Letters to the Editor
Letters to the Editor

Apr 1, 1997 12:00 PM

Editor: I was both impressed and shocked by a recent article by George Partington in the February 1997 issue: 7-Eleven's store security plan: No Aggression.

I admire what Southland has done to reduce crime at its 7-Eleven stores. Several years ago they hired Ray Johnson, a former burglar and robber fresh out of prison, to consult with them on crime. Mr. Johnson made recommendations that resulted in changes at 7-Eleven that led to impressive reductions in crime.

My issue is with the company's no aggression policy. Internally, this is fine and not a bad idea under the right circumstances. Taking a public stand is something else altogether and is dangerous. Obviously, the policy is designed to reduce the chance of harm to an employee or customer from on-site criminal activity. It is also designed to reduce successful negligence litigation.

I see serious side effects resulting from publicly announcing and discussing this policy. Deterrence is a factor in many of the improvements Southland has taken, but the non-aggression policy is not a deterrent. In fact, I believe many criminals may select 7-Eleven due to the policy. Publicly disclosing the policy is irresponsible of anyone in the company as well as in the media. It poses an undue risk to customers and employees. A criminal that is not deterred by other improvements and precautions may be attracted to the chain because of the non-aggression policy.

This issue disturbs me just as companies selling covert cameras display their wares to the media for cheap publicity. The very disclosure and display of covert cameras, what they are disguised as, and their capabilities, lessens their effect. I wish Mr. Partington had asked Southland if its views in going public with the policy of non-aggression would pose a new or additional risk. Howard Levinson, CPP

President, Howard Services, Security and Loss Prevention Consulting, Norton, Mass.

In defense of CCTV guru

Editor: I read the letter to the editor by David Lane in your February issue with some concern over both its position immediately below the Editor's Letter and its prominent title, which suggested that there was strong editorial support for its criticism of the Charlie Pierce article Attention to features simplifies camera selection, which appeared in your December issue.

My concern is not simply the inferred editorial support given to the letter but the implied doubt over Charlie Pierce's CCTV credentials. As many readers well know, Charlie is widely regarded as one of the gurus of CCTV training, a reputation he well deserves. His great skill is not so much, as David Lane implies in his letter, that he does not always get down minuscule technical details in his articles but that he avoids doing so. I have had the good fortune to attend many of Charlie's seminars and to be a fellow speaker. His ability to explain CCTV to the layman is a singular skill. Colin Howgill, Bethesda, Md.

More support for Pierce

Editor: I was surprised to see the level of attention and space that you gave to a letter to the editor in the February issue - Refiguring horizontal and vertical resolution. In this letter, Mr. David Lane attempted to refute a December article by Charlie Pierce, Attention to features simplifies camera selection.

Anyone familiar with Mr. Pierce's work knows that he is one of the world's leading experts in the CCTV field and one with tremendous real-life experience. He and most of your readers do not need a definition of horizontal and vertical resolution from Mr. Lane. The issue of lines of resolution in the practical world of CCTV is a significant one, as it is the limiting factor in using CCTV for rework assessment. Mr. Pierce was correct in his article, although his style of writing and sense of humor were apparently lost on Mr. Lane. Ron Clifton, Senstar President and CEO, North Billerica, Mass.

Company was omitted

Editor: As fairly regular advertisers in an Intertec Publishing magazine, I am curious as to how almost every other intercom company was at least mentioned in your February 1997 issue except Ring Communications.

The article by Bruce Boyd is well-written and doesn't even look like an advertisement, which, to me, makes it an even better article.

However, as I said, I am curious as to why Ring Communications was not either contacted or mentioned in your publication. Peter R. McLean, President, Ring Communications Inc., Ronkonkoma, N.Y.

Editor's note: We apologize for the omission. Readers wishing information on Ring Communications may circle Reader Service Number 119 on the card on page 11.

  • Keeping peace in an open environment
  • do optical mice work?
  • Facial Recognition Systems Work
  • Gadget of the Day
  • does an X-ray machine work?
  • Paving a highway for access control
  • What are the best settings when e-mailing digital pictures to friends, and what settings d
  • Ridge: Military advances in Iraq do not diminish risk of terrorism at home
  • Hospitals' Merger Spurs Advances in Security Technology
  • A Smarter Image: New digital systems can see all, but they dont tell all
  • Shopping with peace of mind
  • Cheap Security Camera