Which brings us back to the point: if there was a service that would tell me how my nanny is doing during the day, I’d pay a lot for it. And I bet that good nannies wouldn’t object too much. After all, every nanny claims she is a good nanny. So, the really good ones will be able to distinguish themselves if enough people post their nanny observations on line. I hope this trend picks up.

Note, also, that the type of “power” you attribute to nannies isn’t at all the type of power that is likely to be useful in barganing over working conditions. Can the nanny really say, “If you don’t stop spying on me, I’ll feed your kids bad food and not changer their dipers? That seems pretty unlikely to work. Rather, the question is who has barganing power over determining working conditions. I’m pretty sure it’s not the nanny in most cases, and certainly not the nannies in the article, the ones I was talking about.

Nannies in fact hold a huge power over families where they work, simply by the virtue of spending most of their time unsupervised, and by having the power to neglect and abuse their charges in many ways that are very hard to detect. If you ever sit around a playground, you’d see many of those — talking on the phone or even taking a nap, while their charges are playing alone unsupervised, or running in dirty diapers, or even sitting for hours motionless, strapped to a stroller while the nanny is having a debate with some guy. I’ve seen worse things too. If there was some way to inform the parents, I’d do it immediately. Heck, those nannies wouldn’t be doing their things if they knew of a CHANCE that someone can report them.

Oh, and by the way, $12/hour is about half of what a typical working woman (other than a high-level lawyer) makes after tax. And the “live-in” nannies don’t even have to pay for rent, food, and utilities. So gimme a break about poor underpaid nannies and fat miserly mommies.

A nanny can hurt the family in many ways — from unannounced quitting to outright child abuse. The worst thing a family can do to a nanny is, well, fire her.

Much of the asocial behavior in large cities can be attributed to the feeling by people in these settings that they are anonymous. What I do goes unnoticed so I don’t have to fear the consequences of asocial behavior.

Nanny cams, snitch sites and other forms of surveilance return us to a time when your actions were known to all and that fact had a deterrent effect on those contemplating behaviors that violated societal norms.

Now I will not deny that this can have a smothering effect on displays of individuality, but it also has the effect of making bad drivers think twice about how they are driving, nannies think carefully about how they care for their charges, etc.

All of this oversight makes even the largest city just another “village” and could potentially be very good for everyone living in “villages” like New York.

As a parent needs to rely on babysitters from time to time, I think this sort of surveillance holds great promise. Of course there are problems — Katie’s point regarding racial inequity is a good one, and of course there are always risks inherent with anonymous commentary — but I would think that our primary concern should weigh in favor of protecting children.

I’d disagree with Timothy’s suggestion that “the ’spotted’ nanny will have no real means of defense.” Nannies concerned with inaccurate “spottings” can strengthen their relationships with their employers; for example, they can work with their employers to establish more equitable means of quality-control observation. Those working for a nanny/sitter service can encourage their respective services to establish their own quality-control procedures.

Again, if we’re going to err here, shouldn’t we err in favor of children’s safety and well-being? After all, as defenseless as you may see the nannies/sitters to be, the children in their care are infinitely more defenseless.