How Cops Are Beating Crime in America's Poorest City

Is Camden, New Jersey, a "surveillance city" or a triumph of 21st century policing?


It's been called "surveillance city," "a police state," and "a proving ground for futuristic crowd-control technology."

Camden, New Jersey., considered the poorest and most dangerous city in America, is getting a reputation for being the epicenter of Big Brother-style law enforcement. A VICE story that aired recently on HBO and a piece in Rolling Stone by Matt Taibbi—which depicted Camden as an apocalyptic "dopescape of barred row homes and deserted factories"—drove home this point.

The city's streets are monitored by 121 cameras and 35 microphones, which feed data to a new $4.5 million Real Time Tactical Operations Intelligence Center. The police department runs a mobile "Sky Patrol," which is a platform that extends 40 feet into the air, providing a bird's eye view of the city for a bevy of camera feeds.

Camden's tilt towards surveillance is somewhat disconcerting, but overall the stories told by VICE and Taibbi—who wrongly declared that there's "no hope" in Camden—miss what's laudable about the city's new approach to policing. A year and a half ago, Camden was liberated from an outrageous police union contract that let cops get away with working bankers hours and desk jobs—when they bothered to show up for work in the first place. Now, thanks to the dissolution of the union contract and other reforms, Camden cops are actually doing the job of policing this crime-ridden town. And they're making headway.

Breaking the Union

Camden's old city-run police force abused its power and abrogated its duties. It took Camden cops one hour on average to respond to 911 calls, or more than six times the national average. They didn't show up for work 30 percent of the time, and an inordinate number of Camden police were working desk jobs. A union contract required the city to entice officers with extra pay to get them to accept crime-fighting shifts outside regular business hours. Last year, the city paid $3.5 million in damages to 88 citizens who saw their convictions overturned because of planted evidence, fabricated reports, and other forms of police misconduct.

In 2012, the murder rate in Camden was about five times that of neighboring Philadelphia—and about 18 times the murder rate in New York City.

Then in 2013 the city dissolved the 141-year-old department and replaced it with a new county-run force (known as "Metro") that was redesigned from the ground up—or every "police chief's dream," says Jose Cordero, 58, the highly regarded law enforcement expert and Bronx native who was brought in to configure the new agency. Cordero is best known for overseeing a 70 percent violent crime drop in East Orange (another impoverished Garden State town) when he was the city's police director there from 2004 to 2007, a period in which the city's poverty rate barely shifted.

A year and a half after Camden tapped Cordero, crime is down. So far in 2014, Camden has had half as many homicides as it did in 2012, which was the city-run force's last full year of operation (albeit a record high year for murders).

A Metro cop on foot patrol. ||| Jim Epstein
Jim Epstein

And residents are buzzing about how the city feels different. "I hear less gun activity, and I feel that it's less likely that I'll be the victim of a violent crime," says Pastor Tim Merrill, 56, a lifelong resident of the city who runs a youth leadership program and is the president of the Concerned Black Clergy of Camden. "It's drastically different in a positive way," says Lorsely Boogaard, 56, who has resided in Camden for 18 years.

When the city disbanded its police force, the union contract was invalidated, which allowed Cordero and Metro Police Chief Scott Thomson to assign many more officers to foot patrol in dangerous neighborhoods.

The old city-run force was rife with cops working desk jobs, which Cordero saw as a waste of money and manpower. He and Thomson hired civilians to replace them and put all uniformed officers on crime fighting duty. Boogaard says she didn't see a single cop during the first year she lived in the city. "Now I see them all the time and they make friendly conversation." Pastor Merrill says the old city-run force gave off a "disgruntled" air, and the morale of Metro police is noticeably better. "I want my police to be happy," he says.

Another coup: In Metro's first year, Cordero and Chief Thomson scored a one-year exemption from state civil service rules, which severely limit the discretion that police chiefs have in hiring and promoting their staff. That made it possible for them to break rank and quickly elevate talented junior officers. On Cordero's initiative, Metro replaced the basic aptitude test for screening new recruits mandated by civil service, which "has nothing to do with law enforcement." The new test was geared toward identifying candidates with interpersonal skills; a sample essay question asked aspiring Camden cops to recount a "difficult situation" in which they "displayed empathy and sensitivity toward others."

Cordero also redesigned the field-training program to stress community-building tactics. "The new officers were taught that when they walk the streets they have to go meet people, introduce themselves, and ask people what they're concerned about," he says.

Jose Cordero |||

"As police, we sometimes forget that we operate by the consent of the community," says Cordero, "and our success is determined by the community." This philosophy stems from Cordero's background as a high-ranking commander with the New York City Police Department (NYPD), where he spent time in a division of the Civilian Complaint Review Board, an independent body that investigates instances of alleged police misconduct. Later he was the commanding officer of the NYPD's community advocates office.

His goal was to shift perceptions of crime, not just improve stats. In the mid-1990s, when Cordero served as the head of the 40th Precinct in the South Bronx, he observed that when crime rates fell, community members didn't always feel safer. That's because often their concerns were hyper-local. "The homicide rate is what the nation watches, but residents may be more focused on the drug dealers on the corner that their kids have to walk by," says Cordero. "It's still the zombie apocalypse in downtown Camden on a Saturday," says Pastor Merrill referring to the city's drug addicts, but the narcotics trade has mostly moved indoors.

Surveillance City

Under Cordero's watch, Camden was wired to the gills with cameras and microphones. When a gun is fired in the city, a system of microphones called ShotSpotter can triangulate the signal and pinpoint the location of the shooter within several feet. Using their home computers, a team of citizen volunteers can direct the city's many surveillance cameras to zone in on activity that they deem suspicious.

As VICE reported, Metro captures the license plate numbers of every car entering Camden, and often sends threatening letters to the registered owners on the grounds that these visits could be drug-related.

The use of surveillance equipment "raises very serious civil liberties concerns" and must be "accompanied by robust transparency and accountability measures," says Ari Rosmarin, the public policy director at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of New Jersey. "It's not clear to the public how long footage is retained, who has access to it, and we don't know what happens when ancillary conversations are picked up on ShotSpotter."

Civil libertarians are right to be concerned about government surveillance, but they should also acknowledge that unlike the paramilitary gear that horrified the nation when it appeared on the streets of Ferguson, Missouri, cameras and microphones actually make communities safer. ShotSpotter raises privacy issues, but it also liberates police from having to rely on citizens to report gunfire and it can bring a squad car to the scene of a shooting in no time. When ShotSpotter detects gunfire, Camden's new Automatic Vehicle Locator System can instantly determine the location of the two nearest patrol cars, which has brought the city's average 911-response time from one hour to 90 seconds.

It's incumbent on local police departments to be more open about how they're using the data they're collecting and to invite independent monitors to oversee their internal procedures. Like wearable cameras for cops, which the ACLU favors, street surveillance can also protect citizens from being abused by the police, which is why Metro should make the footage it collects available to the public upon request.

The bottom line: Turning off the cameras and microphones isn't the solution.

"Citizens are generally more interested in knowing when cameras are coming to their block," says Cordero, which is understandable given the severity of the city's crime problem. "Twenty years ago, I would have been on the civil liberties side, but now I think the [surveillance] is absolutely wonderful," Laura Sánchez told The Philadelphia Inquirer when the cameras first started appearing in the city. Robert Kressley, 44, says these tactics are appropriate if used effectively. "If all the cameras are really upping the rate at which the police are able to apprehend violent offenders, then it's OK," he says. "I'm hearing from a lot of people that this is a deterrent," says Pastor Merrill. "And I want the police to know instantaneously where a shot came from."

Officer Christopher Devlin, Officer Raphael Thornton and Capt. Deiter Tunstall.||| Camden County Police Department
Camden County Police Department

But Merrill is skeptical that better policing tactics are the solution to the crime problem. He believes the key is to bring more jobs into the community. "In Camden, I guarantee that poverty and high crime will be kissing cousins until we handle both of them."

Merrill is articulating the still prevalent view that crime is rooted in poverty, which the Manhattan Institute's Heather Mac Donald has called "one of the most destructive social theories that came out of the 1960s," providing the intellectual underpinnings of the Great Society. It also gave urban cops a great excuse to treat their jobs like 20 years of seat warming en route to a fat pension, while waiting for poverty to be eradicated.

Cordero has spent his career demonstrating that safe streets are a prerequisite to economic activity, not the other way around. "In the poorest community, there are a lot of good folks who just can't afford to move elsewhere and the people causing the problems are a minority," he says. "So if you deal with them effectively, you can bring down crime by a staggering amount." Hopefully, he'll be proven right again in Camden.

NEXT: Ottawa Shooter Had Jihadist Ties, Millennials Dig Libertarian Over GOP Candidate, New Opportunity for Ebola Freakout: P.M. Links

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “Boogaard”. With a name like that, I can’t take her seriously.

  2. I am not interested in a police state, even one that is effective at reducing crime. A bunch of citizen volunteers with private camera isn’t so bad though.

    1. Agreed. I’m not opposed to cameras. What I’m opposed to is unfetter state access to the footage. I personally think we should treat CCTV cameras like the black box on an aircraft. It’s always recording. But, you don’t look at it unless there is a problem. It would still act as a crime deterrent since it’s always recording (we all act better when we know we are being recorded). And, you could require probable cause to view the footage to make it a bit less big brothery.

  3. Camden was liberated from an outrageous police union contract that let cops get away with working bankers hours and desk jobs?when they bothered to show up for work in the first place

    Oh, so now they are out on the streets shooting dogs and beating down the residents. That has to be really comforting if you’re a Camden resident.

    Seriously, I would think that them not even showing up for work would be a big plus for everyone. Living in NJ is punishment enough, it must be somewhere between purgatory and hell.

    1. Sounds like they were already abusing their authority. With the union and leftover deadwood gone, they don’t seem to commit abuses so much.

    2. Hey, Asshole, besides the exorbitant taxes, epidemic levels of cronyism, abusive unions, ghetto rats, limousine liberals, and faux tan guidos New Jersey is heavenly.

    3. I’m with you on this. The whole first half of the article just felt like a standard conservative polemic against unions, and with respect to policing practices that is a non-issue. Unionized or not, I don’t want an organization that claims the sole legal right to kick my teeth in if it thinks I step out of line.

  4. This is very umm… comforting umm.. disturbing…

    1. Only if you live in Princeton or some other ivory tower.

  5. I seem to recall this sort of thing being illegal.

    1. Vice actually did a segment on this and part of their methods are accosting people on the street at night and demanding ID, telling kids who are hanging out in front of their own homes or parents’ businesses to “move along”, shit like that. A lot of Camden residents are complaining about it. So they might be reducing crime, but it’s with the use of police state tactics.

      1. You know, we never studied the Police State Constitution in law school. I bet that’s easier than that other one we don’t use anymore.

        1. “You know, we never studied the Police State Constitution in law school. I bet that’s easier than that other one we don’t use anymore”

          Didn’t they talk about the legality of curfew’s, emergency management and declarations of martial law?

          There is a line somewhere where the basic security of the decent residents takes precedent over the guns and drug markets of the bad…

          1. And you’re unable to show us where that line is in the Constitution.

            1. “And you’re unable to show us where that line is in the Constitution.”

              Can’t show you where it talks about stem cells either…

              1. True, maybe the federal government shouldn’t concern themselves with stem cells.

                1. Nothing about Space either. Can’t find supercomputer in there…although both could be classified “defense” just as “General Welfare” and “such laws as nessacary” by Congress covers quite a bit.

                  DEFENSE AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC seems to fit quite well, IMHO.

                  So there you go:
                  ” provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;”

                  1. It took you a day to come up with that sad excuse for gestapo tactics. Fuck! You are so lame.

          2. craiginmass: “There is a line somewhere where the basic security of the decent residents takes precedent over the guns and drug markets of the bad…”

            Yes, across that line is New Jersey allowing decent residents to have carry permits.

      2. So they might be reducing crime,

        Reducing crime by non-LEOs, maybe.

        Reducing the total crime rate, including crimes committed by LEOs? Hard to say.

        Because here’s the deal: Lots of things cops do, are crimes if they are done legal justification. Not one he will ever be arrested or prosecuted for, but a crime nonetheless.

        1. I might be able to do something on my own to defend against private crime. But what can I do when the criminals are in government? When, in fact, the government is primarily a criminal enterprise?

          1. You can emigrate to hong kong, etc. – or anywhere where you feel the gubment is better.

            1. N. Korea ? Cuba ? Venezuela ? The Former Soviet Union ?

            2. That will only work until the statist horde invades.

              1. “That will only work until the statist horde invades.”

                You mean the legal gubment of said country? Communist China?

                Funny how the right considers Communist China to be the most “economically free” place on the planet (Hong Kong).

                They just came right out and said they want to be a Libertarians Dream – that is “if we let people vote, the poor people have too much influence”….

                I guess it’s a clash of ideals. Either representation is based on universal suffrage or you prefer a Benevolent Dictator…

                1. Hong Kong is run very differently from the rest of China. Hence all the recent rioting when the Statists in Beijing try to ‘adjust’ the rules to bring into HK line with the rest of the PRC.

                  Since you are an ignorant, mendacious prick you write as if you are unaware of this basic fact.

                  Then you tack on this bullshit:
                  “I guess it’s a clash of ideals. Either representation is based on universal suffrage or you prefer a Benevolent Dictator…”
                  Which is classic TEAM blue projection. Fuck off slaver.

                  It really would do you some good to recognize that this administration shredded 180 years of contract law when it handed over 2/3’s of the native auto industry to the unions – disenfranchising hundreds of thousands of pensioners who were the bond holders. But they are just the little Kulaks who have to be sacrificed for the greater good right?

                  Then came the manner in which the ACA was finally passed, also illegal. It has been downhill from there. The undeclared war in Libya, the assassination of US citizens using drones etc.

                  No worries TEAM blue is looking out for you.

      3. I don’t have the answer, but I’m not sure what one does when a city government allows things to get out of control.

        I believe that there’s a kind of curve, and if you let crime and things get a certain way down the curve, you have to use some pretty tough tactics to get it back into a proper balance.

        Based on the simple blog post, it sounds like Camden was allowed to get on the bad side of the curve by a shitty police union.

        I think if you’ve got a dangerously high crime area, I don’t personally consider it a human tragedy to tell groups of people to “move along”.

        On the other hand, I think that with really decent community policing, and officers who were really familiar with the elements within the neighborhood, they could tell the difference between kids sitting around socializing in groups on the front stoop, and another group of kids who are “up to no good”.

  6. i buy almost everything except food and clothing from online auctions most people aren’t aware of the almost I unbelievable deals that they can get from online auction sites the site that has the
    best deals is..=========== W?W?W.W?O?R?K?4?H?O?U?R.C?O?M?

  7. i buy almost everything except food and clothing from online auctions most people aren’t aware of the almost I unbelievable deals that they can get from online auction sites the site that has the
    best deals is..=========== W?W?W.W?O?R?K?4?H?O?U?R.C?O?M?

  8. Hmm, I volunteer there on occasion – interesting that my plate number is probably in their db as being there for drug deals…since I volunteer with a catholic org!

    1. interesting that my plate number is probably in their db as being there for drug deals…

      Is that what you were doing in the strip club parking lot?

  9. the narcotics trade has mostly moved indoors.

    ShotSpotter isn’t going to work for indoor shots. So when is Camden going to start with the property seizures?

    Seriously, I’m thinking “hamsterdam” whereby Camden police look the other way on narcotics trades if they are done indoors. But someone’s going to come along and start having a field day on asset forfeiture and the shit will start all over again, cameras be damned.

    1. There ain’t no assets to foreclose, so don’t worry about it – unless you consider the iron fencing around the front porch and the 2 pit bulls valuable!

      1. I’m assuming the trades involve cash which can be seized. I’m sure Camden doesn’t want to seize any more real estate for now.

        But if the town’s economy improves just a little, someone will come along with an idea the city leaders will fall in love with if only the developer could get a few select parcels to make his vision a reality.

      2. Bullshit.

        If big money winds up with enough property in one location it would make a perfect spot for a taxpayer subsidized sport stadium. Or maybe some government funded affordable housing, etc. etc.

        Individually those lots ARE worthless. Taken together, that’s a different story.

        1. They have a nice stadium and a BIG concert venue (privately owned) along with the Aquarium and some other stuff.

          It’s one of those things where the housing was all built originally for the vast factories there….and they are all gone. So the actual need for an urban area is not there any longer.

          I suppose they will end up razing a good part of the city and it will eventually be fine – good location and actually quite scenic up against the rivers (cooper, delaware, etc.)

          But our need for industrial port cities has waned. Yeah, I guess in one ways our Camdens have been moved to China….

    2. Seriously, I’m thinking “hamsterdam” whereby Camden police look the other way on narcotics trades if they are done indoors.

      I’m not sure that’s necessarily a bad thing. If you’re going have a system where there are illegal narcotics, it might actually best if these things take place indoors, leaving the public places safer. Plus, if it has become a “hamsterdam” situation, and violence drops dramatically while the illegal trade of drugs continues or even flourishes… do we really care?

  10. ShotSpotter raises privacy issues


    1. It is a series of microphones. It is not just listening for shots. It is recording all of your outdoor conversations. to be used against you later.

      1. I’m not sure if ShotSpot works that way, and the microphones are tuned or sensitive enough for that to be a reality.

        Now, technology is technology, so given what we’ve seen the surveillance state capable of (as I always say, technology is a two-way street, it doesn’t just empower you, it also empowers government) I wouldn’t be surprised if a time comes when an array of microphones could pick up all conversations within a reasonable range, and just store them for further perusal.

        ShotSpot, as I understand it, is really only programmed to listen for a loud, sharp report within certain decibel ranges and then automatically turns a camera in that direction in the hope of catching a shooting.

      2. I don’t think so. It supposedly “measures the full range of impulsive sounds (sounds which are explosive in nature) found in urban weaponry” according to the manufacturer’s website. And there’s no way a system can cover “square miles” and pick up conversations. Maybe if you were standing very near it, it might hear you, but I suspect not even that.

      3. Bullshit. The military uses similar systems. It listens for impulse-type sounds, and measures the time-difference of arrival of that sound at numerous microphones in known locations to geolocate gunshots.

  11. a new $4.5 million Real Time Tactical Operations Intelligence Center.

    Paid for how, exactly? Funny how a big price tag item in America’s poorest city can escape such a question.

    1. They probably saved much more than that by ditching the union contract.

    2. “Funny how a big price tag item in America’s poorest city can escape such a question.”

      Ask CC (that’s Chris Christie).

      Big Money? Heck, that’s not even a big net worth for an individual and wouldn’t fun a small town police force!

      Can’t even build much of a house in Hilton Head these days for that…

      The state Budget there is 35 BILLION or so, so this is not really money…

  12. Is this a sponsored post?

  13. I’ve been lurking a while, but this article inspired me too register. How the fuck is a police surveillance state libertarian? Cutting off a union is a good start, but cameras and microphones keeping an eye on the peasantry isn’t something this website should support

    1. Depends on what type of libertarian you are. If you’re an ANCAP, you’ll probably not consider it libertarian in the least. If you’re more utilitarian, you’ll probably think it’s okay.

      I lean more towards utilitarian and don’t find surveillance cameras in public areas, where there is a low expectation of privacy, to be a problem. If you’re talking about the government sticking them in private residences or businesses, different issue entirely.

      I’ll also sit here all day and argue for the right of citizens to film their police doing their jobs in public, since the police have no expectation of privacy. Most libertarians would probably agree. On the other hand, saying that the public, passively observable actions of police officers aren’t private, but the public, passively observable actions of citizens are seems pretty ludicrous. If I’m talking to someone on a public street and a cop sees me pick someone’s pocket or overhears me admit to committing a murder, he’s perfectly within his authority to investigate, detain or arrest me…because my actions were committed in a place with no expectation to privacy for observable activities. Doesn’t mean he can grab me or frisk me for no reason, but it also doesn’t mean he has to pretend my publicly-exhibited behavior doesn’t exist. It’s his job to watch for that stuff.

      1. Utilitarian like minarchist is another form of statist… you just dont fucking get it do you
        This is a proving ground for a police state coming to a town near you.
        Statism is the utopian ideal that just the right amount of force, wielded by just the right top men can yield a perfect society.
        unfortunately, since were all humans, not a damn one of us has a right to govern any other one because not one of us can claim a perfect life.

        1. Are you saying that unless you are anarcho capitalist you are a statist?

    2. “How the fuck is a police surveillance state libertarian? ”

      Libertarianism is quite authoritarian. That’s why it’s mostly male and THEY know best. THEY have the answers. That should be troubling in itself.

      Based on comments here about everything from war to reproduction, Libertarians are simply – as they say – Republicans who smoke dope and want more sex and video games

      1. You are either the dumbest fuck in the world or the most mendacious. How do you square that circle? How is say Anarcho-Capitalism authoritarian? From wiki: “A Rothbardian anarcho-capitalist society would operate under a mutually agreed-upon libertarian “legal code which would be generally accepted, and which the courts would pledge themselves to follow.” This pact would recognize self-ownership and the non-aggression principle (NAP), although methods of enforcement vary.”

        Either way you are a stupid, servile TEAM blue lickspittle.

  14. I like the cut of this Chiefs jib!!!

    The surveillance cameras make me itchy as fuck fuck but then I live in a low crime utopia. It’s easy to be haughty and libertarian in such a situation but for the people of Camden maybe not so much. maybe if I lived in Camden id feel differently

    Getting 911 calls response time down is critical and i applaud this agency for putting police in meat potatoes patrol positions

    Heck this sounds like the place I’d like to work even though the city is such a craptastic crime den

    1. I used to be bothered by security cameras until living in England and realizing just how useful they can be in catching criminals when there either are no witnesses to criminal acts or the witnesses are uncooperative.

      “1984” definitely installed a “Cameras bad!!!” knee jerk response in me, but as I got older and saw them in reality, I realized there’s a big difference between cameras being located in a public venue, watching publicly observable behavior, and the government installing cameras inside everyone’s flat, watching who we’re sleeping with. If you accept the need for police forces or government at all, you also accept some tradeoffs of privacy. Public security cameras is a tradeoff I find acceptable, at least until someone gives me a real-world reason to re-think that.

      1. I agree. A camera at an intersection is little different than a cop standing there.

      2. since “criminals” are technically anyone who has broken a law, of which there are hundreds of thousands of pages, where should they cut off on persecutions with cameras? do you think they will ever stop mission creep?
        what happens when they catch all the hardened criminals, they wont just let that great power go to waste it WILL be used against you. its not even fun to say i told you so at that point.

        1. That is a valid concern. I think that the mission of the police should return to “keeping the peace” not “making arrests.” That is a fundamental change in posture that would likely head off the sort of mission creep you are talking about.

      3. Ok, so I mostly agree with you, but here is where things get dicey: the cameras are not just replacements for human police officers; they also record what they see.
        So, in a city with both traffic cameras, and public monitoring type cameras, combined with modern filtering and predictive software, the government can effectively trace your entire day; where you went, who else was in the neighborhood, frequency of visits to a doctor or specialist, etc., ad naseum. They can also monitor your non-cash spending, too, so they know what you bought at that “boutique”, or whatever.
        If there were no recording, then there is not much to disagree with. But how many cameras could an officer effectively monitor?
        And you pointed out “just how useful they can be in catching criminals when there either are no witnesses to criminal acts or the witnesses are uncooperative.”
        So, recording of these public cameras will, of course, take place.
        The argument should be on how these records are secured, how long they are kept, and under what conditions the government should be able to access them.
        Above, it was suggested by someone to treat the records as a “black box”, requiring a search warrant to access. I think that is a good first step.

  15. Argh. Where’s my damn Friday Funny…

    1. this article is a joke, police state fellators

    2. “Argh. Where’s my damn Friday Funny…”

      It’s with your story, in the FICTION section over there…

  16. Wow, I am surprised that Reason would be in favor of what is going on in Camden but… I know little about the city and it’s problems so maybe drastic measures were required. The question is, if civil behavior is restored in Camden; do the Cameras and Microphones go away? Where I live, Raleigh NC, we leave the front door open all day about 8 months out of the year… We don’t lock our cars, put away stuff on the deck or front yard, it is very safe. We almost never see police, but do come quick when called and in force. So I am willing to let Camden use these measures but I am sure not in favor of them spreading to the rest of the country. And if the residents don’t like it they can move, it is a free country.

  17. I am usually totally in accord with the opinions expressed in Reason, but this is an exception. I feel that this article uses the argument of, “We don’t like to condone surveillance but in this case it’s needed and helping solve a problem.” But this is EXACTLY the type of argument that the government uses for every breach of privacy and for every case in which they ransack our civil liberties. Sorry, Reason, I’m disappointed with you here!

  18. my co-worker’s mother makes $71 /hr on the laptop . She has been unemployed for 9 months but last month her payment was $17334 just working on the laptop for a few hours. published here


  19. my co-worker’s mother makes $71 /hr on the laptop . She has been unemployed for 9 months but last month her payment was $17334 just working on the laptop for a few hours. published here


  20. Can you have some spare time to sit back in your chair having your laptop with you and making some money online for some interesting online work said Jenny Francis in the party last nightsee more what is for you there to increase your pocket money??.


Please to post comments

Comments are closed.