all cracks 4 soft
cracksmachine
cracks db
search cracks
download rapidshare files
free download cracks
free cracks 4 all
get serials
dola dll warez
download keygen
 Comments on: Tavern Camera Ordinance Over-reaching http://watchdogmilwaukee.com/jim/2006/tavern-camera-ordinance-over-reaching/ Your Progressive Source for Local Opinions and Insightful Commentary Wed, 09 Mar 2011 23:19:35 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Alan Smithee http://watchdogmilwaukee.com/jim/2006/tavern-camera-ordinance-over-reaching/#comment-6398 Alan Smithee Fri, 06 Oct 2006 20:23:59 +0000 http://watchdogmilwaukee.com/blog/jim/2006/tavern-camera-ordinance-over-reaching/#comment-6398 There are positives to having cameras in any business open to the public, especially ones open so late, like bars. If a burglary or other incident does occur, identification of the perpetrators may be easier. Cameras can also be useful for monitoring the premesis during business hours and after hours by the owner or manager who can't be on the premesis at all times. However, the decision should be left up to the owner. At least in Riverwest, most of the crime that is connected to taverns and other businesses open late, occurs outside. Where the cops ought to be, and where cameras often are not. Even when cameras are in place the images are often , if not typically, unhelpful. If the goal of the mandatory camera program is safety, putting them indoors is a waste of time. The alternative is for the city to pay for them to be outside. Of course most Americans balk at the idea of Big Brother-style surveillance. Maybe they should. But if Big Brother is making private businesses do the surveillance, what's the real difference? There are positives to having cameras in any business open to the public, especially ones open so late, like bars. If a burglary or other incident does occur, identification of the perpetrators may be easier. Cameras can also be useful for monitoring the premesis during business hours and after hours by the owner or manager who can’t be on the premesis at all times. However, the decision should be left up to the owner.

At least in Riverwest, most of the crime that is connected to taverns and other businesses open late, occurs outside. Where the cops ought to be, and where cameras often are not. Even when cameras are in place the images are often , if not typically, unhelpful.

If the goal of the mandatory camera program is safety, putting them indoors is a waste of time. The alternative is for the city to pay for them to be outside. Of course most Americans balk at the idea of Big Brother-style surveillance. Maybe they should. But if Big Brother is making private businesses do the surveillance, what’s the real difference?

]]>