July 18, 2001

Company Replacing Fire Sprinklers

By DAVID HO, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - Millions of fire sprinklers in buildings across America are being replaced because they might not work properly during fires, the manufacturer said Wednesday.
Central Sprinkler Co., which is owned by Tyco International Ltd., is providing free replacements for the defective sprinklers, said L. Dennis Kozlowski, Tyco's chief executive. The company discovered the older sprinkler heads have O-ring seals that can corrode, he said. ``We immediately shared our concerns with the authorities,'' Kozlowski said. ``These are not defective heads and this deterioration takes place over a very long period of time.'' The Consumer Product Safety Commission (news - web sites) and the company plan to announce the replacement program Thursday, Kozlowski said during a conference call with reporters. The safety commission would not comment on the recall. The recall includes more than 30 million sprinklers, many of them of the GB - or glass-bulb - model or variety, USA Today reported Wednesday. Last year, Chicago-based Underwriters Laboratories, the country's largest testing organization, found that some glass-bulb sprinklers produced by Central Sprinkler leaked and failed to work at required water pressures. The testing organization recommended at the time that the sprinklers be replaced.
Brad McGee, a Tyco senior vice president, said at the time it was too early to consider a recall or replacement of the sprinkler. Glass-bulb sprinklers contain alcohol or another liquid in a bulb mounted on the sprinkler head. Heat rising from a fire expands the liquid, causing the glass to shatter. That releases the sprinkler's plug and allows water onto the fire. An O-ring seal keeps the plug from leaking. Underwriters Laboratories observed crystallized deposits or corrosion around the rubber seal, which indicated leaking water. The sprinkler model has since been redesigned with a metal seal. About 15 percent of the 135 sample sprinkler heads tested did not operate at a water pressure of 5 pounds per square inch, the pressure at which sprinklers are required to operate to earn an Underwriters Laboratories listing. The heads also failed to operate at 7 psi, the pressure required by National Fire Protection Association standards. Water pressure in most buildings exceeds 7 psi, but some Model GB heads tested by Underwriters Laboratories did not operate, even at 60 psi, which exceeds the water pressure available in some buildings, including houses. In 1998, Central Sprinkler, of Lansdale, Pa., recalled 8.4 million Omega brand fire sprinklers because they could fail in a fire. The sprinklers, which were installed nationwide in schools, hospitals, hotels, offices and homes, failed to activate in about 20 fires since 1990, causing injuries and millions of dollars in property damage, the safety commission said at the time. The Omega sprinklers were once installed in buildings across the country including the U.S. Capitol, the Smithsonian Institution (news - web sites) museums and the White House, the safety commission said.

On the Net:

Tyco: http://www.tyco.com
CPSC: http://www.cpsc.gov

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/

From: Jonathan Sazonoff saz@kwom.com
Subject:

Reward offered for Stolen Chagall

Dear Subscribers,
A $25,000 reward has been offered for information leading to the recovery of Marc Chagall's "Study for "Over Vitebsk". The oil painting was stolen June 8, 2001 from Manhattan's Jewish Museum. A picture of the missing artwork has been posted on the INTERPOL General Secretariat's web-site.

See STUDY FOR "OVER VITEBSK"

http://www.interpol.int/public/WorkOfArt/Items/Data/1006/1006222.asp

Press release from the Jewish Museum in New York:

(Press contact: Anne Scher 212.423.3271)

REWARD OFFERED FOR INFORMATION LEADING TO RECOVERY OF CHAGALL PAINTING MISSING FROM THE JEWISH MUSEUM IN NEW YORK

A reward of $25,000 is being offered for information leading to the recovery of the painting by Marc Chagall, Study for "Over Vitebsk," 1914. On the morning of Friday, June 8, the painting was discovered missing from The Jewish Museum in New York, where it was on loan for the exhibition Marc Chagall: Early Works from Russian Collections. The Jewish Museum is now working intensively with New York City law enforcement officials and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to identify the criminals who were responsible and to recover the painting. Anyone with information should contact the FBI at 212.384.1000 / 718.286.7100 or the New York Police Department's Major Case Squad (case # 119) at 212.374.3955.
The exhibition Marc Chagall: Early Works from Russian Collections includes paintings, drawings and theater murals by Chagall in addition to paintings by Yehuda Pen, Chagall's first teacher and initial artistic influence. It remains on view through October 14 at The Jewish Museum at Fifth Avenue and 92nd Street in Manhattan.

Hope you find this of interest,
Jonathan Sazonoff
SAZ PRODUCTIONS, INC.
http://www.saztv.com
Contributing US Ed.
Museum Security Network
http://www.museum-security.org/saz.html

From: adalberto biasiotti securcomp@mclink.it
Subject:

CCTV AND PRIVACY

AN EUROPEAN DIRECTIVE RULES ABOUT USING CCTV SYSTEMS FOR SECURITY APPLICATIONS.
ALL UE STATES HAVE PROMULGATED LAWS ON THE MATTER. THE BASIC TENET IS THAT A SUBJECT MAY ASK TO OBSERVE THE RECORDED IMAGES, AND MAY ASK FOR DELETION.
HE CANNOT ASK TO SWITCH OFF THE SECURITY SYSTEM, BUT THE EXISTENCE OF THE SYSTEM SHOULD BE MADE PUBLIC, WITH A SUITABLE INFORMATION AND THE NAME OF THE SYSTEM CONTROLLER.
I AM NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE CANADIAN ACT, BUT I BELEIEVE IT SHOULD FOLLOW THE GENERAL GUIDE LINES OF THE EUROPEAN ACT.
WE, AT POMPEII EXCAVATIONS, HAVE SUCH A PROCEDURE IN EFFECT.
BEST REGARDS FROM
ADALBERTO BIASIOTTI

From: David_Tremain@pch.gc.ca
Subject:

Security cameras

Today the 'Ottawa Citizen' published a letter from the Privacy Commissioner George Radwanski refuting the Citizen's allegations that surveillance cameras could be turned off at the request of robbers etc. to which I draw subscriber's attention below. He stated that it [the PIPED Act] does not apply to convenience stores or other retailers, "except in the three northern Territories [Yukon, North West Territory, Nunavut], where the commercial sector is a federal work or undertaking under the Constitution. Until 2004, it applies only to federal works, undertakings or businesses - primarily banks, telecommunications, broadcasting and transportation companies - and to the disclosure of personal information across provincial or national boundaries."
He goes on to state that the reasons why "no-one...has a right under the law to walk in and demand that surveillance cameras be turned off" has to do with consent and reasonable person test. Organizations cannot collect, use, or disclose personal information without the individual's consent. He makes the distinction between (a) security surveillance on private premises by a private organization (i.e. a bank); (b) surveillance in public places by a private commercial organization, and (c) surveillance in public places by public authorities (i.e. the police). He suggests that private organizations should post signs indicating that surveillance is in effect. If someone then enters that building (for whatever reason) they implicitly consent to being surveilled. According to his letter, public authorities, such as the police are not covered under the new private sector privacy law.
I apologise if this has caused undue concern in the Canadian museum community, but the question still has to be asked, are museums affected by this? If they are federally-run institutions, are they covered under this act as is implied in the statement above "until 2004, it applies only to federal works, undertakings or businesses - primarily banks, telecommunications, broadcasting and transportation companies". While it states what are the primary institutions covered, it does not rule out museums. Nor does it state whether privately run museums as in the statement "security surveillance on private premises by a private organization" are covered, or whether in the statement private security companies contracted by museums are included in "surveillance in public places by a private commercial organization."
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/letters/010718/5012181.html
Regards,
David Tremain
david_tremain@pch.gc.ca