IBJNews

Internet sales of hidden 'nanny' cameras booming

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

There’s nothing like a stout mix of fear and falling technology prices to whip up sales of hidden cameras.

Surveillance experts say sales of “nanny cams” are exploding, fueled by distrust and easy access to inexpensive, quality equipment from Web sites around the world.

Businesses are buying the tiny cameras to catch malfeasant employees or spy on competitors. Individuals are snapping them up to watch homes, children or suspected wayward spouses.

(For a closer look at the new surveillance technology, see the video below.)



“People do not trust people anymore,” said Helen Bowser, who, with her husband, Chris Bowser, owns The Protection Pros, an online retailer of surveillance equipment based in Morristown, east of Indianapolis.

Tim Wilcox, who owns International Investigators Inc., a private investigation firm in Indianapolis, said easy availability is merging with fears as old as humanity itself.

“People have always wanted to know,” Wilcox said. “Now they can do it.”

Hidden cameras have been around for decades. But even in recent years, cameras that take high-quality photos or videos were expensive.

Now, though, cameras that used to cost $2,000 are priced close to $500—within financial reach of many more people.

Dozens of Web sites have popped up offering nanny cams costing a couple of hundred dollars and up.

Bowser’s is one such site. Theprotectionpros.com sales of the cameras have shot up 75 percent since 2007.

They’re available plain-Jane or hidden in otherwise innocuous fixtures such as clocks, lamps, air purifiers, DVD players and Kleenex box holders.

Bowser’s customers, about half of whom place a phone call before ordering, are split fairly evenly between businesses and individuals.

Businesses mainly want to stop thefts, she said. Individuals want to monitor baby sitters, latchkey kids and spouses. Still other buyers put them in nursing homes if they suspect parents are being abused.

To some extent, customers are living the “trust, but verify” axiom, Bowser said: “They trust the baby sitter, but they want to be sure.”

Wilcox doubts most hidden cameras are bought for legitimate reasons, such as security. Rather, he said, the majority end up with voyeurs and other “nasty” people.

More than one such accusation has arisen locally in recent months.

In August, a lawsuit was filed against Van Natta Plastic Surgery and Meridian Plastic Surgery Center in Carmel by the owner of a spray-tan business operating within the center.

The owner, Pam Sanders, claimed to have discovered a hidden camera in a room where clients were sprayed in various levels of nudity.

The practice said the camera was installed to stop theft, but that it had been disconnected.

Last month in Muncie, a 66-year-old builder of high-end homes was arrested on charges of voyeurism after he allegedly installed a hidden camera in a customer’s bedroom door. The customer, a middle-age woman, noticed the camera and called police.

The builder, David E. Keller, said the installation was intended as a joke.

Charles Wackenhuth, technical support supervisor for Guardian Protection Services Inc., said anecdotal reports from field offices suggest fear is the greatest motivator for sales of hidden cameras.

Guardian, headquartered in the Pittsburgh suburb of Warrendale, has an office in Indianapolis.

“People are more concerned about their home and their belongings and their children,” Wackenhuth said. “Trust has fallen off with everybody, from friends to family.”

Businesses commonly buy the cameras to stop theft, Wackenhuth said. He is aware of at least one circumstance where a copper thief was caught on camera and nabbed.

Indeed, Wilcox, the private investigator, estimates at least half of retail stores have hidden cameras to catch thieves; the cameras are even more popular in bars, where they’re mounted over cash registers to catch bartenders who he says tend to be sticky-fingered.

The cameras are not often found in places where theft is less of a risk—accounting firms, consulting firms, original equipment manufacturers and companies dealing in raw materials.

However, even these kinds of firms invest in surveillance if sexual harassment is a problem, or if they believe they’re being burned by fake Worker’s Compensation claims.

Some buyers of hidden cameras are intent at getting at a truth, Wilcox said. If they confirm a spouse is cheating, they feel more settled about seeking a divorce, for example.

People familiar with the industry foresee little letup in demand for nanny cams.

Technology will become cheaper, better and more widely available. And distrust, fueled by crime shows and movies, may continue to increase.

“We’re turning into a more paranoid society,” Wilcox said.•

ADVERTISEMENT

  • An odd slant
    "Wilcox doubts most hidden cameras are bought for legitimate reasons, such as security. Rather, he said, the majority end up with voyeurs and other â??nastyâ?? people."

    It sounds more like Mr. Wilcox is trying to convince people doing their own surveillance is a bad idea. Of course, money not going into his pocket cause people can do it themselves now without paying a PI hundreds per hour couldn't have anything to do with his comments. ;)

    I am sure there are people who use them for bad reasons but I am betting that is the exception not the rule. I know tons of home owners, business owners and parents who use these devices in the way they are meant to be used.

    If you don't think hidden cameras are needed read this http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091121/GJNEWS_01/711219943

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

ADVERTISEMENT