---

@cee-dee wrote:

Usually (from what I've read) covert survellance was set up after suspicions by concerned relatives.

 

People in positions of trust should be proud that when examined, their performance has been found to be impeccable. If no-one checks, how could anyone know otherwise?

 

I know this isn't quite the same, but years back, if you went from room to room in the houses of "the upper class", you'd often find small amounts of money (coins) in little pin-dishes or on a shelf. It's not as if they didn't trust "the servants"............ but the servants proved their trust by not pinching any.

---

That's the problem - nobody knows how many secret cameras there are in such places, nor whether or not the person being cared for approves - you'll only ever read about those cases where something untoward comes to light.

If relatives have genuine concerns then I see no problem with them putting those concerns before a judge to get authority for covert surveillance.

It is not only careworkers who visit the private rooms of residents but also other guests - are they not entitled to know that they are being recorded?