El Cerrito police call for cameras at local retailers

[Curtis Baillie]

From Security Director News: City of El Cerrito passing law requireing retailers to install video surveillance equipment'

Here's the story: http://www.securitydirectornews.com/index.php?p=article&id=sd200708fTViWY

[Bill Warnock]

From Security Director News: City of El Cerrito passing law requireing retailers to install video surveillance equipment'

Here's the story: http://www.securitydirectornews.com/index.php?p=article&id=sd200708fTViWY
Curtis, it is my firm belief this is the wave of the immediate future in these hot spots.
With the proper signage and intelligent prevention specialists the hoods will have to enter a new line of employment. Perish the thought it might be meaningful for them.
Enjoy the day,
Bill

[Hank1]

With the proper signage and intelligent prevention specialists the hoods will have to enter a new line of employment. Perish the thought it might be meaningful for them.

Ain't that the truth!

[John H. Christman]

This is a great opportunity to persuade nanagement to make an investment in CCTV.

[Bill Warnock]

This is a great opportunity to persuade nanagement to make an investment in CCTV.
John, I would suspect some of the knuckle draggers in management would look upon this as an unwarranted expense. It might drive away potential customers who might have a larcenous bend, which in some instances might be 90% of the clientele.
Enjoy the day,
Bill

[John H. Christman]

I understood the PD would REQUIRE the CCTVs in most stores, thus removing any ability to decline to acquire them. While I generally am opposed to government dictating to private business, in this case I favor the requirement which will assist not only the business but hopefully conserve crime fighting expenditures by having video evidence and thus save investigative time.

[Curtis Baillie]

From the article:

'Businesses that would fall under the ordinance include banks, fast-food restaurants, check-cashing businesses, gas station and convenience stores, liquor stores, firearms dealers and secondhand dealers such as pawn shops. The ordinance would include exemptions for businesses that have existing "high-quality" video surveillance solutions.'

[SecTrainer]

Curtis, it is my firm belief this is the wave of the immediate future in these hot spots.
With the proper signage and intelligent prevention specialists the hoods will have to enter a new line of employment. Perish the thought it might be meaningful for them.
Enjoy the day,
Bill

No, Bill, they won't take up a new line of work...most of them don't have a legitimate occupation anyway. This will just displace them to other areas - if it even has that much effect, which I doubt.

[SecTrainer]

From Security Director News: City of El Cerrito passing law requireing retailers to install video surveillance equipment'

Here's the story: http://www.securitydirectornews.com/index.php?p=article&id=sd200708fTViWY

This is very good for camera sales, but IMHO it's very bad government and sets a very dangerous precedent. When it is discovered (as it will be) that cameras do not have the effect hoped for, we might expect that the next requirement will be security guards, and then what? Prescribed cash-handling methods? Mandated armored car services? Pre-approved store layouts? CPTED certification?

[Lynch Mob]

I think this is a horrible idea, and I sell CCTV equipment.

Governement should not be involved in any company's decision to protect its own assets, particularly when they impose what may be an unreasonable expense. If the idea is to help police in conducting investigations, then this is an expense that should be absorbed by the city and not imposed upon small business owners.

I doubt this law will ever be enacted. The police want it, but the politicians must write it and enact it. They will be influenced by the local businesses applying pressure.

[Chucky]

If it does pass I hope that they will have a minimum of quality. Nothing worst than reviewing worn grainy tape that is of no help. Another thing they need to do is find better placement. Every one knows that the most popular place is above and behind the check out counter. So the bad guys prepare for this with hats etc. How about a lower placement that will give more facial detail. Say a hidden cam shooting upward.

And instead of having the receiving media in a spot that ex employees can excess and remove have the wireless receivers high up on the nearest telephone pole that can be remotely reviewed and saved without needing to climb the pole. The building I work in is relatively new yet the same tired old video surveillance system looks like it could have been designed 30 years ago. No imagination at all used in this or most systems I've seen lately. When I see VHS tapes as the receiving media I ask myself what's the use?

PS: I realize that the placement is or was based on the deterrent concept but for those of you that don't work in the field that don't work any more. Perps could care less how many cameras there are so for lack of a better word our side needs to be a little more sneaky and creative.

[N. A. Corbier]

This is very good for camera sales, but IMHO it's very bad government and sets a very dangerous precedent. When it is discovered (as it will be) that cameras do not have the effect hoped for, we might expect that the next requirement will be security guards, and then what? Prescribed cash-handling methods? Mandated armored car services? Pre-approved store layouts? CPTED certification?

Hillsbrough County, Florida, actually has mandated cash-handling methods for all convenience stores. It may actually be a state law, but I'd only seen Hillsbrough County stores have signs that state the law.

At night, the store may not have more than 20 dollars in the register, period. Actually, I think there's more to it, and I think its a state law. I'll have to look, but I believe that some locations are required by state law to have a security guard (doesn't say armed/unarmed, or what, just a guard) present if the place meets certain criteria.

[SecTrainer]

Hillsbrough County, Florida, actually has mandated cash-handling methods for all convenience stores. It may actually be a state law, but I'd only seen Hillsbrough County stores have signs that state the law.

At night, the store may not have more than 20 dollars in the register, period. Actually, I think there's more to it, and I think its a state law. I'll have to look, but I believe that some locations are required by state law to have a security guard (doesn't say armed/unarmed, or what, just a guard) present if the place meets certain criteria.

Gak! :eek:

[N. A. Corbier]

Isn't it, though? So, every convience store must have a time-delay safe, etc. I'm still looking for that statute, had to rebuild a PC once I got here, so I'm installing stuff like mad. :(

[John H. Christman]

As I stated earlier, I'm generally opposed to government dictating requirements to private business, but unfortunately, sometimes that's what it takes to get business to shape up. For example, for years private security companies refused to do adequate BIs on propspective employees until finally the government in many states dictated the extent of BIs required. Same holds true for training requirements. Obviously, there is a crime problem in El Cerritos and the PD feels the cameras would help them and business are too cheap to put them in voluntarily. Time lock safes are nothing new - the grocery stores I worked for (in Security) in the early-mid 60s all had them. In many cases businesses, and we in Security, almost force the govt to act because of our (or our company's) reluctance to do so usually for cost reasons. CCTV seems to have proven themselves in England and many venues in the US, and appear to be the wave of the future in crime prevention. In my view, its simpy foolhardy for a convenience store not to have cash handling procedures (and lighting, unobscured windows, signing, panic alarms etc) all designed to prevent crime. I was involved in a case where a lone female empoloyee was raped during evening hours in a shoe store; the company's Dir of Sec testified to the effect that "we have X numbers of stores, and panic devices would cost several dollars each - do you The jury) realize how much that cost would total? Not nearly as much as the multi million dollar award to the employee victim!!!! When wil we learn?

[Lynch Mob]

As I stated earlier, I'm generally opposed to government dictating requirements to private business, but unfortunately, sometimes that's what it takes to get business to shape up. For example, for years private security companies refused to do adequate BIs on propspective employees until finally the government in many states dictated the extent of BIs required. Same holds true for training requirements. Obviously, there is a crime problem in El Cerritos and the PD feels the cameras would help them and business are too cheap to put them in voluntarily. Time lock safes are nothing new - the grocery stores I worked for (in Security) in the early-mid 60s all had them. In many cases businesses, and we in Security, almost force the govt to act because of our (or our company's) reluctance to do so usually for cost reasons. CCTV seems to have proven themselves in England and many venues in the US, and appear to be the wave of the future in crime prevention. In my view, its simpy foolhardy for a convenience store not to have cash handling procedures (and lighting, unobscured windows, signing, panic alarms etc) all designed to prevent crime. I was involved in a case where a lone female empoloyee was raped during evening hours in a shoe store; the company's Dir of Sec testified to the effect that "we have X numbers of stores, and panic devices would cost several dollars each - do you The jury) realize how much that cost would total? Not nearly as much as the multi million dollar award to the employee victim!!!! When wil we learn?

A couple of issues I have with what you said.

- BI's are not required to "shape up" the security company. They are there to protect the client of that security company. It is essentially a fraud prevention strategy, not one that forces a business to run a better business.

- There is no evidence that cameras have ever served as a tool that prevents crime. What I have read about England has shown that the cameras do not prevent crimes. They merely are a tool to assist law enforcement. In this case, it sounds like that is what El Cerritos PD wants. They want the small businesses to supply them with adequate tools. Governement should never have the right to demand that civilians provide proper equipment. This goes against what our Constitution is based on. Businesses already pay taxes. If PD wants cameras, the city should buy them, not small business.

- I agree that it may be foolhardy for small business owners to not implement certain tools to protect their assets, but that should be their right. How would you feel if the local PD said there were a rash of home invasion robberies so they were passing a law requiring everyone in your neighborhood to install burglar alarms and CCTV? Some may say you were foolhardy for not doing it yourself too.

- You compare a small business to a large chain of stores. The large chain has more responsibility to protect, and a higher expectation of protection. People understand that unreasonable costs cannot be placed upon small businesses, or else those businesses will go under.

One could even make the argument that this type of law is actually designed to drive small businesses under to make room for larger businesses. Imagine an owner of a convenience store that does $500,000 in annual sales with an 8% profit margin. He takes home only about $40,000 a year. Now imagine this owner has a law requiring him to install an IP based system that will cost $4-5000 to install. Suddenly you take all that money out of that persons pocket. Do the same for a time-lock safe or other items and you will drive that store out of business.

This is a bad law and goes against everything this country stands for.