@AndyAysegul there have been too many home owners on ‘vacation’ who check in regularly to see the cameras and then respond accordingly if they see something they don’t like. We 
agree with @pietkuip it’s creepy! AND most cameras have microphones where home owners can ‘drop in’ and listen anytime. Why risk it? Our BIGGEST pet peeve is home owners telling us they have indoor cameras but can disable them. Yeah, okay, sure…have a camera in our ‘hotel’ where you can turn it on or off from your phone and can listen in wherever you feel like it…but “Don’t worry, we don’t use them and they are disabled while we are gone.”
Nope. We don’t buy it.
4 Likes
Exactly. However, many cameras are only disclosed when the sitter has already arrived.
I have never experienced what you have described, home owners with cameras that check in regularly. Perhaps this is more common in the US than in the UK. Also, it may be that because I send frequent updates to owners about their dogs, often with photos or video clips, plus share walking routes using Map My Walk, they don’t need feel the need to check up.
I also wonder if because I’m a non-working nomad the HOs don’t think their dogs will be competing for my time. Just a thought.
2 Likes
That’s also my technique. Shower them with so much doggy content that they are happy to forget their login password. 
1 Like
I think the habit of checking up cameras has more to do with the HO’s personality than the sitter’s profile or attitude. Of course, an owner would be more inclined to check if they saw red flags but even if everything goes well, we would not necessarily know if we are being watched.
1 Like
I agree to a certain extent that the overuse of external security cameras to micromanage a sitter is probably a reflection of the HO’s personality. But, we don’t know why they behave in such a way, perhaps they’ve had bad experiences with sitters and their homes, or pets. Or maybe that have been victims of a break in or burglary and as a consequence have high levels of anxiety.
I like the term used earlier in this thread, micromanaging and I think that’s often much more appropriate than spying where sitters and HO’s are involved. The latter suggests covert or clandestine use for nefarious purposes.
1 Like
I have just used the term “watching”. I do not want to use an evaluative term. Different people will watch their camera footage for different reasons. Some of them, totally understandable. Even just to see how their pets are enjoying the garden.
As a sitter, all I need to know is where the cameras are; if I feel we are a good match and trust the owners, I will go ahead with my application. Still, I will expect some level of watching and will dress and behave accordingly, not exactly the same as I do in the privacy of my home.
Indeed. But why would you need such documentation? We’re all conscientious pet-sitters who do our very best for the animals in our care. To my mind, when I sign up for a sit, that’s a given. Why would you need Proof?
Or do we now live in a world where our backsides must be covered at all times, in all places and in all postures?
1 Like