North Dakota Town Wants Bar Patrons Taped

Hmmm....

BISMARCK, N.D. - Authorities in a small North Dakota coal mining town want bar owners to install surveillance systems after a rash of brawls that some people liken to those seen in John Wayne’s Western movies.

Bar owners say the cameras would infringe on their patrons’ rights.

Oliver County State’s Attorney Mike Liffrig said he made the request to officials in the town of Center after one man suffered severe facial injuries in an early January assault in the community of fewer than 700, about 40 miles northwest of Bismarck.

I would oppose such a measure as a matter of privacy for the patrons.  What do you think?

1. How do we make a distinction between an audio and video recording?  It has long been accepted that if you are out in public you are likely to be recorded on video. What was the last bank, Kwiky Mart, liquor store, grocery store, or big box store you walked into that didn’t make it obvious you were on camera the moment you walked into the door, if not when you pulled into the parking lot?  I don’t how you argue an invasion of privacy, as unfortunate as that may be.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 18, 2009 at 2018 hrs




2. I would be more surprised if a bar doesn’t have interior cameras, as most bars may not admit to have cameras but they do.

   Posted by Dave Reid on January 18, 2009 at 2051 hrs




3. I draw a distinction between the property owner installing cameras for their own benefit/protection and the government mandating it.

   Posted by Owen on January 18, 2009 at 2111 hrs




4. I agree with Owen in drawing a distinction between installing cameras for my own benefit than in compliance with a government mandate. If I were a bar owner and bar brawls were becoming more common in my area, I’d install cameras (like those in the Eyes There commercials). The only time my customers would know they’ve been taped is when the cops show up at their door after getting into a brawl at my establishment.  I wouldn’t need a government mandate to aid my decision, just a desire to have a bar that’s more known for great atmosphere and food and not brawls.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 18, 2009 at 2128 hrs




5. It kind of sounds like this town needs more than surveillance cameras…

   I would agree, as well, that a government mandate is unacceptable.  If the situation has escalated out of control, it is, unfortunately, in the best interest of the bar owner to protect himself and his patrons with some method of surveillance.  This needs to be the decision solely of the proprieter, however.

   Posted by GAMazy on January 18, 2009 at 2148 hrs




6. Owen,

   I’m not supportive of this either.  But I thought you were asking a constitutional question when you phrased it as an issue of the patron’s privacy.  Maybe I overestimated your concern.

   At the end of the day, I don’t see anything that can stop a government entity from enacting these types of requirements on public establishments it has the duty and authority to license.

   I see a healthy debate over whether it is a good idea or not.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 18, 2009 at 2244 hrs




7. You are right and I apologize for not expressing myself clearly.  My problem is with the government mandating such measures.  I believe this to be a step on the path to the government then mandating that the tapes be surrendered without probable cause and whatnot.  To me there is a difference between a private property owner putting in cameras and the government requiring that patrons be recorded.

   Posted by Owen on January 18, 2009 at 2305 hrs