The mother installed a “wiretapping” in the kindergarten: a terrible thing was recorded on the recorder

Thanks to a voice recorder that worked for 9 hours in a children’s locker, a mother from Komsomolsk-on-Amur found out why her two-year-old son was hysterical every morning, refusing to go to the garden. Even a real neurosis has earned, which prompted the excited mother to the “special operation”: you can’t find out much from a child of 2 years old, and the employees of the kindergarten always “everything is fine”. And the record showed that from morning to evening the teacher and the nanny cover the wards “by mother”, calling them not by their names, but by offensive nicknames.

But the most amazing thing has only just begun. Runet has clearly shown that not the majority of our fellow citizens are sure that it is impossible to yell at children. Approximately a third of online truth-tellers are convinced that now “there are such terrible children that they only understand obscenities.” In this group, they feel sorry for the “educators” who are already “pulling this hellish job for a small share.” Among the arguments is the shortage of kindergarten staff throughout the country and the meager pay for their work.

And another third believes that “the spy mother should be imprisoned, she must have been sent by America.”

In addition to the storm of emotions, the bottom line is one, but the cornerstone question is about the very “espionage”. Mom sent the audio to the regional portal of complaints, they sent it to the administration and education department of Komsomolsk-on-Amur, from where the parents of kindergarten No. 120 already received an official answer: “According to the statement of the Komsomol member, the education department of the city administration conducted an audit. The facts stated in the appeal were confirmed.

They became possible as a result of improper control by the kindergarten administration over the work of the institution’s employees. For the violations committed, the director of the kindergarten was pointed out to improper control … The teacher of the group was fired, his employment contract was terminated. The junior teacher was reprimanded.”

But behind a heated discussion of a punishment disproportionate to the crime (the educator was allegedly released on his own, and the nanny was simply transferred with a reprimand to another group instead of being driven under an article with entry in the work book), the indignant parents missed the indicative: the course of the proceedings was given by an audio recording obtained underground .

Of course, purely humanly, the mother of a two-year-old child is easy to understand, but the letter of the law of emotions is devoid of and says that unauthorized (without notifying the persons who are being tapped) installation of listening devices is a crime and can lead to criminal liability.

Lawyers specializing in industrial safety add that until 2019, even owners who put a collar with a tracker on a dog (tracks movements), parents who turned on the “baby monitor” in an apartment where a hired nanny stays with a child, wearers of glasses with video camera, etc. – any video and audio surveillance was outlawed, “unless it is a special operation of special services.”

But more than three years ago, the use of all gadgets that record and / or track geolocation “for personal security purposes” and are sold in the public domain were removed from criminal punishment – these are the same baby monitors, collars with beacons, video recorders, as well as smart watches and smartphones with built-in cameras and voice recorders – unless they are used to “obtain information illegally.” Any specialized “spy equipment” such as “a bug in a ficus pot” is still punishable by prison.

“A citizen of the Russian Federation who has established wiretapping at the place of work of other persons without their permission faces a fine or imprisonment for up to 5 years (depending on specific circumstances). If no one was hurt as a result of such actions, then the violator can be brought to administrative responsibility and fined, ”is the official answer of the legal information center.

But in our case, everyone suffered – both children, who were poured out streams of obscene abuse, and parents, exhausted by their child’s incomprehensible fear of kindergarten, and educators who ran into a meticulous mother and lost their jobs, and even the administration of the region and city, who received a fat minus on “preschool work”.

It seems that a mother has the right to know what happens to her child in kindergarten, taking responsibility for children during their parents’ working hours. But at the same time, the mother does not have the right to obtain this information on her own, peeping or eavesdropping – and it does not matter whether it is her own eye or ear or electronic.

This means that cameras should be officially installed in the kindergarten itself upon notification of its employees, which in itself will reduce the swearing fuse of preschool teachers. But the parents of the ill-fated kindergarten now would do well to have the impartial law interpreted by the family lawyer. Now an active mother has brought unscrupulous teachers to clean water by placing a voice recorder on them. But what if tomorrow the laid-off want to free up someone else’s job in the same way? So we will put a “baby monitor” to each other?

“I don’t consider my mother’s action to be illegal wiretapping,” says Stalin’s family lawyer Gurevich. – The law really prohibits receiving information about the private life of a citizen, including that which constitutes a personal or family secret, against his will. However, in this case, there is no question of collecting information about personal life.

And fixing the conversation in order to preserve and ensure your rights or the rights of the person whose interests you represent is permissible by law.

In this case, a contract for the provision of services was concluded between the mother and the garden. The mother checked the quality of the services provided, having reasonable suspicions that the legal rights and interests of the child were being violated. It is important that the mother did not use prohibited devices for covert recording. The recorder was left freely available, and not in the teacher’s personal account, but among the child’s property. I think my mother’s actions are absolutely legitimate.