semi-anon test from a throwaway account part deux

Jim Choate ravage at ssz.com
Wed Mar 28 21:40:55 PST 2001



On Wed, 28 Mar 2001, Sandy Sandfort wrote:

> Nor do I.  It was you that made the claim, however.  The burden of proof is
> yours, not mine.

???

The claim is that it is unlikely there are any MO vendors which are not
protected by a video camera currently. In fact, probably haven't been for
quite a number of years. It's the nature of the business. You couldn't
even get insurance for such a business w/o a camera on premises. the same
goes for liquior licenses and such as well. I would be so bold as to say
that there hasn't been a single 'convenience store' (unless perhaps a
family privately owned w/o insurance - rare industry speaking) in this
country since the mid-80's that didn't have at least one camera on the
cash register area so that each and every customer gets a 'mug shot'. I'd
say there are zero such stores today and probably through most of the 90's
as well.

That you would even question such an obvious situation is pretty amazing.

Call your own insurance company and ask them what the rate differences are
between a store that sells MO's, liquior, etc. w/ a video surveillance
system, or one without. Then ask them if they can give you at least a
percentage of total sales between the two classes. Then call the city and
ask them if they require security systems to get a business license (some 
do, some don't).

> Well, that wouldn't hurt, but you claimed that LEAs could take our picture
> and nail us in three days.  Is this just your paranoid fantasy, or do you
> have an actual citation to sources that support this fanciful claim?

No, I said that on average once the LEA had your photo AND you had ever
had a state issued photo ID that it would take about three days for them
to find your picture. The systems are getting better and better and the
inter-connects over the last few years have gotten much broader. I'd
suggest getting subscriptions to the government and LEA trade mags.

If they've got things like partial license or a name it won't take them
that long.

Consider you drive your vehicle to the store. Purchase a MO. There is
clearly a security camera because you watch yourself, watch yourself,
watch yourself, ... I digress

Anyway, you take your MO and leave the store safe that all they've got is
your photo and you've never had a license issued. Your driving illegally
is not an issue. You commit whatever sin against god, nature, and the
American way it is that floats your boat that particular day. The police
tie the MO. They go to the store and ask for the appropriate tape. In fact
they ask for both tapes.

Both tapes?

You didn't see the camera on the corner that got the shot of your car and
license plate?

http://www.supercircuits.com

I can especially suggest their low-light b/w CCD. I use mine on a 8"
Newtonian to shoot the moon.

> > You haven't been in a liquior or convenience
> > store in years...
> 
> Wrong yet again.  What's your point, if any?

That your logic is fuzzy because you know very little about the mechanics
of the physical security business.

    ____________________________________________________________________

         If the law is based on precedence, why is the Constitution
         not the final precedence since it's the primary authority?

       The Armadillo Group       ,::////;::-.          James Choate
       Austin, Tx               /:'///// ``::>/|/      ravage at ssz.com
       www.ssz.com            .',  ||||    `/( e\      512-451-7087
                           -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
    --------------------------------------------------------------------






More information about the cypherpunks-legacy mailing list