Totally appreciate I might not understand the global differences.
However when you apply to a sit you are accepting the LOCAL privacy laws, not that of your own country or culture. Is that not true?
1 Like
No, I don’t think that’s true. I think when it comes to privacy, people opt for what their comfort level is. And they’re entitled to do that. A checked box under features often might need additional discussion during the matching phase.
I own homes worth more than yours, live in the U.S. and use cameras, but I wouldn’t expect that all sitters would want to accept cameras automatically, no matter what country they’re from. (I don’t host on THS. I pay pros to sit my nutty rescue dog.)
1 Like
yes that’s true, hence I will no longer sit for people with cameras. My choice, stemming from my culture and moral compass.
1 Like
No problem at all, and totally your choice. I hope you make the appropriate disclosures on your profile and applications for clarity’s sake, as this thread is asking HO to make disclosures as well.
I think THS should have a section where sitters disclose if they accept external cameras at all, or with modifications. That would help, with the same of HO. Would save time in finding the right match.
3 Likes
good idea @Felinelover 
1 Like
Of course everyone can opt for whatever privacy they like. I was pointing out that local laws in Sweden or Australia only apply there, and not in other countries.
Regardless of laws, everyone can select sits that make them most comfortable, of course.
HO are asked to disclose external cameras, and I do.
Shouldn’t Sitters be asked to disclose their preferences on external cameras, since so many on here object to the allowed external cameras? So just put it on your profile and app.
I ask again, do you do so? Or will you do so?
1 Like
I’ve already addressed your Q.
Thanks - I’m not trying to be so combative (I know, I know) but it irks me that if this is an allowed feature - but one where everyone have there choices - then let BOTH sides state their preferences. Owners of course should disclose no internal cameras, and if disclosing external cameras then sitters should express in their profiles if they are ok with that. Either completely no, or maybe with modifications.
Why is this debate only on the HO? Why don’t Sitters state what they want?
1 Like
Internal cameras are not allowed on THS, so stating in your profile that you don’t accept internal cameras is redundant (and I do get some HO don’t seem to get that fact so the redundancy is probably needed to stay safe).
But this thread is about external cameras, which are allowed (in some countries) but obviously sitters have varying comfort levels with.
So if HO disclose external cameras why can’t sitters disclose whether their will or won’t accept external cameras on their listing/profile?
1 Like
Probably because many people want a chance to get to build some sort of rapport first, so they can discuss issues. Because when people talk, they’re more likely to come to agreements or compromises.
But I’m more aligned with your thinking on declarations. THS could make it easier / quicker to rule out bad fits.
3 Likes
Exactly. But I do feel the burden of disclosures are put on HO with sitters evasive about what they will or won’t accept.
The title of theirs thread is HO disclose outdoor cameras.
So HO disclose but Sitters can be evasive? To get the sit they want and then negotiate? I bet if the discussion was a HO saying a pet could be left for 8 hr, then ‘negotiating’ with you that it was 6 hrs, or 4hrs? How would that go over with you?
I think there is this very predominant thread of HO disclose this and that. But I’m now seeing that Sitters are not quite up to the same level of disclosures, because they want to ‘talk’ first.
Doesn’t that say a lot? Is it even if one party discloses truth and the other party…wants to ‘discuss’?
Is that fair?
I think there are significant imbalances on THS well beyond this one issue. I’m not clear in some cases why THS doesn’t address them.
2 Likes
On this…we agree 
1 Like
I’m sure if we went out for a drink sometime - we would be fast friends. I do appreciate your point of view, I just have a strong one myself 
1 Like
The burden may be more on HOs because it is sitters that apply for listings, not usually the other way around. Sitters can screen out the listings with features/responsibilities/amenities/etc that they don’t like. If the HO has disclosed the external cameras on the listing and the sitter still applies, it is reasonable for a HO to assume that the sitter is OK with the cameras.
Yes, a HO could go further and examine the sitter’s profile to see if it contains the disclosures you mention. If we were going that route, there are other disclosures that I would want sitters to add (speaking as a sitter and HO here), but that’s off topic!
3 Likes
@Oztravels Great post. I think the manner in which THS has HO’s list cameras is completely misleading. If I understand, exterior cameras are listed under “amenities.” I would consider an amenity to be something that benefits the person staying in the home. So, unless the HO signs over the camera monitoring to the guest during their time there, it’s not an amenity. It should be listed in a separate category, with clear explanations in how it’s being utilized.
9 Likes
No, this is not accurate. Are you a HO?
HO fill out a ‘Safety and Security’ section where we disclose external cameras. That is the only formal place to include it and it’s a check box (not how many or where).
@Felinelover If your response is for me, I am correct. I’m stating how listings are displayed on the site. Cameras are listed under the main heading of Amenities. Top Amenities are displayed but one is required to click on a link to see the full list. When you click on the link, Amenities are broken up into sub-categories. Cameras are under the sub-category of Security, toward the bottom. And typically HO’s with exterior cameras put they are used for “external camera monitoring the property.” Reading that would lead one to believe that: it’s for the benefit of the person in the home, the person in the home would have access to the camera, it is not being used for anything but security. But those exterior cameras are clearly being used by some HO’s to monitor Sitters/Guests, in case they “misbehave”; your word.
By definition, an amenity is for the person in the property to make their time more pleasant. Here’s the MW definition of Amenity:
- something that helps to provide comfort, convenience, or enjoyment.
-hotels with modern amenities
-providing residents with the basic amenities - something (such as a conventional social gesture) that promotes smoothness or pleasantness in social relationships
-maintaining social amenities
1 Like
Yes it’s a sub category under Amenities, Safety and Security. That is where we disclose cameras. It does not give us a place to note how many or why.
It is not an HO choice where THS has is disclose cameras!
Where do sitters disclose their preference for cameras? Since many of you state you wouldn’t do sits with exterior cameras? Where do I find that disclosure?
Since cameras are so sensitive, there should be mutual disclosures IMO.
So THS rules say HO cannot have interior cameras. No problem and any HO that tries is in violation of the platform rules and should be dealt with accordingly (I say should be, not sure it happens).
THS rules also state that HO are allowed exterior cameras. So sitters who are not comfortable with it - should not be on the platform then. Either it’s a rule or not. Both sides should accept it and if Sitters elect to not accept exterior cameras, fine.
They are in violation of the platform rules, same as HO with interior cameras.
Sitters are seeing this from their side only.