Click here for the new Anchor Rising & Ocean State Current page
April 26, 2012
The Nanny State Again
Oh here we go again. Yeah it sounds like a good idea. Don't you want to keep people safe? Do you want someone else to get killed?
But that's not the point. The point is that the General Assembly keeps passing bills forcing people and businesses to do things that make sense, but still they are things that the individuals should have a free choice over.
This time it's Senate bill S2072. Luckily, it's short enough to post in its entirety here.
It is enacted by the General Assembly as follows:So there you have it. Because someone was tragically murdered while putting money in a bank's night deposit box, the RI Senate wants all banks to install and monitor cameras on their facilities.
1 SECTION 1. Chapter 19-3 of the General Laws entitled "Powers and Operations" is
2 hereby amended by adding thereto the following section:
3 19-3-13.3. Security cameras. – All financial institutions and credit unions shall install
4 and continuously maintain security video cameras covering night deposit repository areas.
5 SECTION 2. This act shall take effect upon passage.
Does this make sense for banks to monitor their facilities? Yes, of course it does. They all have cameras already inside the bank, so sure, it makes sense to do this outside too. But we're going to force them to do it? Why? Let this be part of the business decision that people make in choosing their bank. Is this bank safe? Has this bank taken my night time safety into account when I have to make my business deposits?
Only the Senate has passed the bill so far. It's on to the House. Hopefully they will see through this and see it as yet another cost we're adding on to businesses. Does the Assembly want to make Rhode Island business-friendly or keep on adding to the cost? I guess we'll see.
About Community Crier
About Engaged Citizen
Administrator
I guessing we'd still have plenty of banks to chose from even with the onerous expense of a security camera.
Not to mention that we all pay when bank customers are robbed... cops, courts, etc. Why should I pay extra when these corporations aren't taking reasonable steps to ensure their customers' safety?
I'm not chiming in one way or another on the specific bill. Perhaps these banks could be required to simply post signs warning their customers that they're more likely to be robbed at this location (sort of like "No Lifeguard on Duty"). Watch how fast the cameras go in then.
Posted by: Russ at April 27, 2012 1:49 PM