.

They lived alone, and every time they didn't answer the telephone it was a worry, even though they were just out shopping.

There could have been quite a temptation to install cameras, maybe just in the kitchen, to see that they were up and about and OK. But they're very independent and private, and even daily phone calls made them feel a bit crowded.

And this is a common problem - to the point that as a compromise between privacy and safety, and with the consent of the monitored person, you can install a surveillance system of pressure mats and door monitors which keep a record of activity. But even then, we didn't want any in the bedroom or bathroom: it's none of my business what time they get up or how often they wee in the night.

In fact the person can no longer live alone, so we didn't install. But although remote-access cameras would seem to be a "solution", they just wasn't. Because this was an adult who expected privacy.

The nursery issue isn't just a "children and cameras" question (although some children do indeed have security issues), it's a "people and cameras" question.

The proposed mass-access CCTV of nurseries isn't just you watching your child, it can be the creation of a permanent digital film of hours and hours of the 3-year-old self of the 30-yr-old who is now a teacher, or bank manager, or footballer, or witness in rape trial. Posted on the internet for Da Lolz by SaddoHacker and found years later by, well, anyone, thanks to the wonders of Google and, increasingly, Facebook's face recognition software.

That's why it's not like professional CCTV that doesn't leave the building.

We've never lived in this world of zero privacy, because it's only just coming into being and didn't capture the childhood of anyone adult today. We don't know what it will be like. It may be benign. It may not.

they just wasn't weren't

That's why it's not like professional CCTV that doesn't leave the building.

It is professional CCTV. Ofsted would not accept any less.

BTW, the activity-monitor system was also not perfect - very much a compromise between safety and privacy. But one that the monitored person could make an informed choice to do.

And the access would have been restricted to myself and another family member. Even though the data was very boring, just about door-opening.

Goldmandra, can you tell me what you mean by "professional CCTV"?

Because I mean, a CCTV system staffed all the time by employed security people watching the screens. If there's remote access of any kind, that needs to be run by IT professionals. Security is something you do, not an object you buy.

Which manifestly isn't what's being discussed.

Some shops with CCTV don't meet this standard. But they're also less likely to intentionally give remote access as the nurseries do. And they're less likely to attract certain types of hacker.

you have no control over these images of your child

The way you put that makes it sound sleazy

Exactly. This comes down to the same arguments as filming nativity etc in the end are you happy for other people, who you do not know, to have access to unlimited images of your child or not. Wasn't there some controversy just before Xmas about someone putting a recording of nativity on facebook and the school asking them to take it down? Like I said I have no issue with my child being in the background of an odd photo/short video but do think it breaches my child's privacy if someone else was to share a significant number of photos/videos and hence cctv at nursery for me counts as this.

can you tell me what you mean by "professional CCTV"

I mean the nurseries pay IT businesses to install these systems. They are designed and maintained by professionals.

Just Google parent cam/nursery cam or similar.

Can you give an actual link to an example of what you're talking about?

Because I suspect you're describing exactly the sort of system my security criticisms are aimed at...

As a student nurse, I had a placement in two nurseries, I was pretty horrified by what went on tbh.
Not abuse but young babies left to cry in car seats for hours, general lack of affection.

Yes, I have seen this sort of thing too, or toddlers who are ignored and told to go away when they ask questions or seek attention.

When my toddler went to nursery I picked one with older ladies as the teachers and a very efficient stern director. There can be some very amazing young nursery nurses/workers but I've met a bunch of lazy ones who really don't want to be bothered with the kids.

Well interestingly, today's news headlines include:

Wellers' child privacy case: Peers urged to change law - discussion of photography and children's privacy;

Moonpig suspends app over concerns about customer security - internet company fails at internet security;

'Burglar's shopping list' security flaw fixed - security company recommended by the police fails at internet security.

Not sure where I come down on the "pictures of children in newspapers" issue, but the other two demonstrate very clearly that internet security is, in fact, hard. Even when your whole million-pound business depends on it.

The only way to be sure of not losing data is not to put it on the internet in the first place.

So everyone has to make their own cost-benefit analysis on what to put online and what not to.

It's the permanent searchability and availability that make online images different from images printed in, say, a paper newspaper.

The Data Protection Act was brought in because we recognise that electronic databases have different issues from paper databases, even when they contain the same data; the move from data being kept on a single, offline computer, to data being accessible across the whole internet, forever, is a change of similar magnitude.

I find this thread odd.

Lots of people going on about hysteria of photographs, but at the same time there is this hysteria about needing a webcam 'to keep an eye'.

Both of these fears are feeding into the same paranoia.

Personally I dislike CCTV everywhere because of issues with civil liberties and it becoming increasingly like 1984 rather than because I'm worried about some sort of abuse. I think we are over reliant on it rather than forging trust and communication with other human beings as a solution to problems within our society. CCTV is no where near as widespread in other Western European countries, yet there doesn't seem to be significantly more serious issues elsewhere. The reason CCTV became acceptable within our society is because of the threat of Irish terrorism; yet we choose to install cameras rather than address the core of the problem.

The example of the abuse of the elderly has been mentioned a few times on this thread. This has happened, because people thought they could get away. It wasn't always done in isolation behind closed doors when no one was watching. Other staff failed to report it and/or complaints by victims and relatives were not taken seriously.

Its not because its not seen and other people aren't aware of it. They were.

Which says something else entirely about our society and makes you question what would happen even with the presence of cameras. Its an institutional issue with the complaints system more than anything else.

A few questions. What happens when a nursery does body painting or plays in a pool?

What happens if a parent doesn't like another child for some reason? Will they spend their time watching that child for things to make issues out of? eg, a parent who doesn't think a child with SEN should be in the nursery?

What happens to fathers who like to watch the female staff bending over?

What happens to staff where some parents don't believe they should even be allowed to work in a nursery? I'm thinking of male members of staff here. Will parents be videoing them hoping for anything that could be used against them?

What happens when a nursery does body painting or plays in a pool?

Children play in pools in public parks all the time so I assume they would be dressed in the same way, i.e. wearing nappies and/or swimming costumes.

I guess the same would apply to body painting. I've never done that with children TBH.

What happens if a parent doesn't like another child for some reason? Will they spend their time watching that child for things to make issues out of? eg, a parent who doesn't think a child with SEN should be in the nursery?

Parents taking snapshots of behaviour out of context would be a concern for me. I think that would take some careful managing.

Found this thread as my nursery has a camera you can view remotely.

The concept is great, but what would you think of it if the images were not secure, such that not only could any parent access any room, but that anyone in the world could access them if they knew where to look?

Do you actually know that the cameras provided in nurseries are secure to ensure privacy of your child? How has your nursery checked this out?

I'm more than curious about this...