CNBC Director Accused Of Spying On Teen Nanny

dailycaller.com...

The New York Daily News reported Wednesday that Dan Switzen hid a spy camera in a tissue box in the bathroom of his Westchester, N.Y. home in order to spy on his teenage au pair.

According to authorities, a friend of the 18-year-old nanny discovered the camera in the bathroom on November 18.

The teens took the camera to police that evening and law enforcement found “incriminating” images on the memory card. Police secured a search warrant and arrested Switzen on a felony charge of unlawful surveillance.

"Switzen’s lawyer, Jeffrey Chartier, said his client was released without bail and called him a “decent family man.”"

Yeah... interesting to know how old she was when all of this started. She is 18 now...

A certain judge got burned at the stake with much less evidence than this person for "claims" from 30 years ago.

Some would say that this adds weight to the argument that women do not wait ten to thirty years to make genuine complaints about misconduct.

a reply to: CulturalResilience

Also note how this complaintant went to the authorities, not a media outlet when she learned she had been violated.

originally posted by: CulturalResilience
Some would say that this adds weight to the argument that women do not wait ten to thirty years to make genuine complaints about misconduct.

And some would say it wouldn’t, due to any number of factors.

Nice to know that decent sex offenders aren't treated like real criminals.

Released without bail, indeed.

a reply to: CulturalResilience

It might, if ones understanding of human psychology was limited at best, and ones understanding of changing cultural and societal norms was also minimal.

But thankfully, we are in a more enlightened age, where we understand that things as they are now, are different than they were twenty, twenty five, thirty and so on, years ago, with respect to the chances that a persons testimony will be believed and acted upon now, whereas decades ago there was nearly no chance of any action being taken against a suspect, unless someone not only witnessed the crime take place, but also had a mind to go public with their support for the victims recollection of events.

We also live in a more enlightened age with respect to the fact that no two human beings have had the precise same experience, and no two human beings have the precise same neurophysiology, which together mean that no two people, unless they are trained alike to do so, react the exact same way to psychological trauma of ANY kind, leave alone trauma inflicted as a result of sexual assault, stalking, or being spied upon by some other means, whether in a compromising situation (such as in the bathroom) or not.

We understand these things instrinsically these days, or at least, people of character and learning do. Theres an awful lot of change that has occurred in the last thirty years, changes which make the topic of improprietous conduct on the part of individuals, a damned sight more readily talked about and considered these days, than they ever have been before, which is demonstrably a positive thing.

a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

This should be good.

Food for thought. As a minor when this occurred, she was still his child. Maybe he suspected she was using drugs and was spying on her to catch her. That would mean he wasn't trying to satisfy some perversion but doing it out of concern for 'daddy's girl'.

They did let him go, and they might try to keep quiet for the senators sake if "incriminating" drug abuse was the issue.

originally posted by: intrptr
...she was still his child.

You bother to read the source before commenting? She's his employee, not his child.

a reply to: intrptr

She wasn't his kid, she is a nanny, and he's not a Senator, he's a CNBC Director.

The complaint filed reads, “He intentionally installed a video recording device in a tissue box located in his family’s bathroom to surreptitiously view a person dressing or undressing…at a place and time when (the victim) had a reasonable expectation of privacy without (her) knowledge or consent.”

a reply to: intrptr

Do you mean, that the offspring that the Nanny was watching over, was a child?

Its not clear from your post, as it reads as if you think the Nanny is his child, which...frankly makes no sense.

In either case, one would assume that a person of any intellect whatsoever, would simply fire the Nanny (which, from what I hear, is easier than pushing a slinky down some stairs, as a result of labour laws in the US being about as useful to the employee as a butter knife is for cutting tank hulls), rather than risk the obvious legal ramifications of FILMING THEM WHILE THEY ARE IN A BATHROOM!

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: intrptr
...she was still his child.

You bother to read the source before commenting? She's his employee, not his child.

Oh, that was clear as mud...

Dan Switzen hid a spy camera in a tissue box in the bathroom of his Westchester, N.Y. home in order to spy on his teenage au pair.

(Emphasis added) Thanks for the clarification.

a reply to: intrptr


It was very clear because an au pair is an employee.

a reply to: intrptr

An au pair is a domestic assistant from a foreign country working for, and living as part of, a host family. Wikipedia

a reply to: EvidenceNibbler


This is clearly wrong, and he will be punished. What Moore supposedly did, was far worse than a hidden cam. Also, I am surprised there is not a thread on it, but Moore is now suing the state, over his loss. Sore loser! He lost by 20,000 votes, which is more than needed to avoid a recount.

originally posted by: SlowNail
Nice to know that decent sex offenders aren't treated like real criminals.

Released without bail, indeed.

oh and he is apparently a decent family man according to his lawyer.

im going to guess the defense is going to be in the lines of "i was spying on her because of abuse suspicions on his kid"

originally posted by: kurthall
a reply to: EvidenceNibbler


This is clearly wrong, and he will be punished. What Moore supposedly did, was far worse than a hidden cam. Also, I am surprised there is not a thread on it, but Moore is now suing the state, over his loss. Sore loser! He lost by 20,000 votes, which is more than needed to avoid a recount.

well that didn't even take page 2 to pop up... great thread-derailment starter...

"A decent family man"

I always find it an odd thing to say after something like this comes up. Like this is going to make a bit of difference when it comes to him appearing in court.

It doesn't surprise me that this sort thing is happening. Camera's are getting smaller by the year. Seeing her as an eighteen year old is fine. (Even though it is creepy) Seeing her under eighteen however is just wrong.

EDIT:


Seeing anyone like this without consent is wrong. I was meant to say that looking at an eighteen year old is fine. I just forgot to write that only with her consent.

originally posted by: rhynouk
Seeing her as an eighteen year old is fine. (Even though it is creepy) Seeing her under eighteen however is just wrong.

WTF is wrong with you? IT IS NOT OK to put cameras into your bathroom to film women without their knowledge, regardless of their age.

seems we had a malfunction in the matrix and the same post went up twice....

a reply to: rhynouk

Um...

No, its not fine in the slightest. Lets make something perfectly clear...

Unless a person consents to it, they should not be under camera surveillance or direct observation when about the sort of business which occurs in a toilet or bathroom, regardless of their age, gender, religion, skin tone, upbringing, or any other metric one might attempt to apply.

Regardless of the reasoning behind the surveillance, this surveillance was illegal in aspect, and would have been regardless of the victims age.