Chicago's Camera Network Is Everywhere 327
DesScorp writes "Over the past few years, the City of Chicago has installed video cameras all over the city. Now the Wall Street Journal reports that the city has not only installed its own cameras for law enforcement purposes, but with the aid of IBM, has built a network that possibly links thousands of video surveillance cameras all over Chicago. Possibly, because the city refuses to confirm just how many cameras are in the network. Critics say that Chicago is becoming the city of Big Brother. 'The city links the 1,500 cameras that police have placed in trouble spots with thousands more—police won't say how many—that have been installed by other government agencies and the private sector in city buses, businesses, public schools, subway stations, housing projects and elsewhere. Even home owners can contribute camera feeds. Rajiv Shah, an adjunct professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago who has studied the issue, estimates that 15,000 cameras have been connected in what the city calls Operation Virtual Shield, its fiber-optic video-network loop.' There are so many camera feeds coming in that police and officials can't monitor them all, but when alerted to a situation, can zoom in on the area affected. The ACLU has requested a total number of video feeds and cameras, but as of yet, this information has not been supplied."
city of big brother? (Score:3, Insightful)
London has been that way for years.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Smash em. (Score:5, Insightful)
You were at your finest when you told us (Brits) where to stick it. You seem to have lost your way a bit since, unfortunately. You should try and rediscover that spirit and turf out the current lot of people trying to control your lives. Don't be fooled into thinking because they say their your countrymen it makes a difference to whether or not they can tell you what to do. It all still comes down to what you're willing to stand for.
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Smash em. (Score:4, Funny)
Hope?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Hope?
I hear he is currently President and came from Chicago.
;)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think they really care what Chicago does, the people have been violating their own human rights by killing each other for decades now in that city.
What are you expecting from the 'people' as most of the people with common sense or incentive to do something better with their lives have left their city long ago in the early 70's.
Have you seen what their city council does and how they act in some of the famous YouTube videos?
The people in these neighborhoods could care less, these people watch other ki
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Chicago has been violating the civil rights of it's residents for years in ways that are far more obnoxious than recording public spaces...
No they haven't!!!
Attention Chicago residents, just shoot out every camera lens with your handguns! ...Oh wait a second.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You wouldn't want to run for US President, would you? :P
Seriously though, it's true. I think we were pretty good at other times in the past 200 years, but I really dislike the "Europe is where it's happening, why can't we make America more like [insert European country]?" Europe is why people CAME to America...
Not to say anything a European country does is automatically bad, of course. I guess the main push right now is socialism, which some European countries have *ahem* presumably *ahem* implemented wi
Re:Smash em. (Score:4, Insightful)
Your views are fine. Socialism can work well. Capitalism can also work well. But socialist, capitalist or anything else, we all agree that corruption is bad. What you have in the USA today is a debased form of capitalism. What's capitalist about giving enormous amounts of public money to the banks for example? Nothing. The manipulations the federal reserve engages in... You're better off with a low-corruption government that carries out socialist policies than you are with a corrupt "capitalist" one. Because the more it is corrupt, the less it is a model of a workable system (socialism or capitalism) and the more it is a model of redirecting wealth to the powerful. Whatever your preference for economic structuring, you need to clean house. It's true here in the UK and I think it's true in the USA also. And to do this, we need to first make sure we have the power to do so and by preventing the corrupt from having too much power over us.
Then you're free to build a capitalist utopia. (I recommend yoinking a socialist health care model, though. You're paying through the nose with your insurance based model).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
But socialist, capitalist or anything else, we all agree that corruption is bad.
Yup.
I also think that it seems easier to be corrupt in a socialistic system... or, perhaps, harder to get out.
Cleaning house sounds like a great idea. As far as the health care thing, the proposed health care "reform" is worse than the current, it would seem...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I suspect that may well be true. And this is speaking as someone who used to work in a socialist health care system and approves of the model. I think (though its hard to tell when the proposal is over a thousand pages long) that what is being pushed in this bill is not socialist health care, nor privatised health care, but public money being ploughed into privatised health care for whatever sense
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
> He's a secret Brit!
Nope. Obama is Irish [youtube.com].
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Apologies for starting a flame war with a tongue-in-cheek comment.
(disclaimer: this apology is also tongue-in-cheek)
(also, obligatory woosh)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Unfortunately. (Score:4, Insightful)
You were at your finest when you told us (Brits) where to stick it. You seem to have lost your way a bit since, unfortunately. You should try and rediscover that spirit and turf out the current lot of people trying to control your lives. Don't be fooled into thinking because they say their your countrymen it makes a difference to whether or not they can tell you what to do. It all still comes down to what you're willing to stand for.
Unfortunately, half the country hates corporations trying to control their lives, and the other half hates the government trying to control their lives, and so we've caught up into so much finger pointing that both corporations and the government control our lives.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Racist? How so?
Conservatives would like to know the answer to that, too.
Yes, unfortunately, questioning Bush got similar critiques. Seems the "my way is right, it's so obvious... you don' think it's right so you must be [insert something bad]!" sentiment is unfortunately rampant. Which makes it wrong no matter which group employs it. Including now. "Bush did it" and "Obama did it" aren't excuses, they're fingers.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
Re:city of big brother? (Score:5, Funny)
Like its partner city Philadelphia, Chicago is the City of Big Brotherly Love.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
London has been that way for years.
No, it hasn't.
From the article, "[Chicago] links the 1,500 cameras that police have placed in trouble spots with thousands more--police won't say how many--that have been installed by other government agencies and the private sector in city buses, businesses, public schools, subway stations, housing projects and elsewhere. Even home owners can contribute camera feeds." -- but in London, any part of the government that's installed cameras has to say where they are (example [whatdotheyknow.com]), and private sector cameras aren't
Use it or Lose it (Score:4, Insightful)
They're going to have to disclose them, sooner or later, if they want to use them as evidence.
With the cameras, wireless technology, and storage so cheap, I've got to think Chicago won't be the first. Some areas in Philly sure could use something like that.
The SBIR program issued several requests to do something similar in Bagdad, although I don't know if it ever got done.
They wanted the ability to see a car of bad-guys do something, and follow them in reverse-time back to their hideout.
Take that, you dirty rat! (Score:2)
they are probably afraid that if the people of chicago know where they are, they will get stolen....
Re: (Score:2)
Monitoring (Score:3, Informative)
We had about 200 traffic cameras in my last job. Experienced operators would let the video switch cycle between cameras, one per second. If anything strange happened the change in the regular pattern would be immediately clear.
Going beyond 200 cameras per person would be difficult IMHO and you couldn't pick up small incidents this way. It was mainly for big changes in traffic patterns like a car crash.
A new stimulus program? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Really just low tech jobs. You are just using human brains as pattern recognition devices. They could outsource the whole job to India, or these days use AI, which might be more expensive.
Re: (Score:2)
Where do I apply?
No on second thought I'd rather work at Walmart. At least there I could flirt with the cute 20-something girls. "Do these shoes fit me?" No. Bend over and try these on instead. "Thanks!" Ahhh yes that's a good view.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Your Walmart is a radically different place than any Walmart that I've ever had the misfortune of wandering into. Typically, a chick bending over in Walmart requires the use of safety harnesses, traffic cops, and hazmat gear.
How does this compare to London? (Score:3, Interesting)
London has had the status of having the most CCTVs per capita for ages. Does anyone have a comparison between the cities?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Indeed. Not that it's had any discernible effect on crime rates [thisislondon.co.uk] in London.
In my humble opinion, the money wasted on video cameras would be better spent on health & education for the poor, incentivizing smart people to become police officers by paying them more, and vocational rehabilitation of offenders.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
In my humble opinion, the money wasted on video cameras would be better spent on health & education for the poor, incentivizing smart people to become police officers by paying them more, and vocational rehabilitation of offenders.
Or the money could be given to decent people who can't afford to move to a better city.
Re: (Score:2)
vocational rehabilitation of offenders.
I was with you until there. I'm not sure some offenders actually want to be rehabilitated. Seems repeat-offenses, especially of violent or sexual crimes, is pretty high...
Re: (Score:2)
Spend a few years locked up in a confined, overcrowded place with a lot of other moderately violent people and no contact with women, and you'll bet people come out keyed for violence and with trouble relating to women.
Re: (Score:2)
Spend a few years locked up in a confined, overcrowded place with a lot of other moderately violent people and no contact with women, and you'll bet people come out keyed for violence and with trouble relating to women.
So what caused their "trouble relating to women" in the first place?
Rape isn't having "trouble relating to women," by the way. It's having no respect for women (or men, or children, or whatever).
I'm all for rehabilitation, if possible. I'm also for justice. Rehabilitation should occur after justice. Rehabilitation does not negate justice. Sexually violating a woman, scarring her emotionally (and physically, for that matter) for life, completely messing up her life, etc... that's a lot to be punished fo
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Spend a few years locked up in a confined, overcrowded place with a lot of other moderately violent people and no contact with women, and you'll bet people come out keyed for violence and with trouble relating to women.
So that's why tech support has all the trouble with the ladies.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"Smart" is not a desired quality [ananova.com] in police officers.
Re: (Score:2)
London has had the status of having the most CCTVs per capita for ages. Does anyone have a comparison between the cities?
This whole point of this article is that nobody knows exactly how many cameras the city is looking at, since they won't disclose the number.
So I'm pretty sure nobody has a comparison between the cities.
Center of Crime (Score:2)
Criminal Prosecution (Score:2, Funny)
Watch out UK! (Score:2)
Public Disclosure? (Score:2)
I wonder if you could get the raw footage in a public disclosure request. A lot of fun mischief could be had with that data.
Re:Public Disclosure? (Score:4, Interesting)
I think there was a band in the UK which filmed a public performance that way. They just applied for the footage after the performance.
Re:Public Disclosure? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I think there was a band in the UK which filmed a public performance that way. They just applied for the footage after the performance.
The band claimed they obtained the CCTV footage.
But, they really didn't. It was just a publicity stunt:
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/1048686_band_in_the_frame [manchester...news.co.uk]
Apparently, it worked. Lots of people remember the video and the claim of how they got the footage. Very few seem to be aware that the alleged source was subsequently refuted.
las vegas has more camers in side the casinos (Score:2)
las vegas has more camers in side the casinos.
also they have cltv there is that the feed that is not uses for csn+ and has cltv 24/7?
I want cltv on direct tv in Chicago land.
I formally request access to the logs... (Score:5, Funny)
Mr. Orozco dismisses worries about privacy abuse. The department logs in all users and can monitor what they are doing, he said, assuring accountability. He also said access to the command center is tightly controlled. He declined to discuss specifics of who is allowed inside the center.
Awesome! In that case, I formally request access to the logs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Business plan:
1. Find out where a camera are pointed
2. Perform some antic in front of the camera that no camera watching monkey could resist putting on youtube (eg "Man getting hit by football in the groin")
3. When it appears on youtube, take them to court
4. Profit!
Scary if "The Man" does it... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you telling me you can't think of people you know that you wouldn't want being able to follow you everywhere about your daily business or track down where you are or were at any time? And who with? Are you telling me you don't know anyone who wouldn't be vulnerable because of that?
So (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Lets see, we have a murder every few days. Two blocks from my home someone was almost stabbed to death while walking home and I dont even live in one of the "bad" neighborhoods. The first warm weekend of Spring usually means multiple murders as gang members start going outdoors. Chicago is really in the middle of a serious gang epidemic and the cameras are a response to that. Theres a camera box mounted outside most schools, if not all, and on intersections where there is high crime and high gang activitie
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So I'm curious how a city wide effort would work and what its results are.
Look at London - the effect appears to be that only a very small subset of crimes are affected, and those are primarily moved to 'blind-spots' between cameras. All the other sorts of crime continues on business as usual. Some will say that this happens because the criminals know that 99.99% of the time no-one is watching the cameras anyway. But, to me at least, that just seems like one more step down the slipperly slope. The same people were the ones saying that just having cameras would be a pancea its
Crap (Score:2, Funny)
How am I supposed to commit my crimes in privacy now?
Re:Crap (Score:5, Insightful)
Get Elected?
People Tracking (Score:2, Interesting)
It's not just the street corner cameras and private cameras that are linked to the system, it also includes the red light traffic cameras, which are popping up everywhere.
I work for a utility company in Chicago and I attended a presentation about a year and a half ago where the Office of Emergency Management and Communication (OEMC) was bragging about what they can do with their camera network. They can already track a license plate from camera to camera throughout the city, and within the next year or so (
Not tightly controlled (Score:3, Interesting)
I've actually been inside of the NOC where all of the camera feeds come in. There are random terminal sitting around that anyone with NOC access can just walk over and use. There is no log in, or they were already logged in and left logged in all the time.
The emergency response HQ in Chicago is just what you'd expect, full of arcane, insane, nonsensical rules and procedures that are so bad if you fell down the rabbit hole you'd be less confused.
There's no way having this much surveillance in the hands of the state should be acceptable unless all private citizens also have the same access. If, as Mr. Orozco stated, that all cameras are located in an area where the public has no expectation of privacy, then why shouldn't anyone in the world be able to see any camera at any time?
The whole city government in Chicago is nothing but a bunch of bottom feeding tax sucking bureauRats lying through their teeth on a daily basis.
The real infringement on your rights... (Score:4, Insightful)
... is not the cameras. In the US, wherever you go there are armed police who are allowed to shoot and kill you, for any reason they feel like. Fix that, then worry about CCTV cameras.
Re:The real infringement on your rights... (Score:4, Interesting)
There is absolutely no difference between the two - you get shot either way and nobody gets punished either way.
Rust... (Score:3, Interesting)
ACLU is bad? (Score:3, Funny)
Governor's Mansion? (Score:2)
I hope they have several inside the Governor's Mansion. The are guaranteed to catch a felon there.
IP Cameras will usher in a new frontier (Score:2)
This should be about efficiency , with all law enforcement cameras sending a stream to a large central system that can apply AI and identify faces , licience plates , clothing and even gaits . Public Buses , taxis , police vehicles , council vehicles also should all have cameras feeding live strea
How to Find Them All? (Score:4, Interesting)
How to find them all?
Easy.
1. Create a fake Google profile. Be sure to use several Tor proxies to make sure you can't be traced back, and LOG OUT OF YOUR CURRENT GOOGLE PROFILE!!! Make sure you continue to use Tor for the entire operation.
2. Go to maps.google.com
3. Click My Maps
4. Create new map, make it public.
5. Title: Chicago IP Surveillance Camera locations
6. Description: This map is to pinpoint the location of all video cameras being used in the city of Chicago. If you know of a camera that's being used to watch a public area, add the address to this map, along with a brief description of where it is, what its watching and what it looks like.
7. Click "collaborate"
8. Select "allow anyone to edit this map"
9. Publish the map
Done. Now just sit back and let John Q Public fill in all the little details.
You can also use Wikimapia, which is now moderated.
In that case... (Score:5, Insightful)
In that case, let me mount a camera pointed at your house. I'll be able to watch you come and go, I'll know when you're at home and when you're away, I'll sometimes catch glimpses of what you're doing through the windows, I can watch you in your sweaty glory while you're mowing your lawn, I can watch your friends and family when they come over (yay, Uncle Bob is there!), I'll know whenever you get a package from Amazon, with good enough resolution, I can probably even see who some of your mail is from. For good measure, I'll even record it all in case I want to go back later and watch something interesting.
Wouldn't that be great? You'd be able to rest easy while I'm always watching, knowing that you don't have to worry about being robbed.
Re: (Score:2)
While I see the point that you're trying to make - I really wouldn't mind that. If I'm not doing anything illegal, then I don't have to worry about being arrested. Why would someone be AGAINST security cameras being pointed at their property, when other people pay hefty sums to set them up for security?
To be honest, I think being able to go down to my local police station, saying "My house got broken into this weekend, could you guys check the tapes" would be WAY more convenient then the quote unquote "inco
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Man, I could write a book about that. Seriously. It would take me at least an hour to explain if you really can't see what's wrong with what you're saying. Out of personal convenience, I'm going to let someone else hopefully field this one.
Re: (Score:2)
Just, ... wow.
Re:In that case... (Score:5, Insightful)
What if you want to do something illegal? What if something you do is made illegal? What if you want to do something that isn't illegal but is disliked or held against you by others, including those in power. What if the government starts doing things that you disapprove of and you want to discuss it with people but you know everywhere you go and everyone who comes round is monitored and recorded. What if you have an affair? What if your partner has an affair? What if a policeman has a grudge against you? What if the minimum wage lad paid to watch the cameras has a grudge against you? What about when all these things don't apply only to you, but to your neighbours and your friends and your family until everyone is living with the knowledge that they're being watched all the time or at any time? Do you think the climate of fear and of being judged the whole time wouldn't stifle life? Look at what has gone on in even such a blessed country as the USA just in the last half-decade and consider the use constant surveillance would make if the government wasn't your friend (or more precisely, if you didn't consider the government your friend).
You acknowledge that the cameras grant power to the authorities. Consider also that the abuse of authority proceeds to whatever extent it is able to get away with. Permit authority to establish increased power over yourself, and expect that power to be taken advantage of.
If you want to understand why many of us dislike the cameras, just realise that we (a) consider the removal of our privacy to be a threat to our lives and freedom, and (b) are the sort of people who are always looking over our shoulder at history and seeing what dark periods we have had to fight our way out of each time we allowed the steady encroachment of forces establishing power over ourselves.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:In that case... (Score:5, Informative)
And even if you ARE doing something illegal, you have no reason to expect privacy in a public domain. Do your illegal activities inside the house behind closed curtains.
What REALLY pisses me off is when various citizens, trying to protect themselves from police abuse or to document police activities, are told THEY are not allowed to use their video cameras. If it's okay for the government to watch us on the public street, then it's equally okay for us to watch THEM with our handycams. And yet time-after-time I see videos on youtube where cops tell citizens "turn that off or face arrest". These cops not only violating our rights to document what we see on public streets, they are being hypocritical, and need to spend a couple weeks in jail as punishment (violating constitutional law).
I also see these citizens placidly complying, but I'm afraid I'd be spending a night in jail. I will not comply with illegal orders from cops that violate my natural, innate rights to observe and report what I see in my own city
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcWFmGtsTxg [youtube.com] - man arrested for taping in public area
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdlkKsyZY5w [youtube.com] - woman arrested for posting video taken *inside* her own home
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQvHWgaVACE [youtube.com] - another wrongful arrest
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NASIcf-LCyM [youtube.com] - I can't find the original video but this guy was arrested for using a camera in a public hallway - the same thing local news shows do every, single, day.
and on
and on
and on
Why is it necessary to record the police? So you can document abuses like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMB6L487LHM [youtube.com] - Young man detained, refused right to travel, and interrogated because "you're carrying too much cash" ($4000). Last I checked it's not illegal to carry money from St. Louis to Arlington Virginia.
Re:In that case... (Score:4, Insightful)
If it's okay for the government to watch us on the public street, then it's equally okay for us to watch THEM with our handycams.
That's not going far enough. If these are public areas, and the cameras are paid for with public money, we should be able to watch them, or whatever we want, on *their* cameras.
Re:In that case... (Score:4, Insightful)
I normally disagree with you vehemently on political issues, but I find it interesting that I'm pretty much in full agreement with you on this. I'm ok with every citizen being under surveillance - under one condition, and one condition only: those in power are subject to the same surveillance, and the surveillance is accessible by everyone, freely, with no restrictions.
The fact that some people seem to think that cops and politicians are somehow morally above the fray, never failing, and too important to be under constant scrutiny is astounding to me. Scratch that - it scares the living daylights out of me. These are the same people who have no problem imprisoning others based on hear say, and cops beating someone up because someone didn't look right.
Re:In that case... (Score:5, Insightful)
Simple. There are many things that are not illegal but are still problematic.
Your wife wants to know why you have been getting home so late every night. She checks the cameras at your office and sees you drive out at 5:00, then park in front of a pay-by-the-hour hotel and meet a woman who is old enough to be your daughter.
Your boss asks why you were late to work. You tell him or her that traffic was bad. Your boss looks at the traffic records and sees that you left home late because you overslept.
You have a car accident because someone pulls out in front of you. The accident is not caught on tape, but about half a minute earlier, you are caught on tape traveling over the speed limit. The person who pulled out in front of you manages to get you blamed for the wreck even though you were not speeding at the time.
You are a pizza delivery boy. You deliver a pizza to the house of a mob informant. The mob informant is later found dead. The only person seen on video approaching the house (from the front) is you. There are no cameras pointing to the back of the house and no signs of forced entry. Guess who gets charged.
Someone gets murdered in a neighborhood along your drive to work. The neighbors see a person who vaguely matches your description get into a white minivan of unknown make. You also drive a white minivan. You happen to drive past a security camera that puts you a block away from the scene of the crime shortly afterwards, traveling away from the location of the crime. You have no connection with the victim, so you would not have been a suspect otherwise, but now the witnesses pick out your car in a lineup and they arrest you under suspicion of murder.
Put simply, there's a reason that you have to have probable cause for searches and seizures. It is specifically to prevent people who are unlikely to have any association with the crime from being charged due to random circumstance. Cameras significantly increase the risk of random circumstantial evidence being available and being introduced.
Also, the temptation is too great to use these sorts of technologies to try to have perfect prosecution of every crime down to the smallest infraction, which invariably causes serious harm to society. For example, in Eureka, CA, you aren't allowed to kiss a woman if you are wearing a mustache. There are tens or even hundreds of thousands of these silly laws on the books. Were it possible to record everybody doing everything, then everyone would have record of these pointless crimes. Make the wrong person mad and suddenly they can abuse that to fine you $150 for picking up litter in a national forest in New Hampshire... or worse, fine you for driving your car on a Sunday. (Apparently, operating machinery on a Sunday is illegal in New Hampshire.)
And surveillance doesn't generally prevent crime. It just shifts it to some other place that isn't being watched so carefully. It's just like burglar alarms. They don't prevent people from breaking into houses. They just cause people to break into other people's houses. Unless they are ubiquitous, they are useless, and if they are ubiquitous, they are also prone to abuse.
Finally, people tend to act in ways that mimic how they are expected to act. If you treat people like they are law-abiding citizens, most non-sociopaths will behave accordingly. If you treat people like criminals, a fair number of people without any natural criminal tendency will tend to act the part. Don't believe me? Check out the Stanford prison experiment. Thus, a surveillance society is likely to result in a higher crime rate in the long run, not a lower rate.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
wearing a mustache
wearing a moustache? What about if you are growing one? ;)
Re: (Score:2)
If I'm not doing anything illegal, then I don't have to worry about being arrested.
That statement is false. People who have not done anything illegal get arrested all the time. Sometimes completely innocent people get shot and killed by police. That Brazilian guy who was murdered by British police in broad daylight. The Polish immigrant who was killed by the RCMP in Vancouver airport a year or so ago. How can you not be aware of this?
Furthermore: if I am not doing anything illegal, what possible reas
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't that be great? You'd be able to rest easy while I'm always watching, knowing that you don't have to worry about being robbed.
Meh.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Go ahead. The stalkers of the world will always have the upper hand as long as we try and keep this genie in the bottle. We need to make the technology a two-way street and get rid of the myth of privacy. I don't have a problem giving away my personal infomation as long as I know who has access to it and I'm able to get the same back in kind. Point a camera at my house, if you wish.... just as so long as I get to watch the live feed from yours.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll be able to watch you come and go, I'll know when you're at home and when you're away, I'll sometimes catch glimpses of what you're doing through the windows, I can watch you in your sweaty glory...
Santa?!?
Re:In that case... (Score:4, Insightful)
...says the Anonymous Coward.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:That's what you get with corrupt democrats... (Score:4, Insightful)
Agreed! Private handgun ownership is a great deterrent to violence.
In Fairbanks we all own handguns. We even have the right to carry them concealed (no permit required) anywhere w/ exception of federal buildings such as the courthouse, banks, & schools.
Point being, we have very little violent crime. Fairbanks is pretty redneck w/ no gangs. I doubt if gang members would last long here. Thinking of robbing everyone's favorite liquor store? You won't even make it out the door ..
I seriously doubt handgun ownership will work in Chicago though. I would imagine the population would be reduced dramatically overnight if handguns were permitted, which would also solve most of your crime problem, after you clean up the spent carcasses.
Re:That's what you get with corrupt democrats... (Score:5, Insightful)
Point being, we have very little violent crime.
Yes, but you have man-eating grizzly bears, crazy maverick lipstick pigs, 10 months of winter and 2 months of cold weather. None of the criminals are desperate enough to live there.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:That's what you get with corrupt democrats... (Score:5, Informative)
The second amendment is about militia members having the right to bear arms.
The Supreme Court of the United States disagrees [wikipedia.org].
Re:That's what you get with corrupt democrats... (Score:5, Insightful)
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. [archives.gov]
Yes, the 2nd Amendment does, in fact, state that a "well regulated militia" is the justification for this Amendment, but keep in mind that this was a radical concept when it was written. As well as stating the right they wanted to grant, they also included their justification for granting this right to the people. They then state that this militia is "necessary to the security of a free State." Consider for a moment what environment this amendment was written in: the framers of the Constitution were essentially planning treason against the Crown. Without the right to own firearms, there would have been no Revolutionary War because the only people that could possibly have fought would have been the British Army....makes for a very short Revolution, don't you think? To them, it was essential that free men have the right to keep and own weapons so that the people could replace the government when/if it became corrupt or oppressive, just like they did. Unfortunately, after 200 years, we have decided this only means that it is necessary to have a military force to protect the nation from foreign invaders, which is, of course, exactly what our politicians want.
The text of the 2nd Amendment continues, "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms..." Not "the Army" nor even "the Militia", but the people. This is about as clear as it can get: this right is explicitly granted to the people of the United States of America. Seems to me if Washington and Jefferson and Franklin, etc., had intended this only to apply to militia members, they would have said, "...the right of the MILITIA to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is so difficult for people to understand?!?!?!
Re:That's what you get with corrupt democrats... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:That's what you get with corrupt democrats... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is so difficult for people to understand?!?!?!
The part where their kid gets shot by someone bearing arms. (mods, please note, I'm not arguing a point about the constitution, I'm answering a question. Even though it was probably meant to be rhetorical, the question has real answers)
That's not a real answer. At least, it's not a very compelling one. The number of kids who are killed by firearms every year is very small. In 2006, for example (the most recent year for which the CDC's database [cdc.gov] has published data), 409 kids ages 0-14 were killed by firearms. That number includes deliberate homicides, suicides, accidents and deaths with undetermined intentions.
Of course, those 409 deaths are individually tragic, but compared to all of the other things that kill kids, firearms don't co
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There are plenty, including members of the Supreme Court, who disagree.
The historical context indicates clearly that the term "militia" equates to all able bodied citizens*. Aside from that, there is the troublesome comma which separates and supports both the militia and the individual right.
I think the language is clear but read and consider these:
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:That's what you get with corrupt democrats... (Score:5, Informative)
Not part of the Chicago machine? Um. Okay. Quoting USA Today:
"Quit job as financial consultant to become community organizer [ACORN employee] in Chicago." "Illinois state Senate, 1997-2005" Nominated to Senate by Governor Blagosovi...Blagodji...Blagosive... the impeached governor.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget that lovely midnight raid on Meigs Field that ended up costing the city $1,000,000 & change in FAA fines and repaid grants. All in the name "ZOMG TEH TERRISTS!!!!!"