Back in 2009 I wrote a blog post about locking doors. I proposed that there are some people who think it is an indictment on the door locker to lock doors. Some people are proud that they live in a place where they don't need to lock doors. But some of them seem to go too far, by not only being proud of not locking doors, but by casting aspersions onto people who do lock doors.
While listening to NPR recently, I heard a woman make a statement that reminded me of this. She said something to the effect of, "If you have a nanny, and feel you need a nanny cam, then you have the wrong nanny."
She was saying you don't need to employ security measures (nanny cam) if you hire the right nanny. It seems to me that the unspoken assertion here is that if you hire the wrong nanny, it's your own fault. That sounds like blaming the victim.
Suppose someone wants to come into your home and steal your valuables (let's say you're very wealthy). Suppose that someone applies to be your nanny. Now let's suppose this individual is very charming and does a great job in the interview, they say all the right things and really wow you over. You check out the references, do a web search, maybe even get a background check. Everything looks good, so you hire that person.
One day you come home to find the nanny and possessions valued at over $100,000 gone.
The woman interviewed by NPR would probably say, "You hired the wrong nanny." To which you reply, "Well of course we did! But how were we to know we hired the wrong nanny?"
Maybe if you had had a nanny cam, this could have been avoided.
The problem with the attitude that says, "If you feel there's a need to employ security measures, then there's something wrong with you," is that there are plenty of bad people out there and you just want to protect yourself from them. There are dishonest people who will victimize you if they can. Maybe they are professionals and maybe can get through the most extensive security measures. But not all dishonest people are seasoned professionals. Employing security measures might not prevent all loss, but it can prevent some. And employing no security will only prevent loss if no one tries anything.
Ultimately, the woman interviewed on NPR is advocating some security measures, namely screen the nanny. She was simply scornful of those who want to use more. But the point of more security is that there are more bad things you can prevent because some crooks will get by some of the security. In other words, maybe measure A alone or measure B alone won't stop all crooks, but put the two together and you have something much more powerful. There comes a point where there's not much more you can do, and there are professional crooks who could get by any measures you do employ. But if it is within your power to apply some more security, it is not inherently a bad thing to do.
I think it is wrong to impugn the character of those who wish to employ more or different security than you think is appropriate.