US 'granny cam' scandal puts spotlight on privacy Secret surveillance: An alarm clock wireless hidden camera. A pretty nightie, a new lipstick, a fresh toothbrush: Doris Racher noticed that small things she had bought for her 96-year-old mother, Eryetha Mayberry, a dementia patient at a nursing home in Oklahoma City, had been disappearing. Ms Racher assumed the culprit was another resident who sometimes wandered into her mother's room. So in 2012, Ms Racher placed a motion-activated camera in her mother's room. It looked like an alarm clock and she nearly forgot about it. About two months later, the family decided to pore through the recordings. The camera had not caught the petty thief. But it captured something else: an aide stuffed latex gloves into Ms Mayberry's mouth, while another taunted her, tapping her on the head, laughing. Hoisting her from her wheelchair, they flung her on a bed. One performed a few heavy-handed chest compressions. "My niece started bawling and couldn't watch any more," said Ms Racher, 78. I was furious. Ms Mayberry died soon after. On November 1, propelled by the outcry over the Mayberry case, Oklahoma became the third state - along with New Mexico and Texas - to explicitly permit residents in long-term care facilities to maintain surveillance cameras in their rooms. Although some states have administrative guidelines for electronic monitoring, most legislative efforts have stalled because of questions about liability and, in particular, privacy rights, raised by facility owners, unions, elder care lawyers and families. Despite such concerns, not only have family members turned to these "granny cams" but even the government has used them. Last year, the New York state attorney-general's office, which has relied on hidden cameras in patient abuse cases for years, demonstrated its methods at a national training program for state investigators. In June, Mike DeWine, the Ohio state attorney-general, announced that his office, with permission from families, had placed cameras in residents' rooms in an unspecified number of state facilities. The recordings can have an impact. Based on Ms Racher's videos, one aide pleaded guilty to abuse and neglect. The other appears to have fled the country. Similar scenes of abuse have been captured in New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas and other states. The monitoring is often a last-ditch step by relatives who suspect abuse but feel that the authorities dismiss their complaints. But the secret monitoring of a resident raises ethical and legal questions. Families must balance fears for their relative's safety against an undignified invasion of their privacy. They must also consider the privacy rights of others who pass through the room, including roommates and visitors. Residents often have roommates, who state laws say have the right to refuse to be monitored. The state of Maryland, which has administrative guidelines for facilities, says that cameras must be in a fixed position directed at only the intended resident. Another question is whether signs should be posted alerting staff members and visitors that monitoring is taking place. Certainly, abuse has been exposed precisely because staff members did not know about hidden cameras. But many privacy experts believe that notification benefits everyone.