Just trying to work a clever pun using an old saying. I don’t believe in failure to disclose tracking devices. Sitters have the right to be informed.
Devices like my Tractive are pet-specific safety tools, not surveillance equipment. They don’t film inside the house, they don’t record conversations, and they don’t monitor the sitter — they only collect the dog’s activity and location data.
That’s very different from Furbo cameras or any device meant to observe humans in the space. I respect that there will be different opinions on this, but it’s important to distinguish safety trackers from indoor surveillance or internal recording. According to **THS’s current Camera & Recording Devices Policy, a pet-worn GPS/health tracker does not violate the rule, because it isn’t an interior monitoring device targeting the sitter or the home.
**
(Edited to remove link as per our forum guidelines)
Thanks for your input!
It’s so interesting to read everyone’s replies! Thanks!
It’s interesting to me that everyone is so worried about the audio part. I use the latest Tractive device and all it hears is when the dog barks or howls, and then sends me a notification via the app on how many times he’s barked or if he’s continuously howling. No human audio. The part that shocked me with this device was seeing how fast my dogs is traveling in a vehicle (And I tested it… It was spot on) - that part was a little weird to me.
Thanks for the discussion!
(Edited to remove link as per forum guidelines)
I understand your perspective. For me, when I bring a new sitter into my home, the question is: how do I ensure my dog is safe with them, healthy, and receiving proper care when I’m not there? My device helps me do that. It’s not about monitoring a sitter — it doesn’t capture video, audio, or home activity — it simply tracks my dog’s health and location data.
If a sitter ever wanted access, I’d happily provide viewer access so they can see the same information. I also shared earlier that a previous sitter took my dog on an unapproved out-of-state trip, and he ended up needing vet care. That situation was extremely stressful and reinforced why having a pet tracker matters.
My dog wears his device all the time, even when I’m home, so this isn’t about watching sitters — it’s about responsibly monitoring my dog.
(Edited to remove link in line with forum guidelines)
Thanks for your thoughts on this. This helps!
All thoughts are welcome; however, I do expect basic respect and constructive communication — especially when someone disagrees. The comment I responded to included profanity directed at me, which is why I noted that their approach and tone wouldn’t be something I’m comfortable entrusting my dog with. That isn’t about rejecting differing opinions — it’s about how those opinions are delivered.
This helps a lot! I agree. Thank you so much!
I completely understand not wanting anyone listening in on conversations — I feel the same way. When I mentioned “K9 audio,” I meant that the device only detects dog sounds, like barking or howling, and uses that to send me a notification. It doesn’t record conversations, it doesn’t capture human audio, and I can’t listen in to anything.
It also tracks stress/comfort indicators based on things like activity level and vocal patterns, so I get alerts if something seems wrong. I can only see the notification in the app — I can’t hear or listen to anything happening in the home. It’s purely about monitoring my dog’s wellbeing.
Oh that’s funny, I bet they were embarrassed.
I’ll keep this in mind going forward. But as a TrustedHousesitters homeowner, I’m not required to notify sitters about pet tracking or health-monitoring devices that serve the sole purpose of ensuring my dog’s safety and wellbeing. These tools don’t record people, don’t spy, don’t capture conversations, and don’t invade anyone’s privacy. They simply let me know whether my dog is safe, healthy, and receiving appropriate care—exactly what the sitter has agreed to provide.
If a sitter is fulfilling their responsibilities, there is nothing for them to “worry” about—because the device isn’t monitoring them, it’s supporting the dog’s welfare.
Ultimately, the sitter’s role is to care for my pet to the standard agreed upon. This device simply helps ensure that standard is met and alerts me if my dog may be distressed, ill, or unsafe. Responsible pet care shouldn’t be seen as a threat or a “gotcha,” and it’s reasonable for owners to use modern tools that help protect their animals.
So, a sitter has nothing to worry about if the tracker lets you know that your dog is safe? In other words, the tracker, directly or indirectly, also monitors the sitter’s fulfillment of their responsibilities. In short: the tracker monitors the sitter as well.
This would be subjective, because the device would track everywhere your sitter(s) went with your dog, which is what some folks are concerned about. Personally, I don’t care, but this topic has been addressed before in the forum and a good number of sitters have said that they wouldn’t accept such sits, because of their privacy concerns. Given that, it seems like you’d be better off declaring such devices upfront, otherwise risk being reviewed as not having declared or having a sitter withdraw.
You tell us you use the device to control and spy on the sitter. Goodbye “trusted”. I would not apply (which you appreciate so its a win-win), and yes it should be disclosed. THS is not really caring about sitters, but now that such devices get more and more popular, they should make a statement (that such devices need to be disclosed).
Oh, I never realized this. Thanks for bringing this up. I think this can be interpreted two ways, so update from THS is needed.
That THS doesn’t require you to notify the sitters or that they allow these (this point may be debatable) doesn’t detract from what sitters have said here about wanting to know in advance. This seems borne out by your own experience of sitters reactions when you’ve reluctantly told them.
They’re absolutely spying and recording, capturing conversations and invading privacy. That the AI is only reporting what it determines you need to know is separate from the fact it is recording and storing everything in order to do that.
The classic “if you’ve nothing to hide, you’ve nothing to fear” attitude is never a good sign. Aside from it’s checkered past, you’re making the assumption that privacy is only important to people who want to hide something nefarious. Privacy is a fundamental right and someone shouldn’t be expected to give that up to look after your pets, especially without being informed until it’s too late for them to do anything about it.
I’m sure you wouldn’t be happy if a sitter went through absolutely everything in your house and opened you mail just to be sure everything was safe and you had nothing to hide that could harm them.
Except you fail at the hurdle of it just being there for the pet’s health. If that was really the case you would have provided the sitters access to it so it would help them look after your dog. This is a fundamental test of what the technology is for and you have failed it. In the same way that a homeowner claims to have cameras and video doorbells “for security” but doesn’t provide access to them for the sitter who is the one most immediately at risk of any security problem.
@Ray2 You wrote: “Privacy is a fundamental right and someone shouldn’t be expected to give that up to look after your pets, especially without being informed until it’s too late for them to do anything about it.”
Until it’s too late for them to do anything about it? On the contrary.
If we arrived at a sit and we found out about a deal breaker (such as internal cameras or other surveillance devices), we are within our rights to leave the sit then and there.
If the homeowner is transparent about these things upfront (in their listing), sitters for whom this is a deal breaker will not apply.
You are within your rights for cameras but my statement still stands. For sitters who have potentially spent thousands on travel costs, and who may face thousand more to pay for accommodation, being “within their rights” and an actual feasible choice are two very different things. Additionally THS may not class an AI run GPS tracking, audio recording dog collar as one of those devices. The OP certainly doesn’t seem to do so.
Yes. this is the main point of my telling them to do so. Something which has eluded them on previous sits.
@Ray2 So true!