NYC 911 to Accept Cellphone Pics and Video

SpaceAdmiral writes "New York City is developing a plan to allow images to be sent to 911 emergency operators from cellphones. This will likely give emergency operators better information to pass along to responders. They're also planning on implementing a program of street-corner video cameras, as seen in the city of London. According to John A. Feinblatt, Mayor Michael Bloomberg's criminal justice coordinator: 'The more information that the police have and the more quickly that they get it, the more likely that they are going to fight a crime.'" How practical do you think it is to expand this sort of project to cities across the country? Moreover, is it worth the expense?

Comments

Well that's shweet and all

[The Bungi]

I think sending pics to 911 is nice...

They're also planning on implimenting a program of streetcorner video cameras, as seen in the city of London.

...but this scares the shit out of me, especially because it's buried there as some sort of "oh by the way, we're also doing this kewl thing, kthx".

Re:Well that's shweet and all

[Uber Lieutenant]

In complete agreement with you. 911 callers being able to send cell photos to responders is a great concept.

The video cameras? Not a fun idea to entertain, as far as a citizens point of view would go.

Re:Well that's shweet and all

[dosboot]

Someone explain to me why Slashdot has so many people who are afraid to death of cameras? A security camera system maintained by the police department is a *service* for our benefit. We *want* the police looking out for us on the streets. Before you argue 'big brother', '1984', etc. you should take note that public photography is a valuable right in the US (http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm). Why then should make the police's job harder by taking away that right from them?

We don't take away that right from ordinary citizens even though they can abuse it too (if you want to be blunt about it, criminals can use surveillance cameras to lookout for police).

Re:Well that's shweet and all

[Martin Blank]

There's a significant difference between public photography and the state taking pictures. There are cases where there may be valid security reasons to do so, such as at state-owned buildings to catch thieves and vandals on record.

It has been the history of this nation to provide certain barriers for police to help ensure that they remain as honest as possible. This is why there are requirements for warrants and Miranda warnings. It's not that we don't want evidence to not make it to court, but we want to be as sure as possible that the evidence was obtained without coercion or undue deception, and that it is done with the consent of the people involved in the case. This puts power in the hands of the people rather than the state.

The presence of cameras can allow for intimidation or harassment through automated means (think just about how many traffic laws you break in a given week, including speeding, rapid lane changes, rolling stops, and similar minor offenses), even though they may be useful for solving more serious crimes. Make things too simple for the state, and the state gets lazy. This doesn't cover blackmail potential, or other abuse that can occur -- such as the museum camera that was used to peer into German Chancellor Angela Merkel's home. The kind of devices often mentioned as desired by police are PTZ (point-tilt-zoom) cameras, and depending on placement, may be quite capable of being aimed to peer into the home or yard of a private citizen. Even with oversight boards, who is going to be able to review ~720 hours of use per month, especially when it is over hundreds or even thousands of cameras?

Re:Well that's shweet and all

[rubberchickenboy]

...but this scares the shit out of me, especially because it's buried there as some sort of "oh by the way, we're also doing this kewl thing, kthx".

In this case, just the words "as seen in the city of London" should scare the crap out of all of us.

OTOH, I'm currently posting from China...

Re:Well that's shweet and all

[shawn(at)fsu]

I've never seen a law or tool for law enforcement that hasn't been used for other things than it was intended.
Shocker that your comment gets modded +5 insightful....

Isn't it safe to say that pretty much any technology/tool has been (mis)used for other things than it was intended. Don't we on /. say it's not the tool but how it's used? Wasn't that the collective argument used in defense of p2p and bit torrent? The amount of hypocrisy on this site never ceases to amaze me.

Re:Well that's shweet and all

[jlarocco]

Well, that's an awful lot of coincidences isn't it? That's why I spread out my suspicious activities over months, if not years.

String of coincidences or not, it's enough for them to make your life a living hell for at least a few days. And on the off chance this would actually pinpoint somebody with nefarious plans, they'd have it setup to look like a big coincidence anyway. Or they'd shop at places not monitored by cameras. Or they'd ask somebody else to pick it up for them. Or they'd buy some of it off the internet. Or...

Even with lesser crimes like robbery or mugging, the best case scenario is that the robbers/muggers/rapists/purse snatchers move a couple of blocks over, away from the cameras. Maybe every once in a while one of them will have a change of heart while walking to the new location, but I wouldn't count on it.

So, to sum up, this will: waste tax payer money, inconvenience innocent people, and have zero impact on actual criminals.

The other part, being able to send images on 911 calls, actually sounds like a really good idea. Probably explains why they piggybacked the idiotic survelience part.

Re:Well that's shweet and all

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as the guvmint stays out of my home or anywhere else I have a reasonable expectation of privacy, they can record all they want.

Funny that, the supreme court already ruled that if the cops can see into your house from the street without using any "special" hardware, then you don't expect privacy.

Yet people certainly do expect privacy, after all, thats what we have stalker and peeping tom laws for.

Re:Well that's shweet and all

[jamstar7]

Someone explain to me why Slashdot has so many people who are afraid to death of cameras?

We're not afraid of cameras. We just don't like what they represent, which is the death of privacy. What's that, you say? 'Why should I worry about privacy if I have nothing to hide?' We don't necessarily hate the technology, we just don't trust the people who will have access to the data collected by this technology. People who were not voted into office, that cannot be impeached for malfeasance, people that believe that violation of every law on the books from the Constitution on down is justified 'to protect the people'. My question is, who protects us from them? In an era when any Slashdot reader has access to cheap and dependable software to create the video of their dreams, who is to stop these people from manufacturing their own 'surveillence video' for evidence in a trial? How do you detect the fraud? Who is the jury going to believe, the witness on the stands or the witness on tape?

The easiest way to discredit anyone is to frame them for murder. Suppose they framed a Federal whistleblower? Suppose they framed a dissident? Suppose they framed you? Maybe you think the government is all touchy-feely and has no agenda. That's fine. What guarantees are there that future incarnations of government are going to be as benign as you believe it is now? Personally, I believe that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Alfred Nobel invented dynamite, then grew increasingly uncomfortable with its growing useage in military applications. He did not invent it originally for military purposes. Surveillance cameras aren't specifically designed with political or law enforcement applications. They will be used for these purposes.

Re:Well that's shweet and all

[dosboot]

1) You don't need a warrant to look at another human being on the street. 2) We shouldn't be breaking the traffic laws anyways. The police don't make the law. It's their job to spot traffic violations and they are going to continue doing so regardless. 3) It isn't illegal to view into private places like a yard from a public place (unless there is an expectation of privacy) 4) It should be simple to program the cameras to block out windows dynamically with a PTZ system. In theory any police officer could blackmail at anytime. The benefit of having police officers is large enough to outweigh the cost of curbing and detecting the abuses.

Re:Well that's shweet and all

[heinousjay]

Interesting post. Modded insightful, yet self-contradictory. Your first two paragraphs outline several impacts the system would have on criminals, while your third paragraphs denies there could be any. I like it. Very slashdot.

Re:Well that's shweet and all

[gowen]

(think just about how many traffic laws you break in a given week, including speeding, rapid lane changes, rolling stops, and similar minor offenses)

That would be none. And if traffic cameras prevent people like you from driving like an inconsiderate twat, I'd really rather like more.

Re:Well that's shweet and all

[ThosLives]

The video cameras? Not a fun idea to entertain, as far as a citizens point of view would go.

You know, I don't understand why people get upset about cameras in public places. I am a logical citizen, and I don't think there is a fundamental issue with the concept that there is no such thing as "privacy" in a "public" place - such as a street corner.

I see it this way: If it is possible for someone to stand at the corner and observe you, then what's the difference between that and having a camera there and a person in a room watching you? I suppose the only difference would be that you might know the person is there (unless the person is hiding) where you might not know the camera is there.

If that's the case, simply require all the cameras to be painted bright orange so people cannot claim "I didn't know I was being observed."

My personal assumption, when I'm in a public place - on the street, in my car, etc - is that I am being observed, so I behave appropriately for that assumption. Whenever I want to behave otherwise, I do so behind closed doors on private property.

The only thing that would concern me is if there is further intrusion into the idea of private property, and there's enough concern there as it is.

Re:Well that's shweet and all

[Macthorpe]

I agree with you to the extent that I posted the same question in a different article.

Get ready for a mass of people directing you to go read '1984' like it's some kind of prophecy of an inevitable future, and maybe a smattering of half-decent points relating to police/camera coverage and possible abuses of the system.

As far as I'm concerned though, just because it's possible to abuse something, doesn't mean it's going to be abused. I think a comment I made to friend was "You can't stop giving gardeners a spade just because they might beat someone to death with it".

Re:Well that's shweet and all

[ultranova]

Someone explain to me why Slashdot has so many people who are afraid to death of cameras?

Well, I can't talk for anyone else, but I'm just plain ugly - overweight and pasty-white. Now, I'm starving myself, lifting weights (I can already almost lift the mouse from the table !!!) and forcing myself to open the curtains for at least 1 minute each day while the Sun is up, so I hope I'll be an athlete in a few months and can attract girls like flies. But imagine if, just when I'm picking one up in a restaurant, my competitor comes up with an old picture of me buying potato chips for a meal (at night, of course) in all my 200-kilogram glory - that would really ruin the mood, y'know ?

So that's the reason: I don't want anyone to be able to come up with video footage of me being young and foolish 20 years later. Which, if I'm being recorded by the Big Brother every time I step outside my home, will be easy to do. I want to live my life without having to watch every word and gesture least they return later to haunt me.

Before you argue 'big brother', '1984', etc. you should take note that public photography is a valuable right in the US (http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm). Why then should make the police's job harder by taking away that right from them?

Please understand that there's a world of difference between being subject to constant video surveillance everywhere you go which is archived for all eternity (or at least for your lifetime) and being photographed every now and then. Please also understand that police can be too effective; if it becomes able to catch every criminal, then it can enforce any law, no matter how unpopular, therefore paving the way for tyranny.

Re:Well that's shweet and all

[smoker2]

Just imagine for a moment that the US is still part of the British Empire. Well you guys are fed up with the way things are going and want to fight for your independence. Political means have failed, and your only recourse is to physically revolt, and resort to armed struggle. Do you still think having cameras controlled by the security forces, on every street corner is a good thing ?

Now imagine Germany in the 1930s. Same situation, cameras controlled by security forces on every street corner. Only the security forces are the SS and Gestapo. Do you still think it's a good idea ?

Just because you live in a favorable political climate at present doesn't mean it will always be that way. And by submitting to this overbearing surveillance, you are making the *real* bad guys* jobs easier.
* Meaning the tyrant waiting in the wings.

The Future:
You are catalogued with RFID and DNA, you are monitored via your pc, your Tivo, and your phone, and you can't take a right turn on the way to work where you normally turn left, because that violates your normal routine and is therefore suspicious and worthy of investigation.
Welcome to your brave new police state, where if you've got nothing to hide, you've got no life other than unquestioning servitude to the state.

BTW, the police were not established to prevent crime. They were set up to catch offenders after a crime had taken place. By allowing them to *prevent* crime you are giving them a free pass to control everyone - innocent or otherwise. What's legal today, might not be tomorrow.

Re:Well that's shweet and all

[StikyPad]

As far as I'm concerned though, just because it's possible to abuse something, doesn't mean it's going to be abused. I think a comment I made to friend was "You can't stop giving gardeners a spade just because they might beat someone to death with it".

You're wrong there, unfortunately. Very wrong. Someone will eventually abuse that shovel, because tools are power and power corrupts. Shovels, however, are not absolute power, and they're not distributed in such a way where one group of people has significant leverage over another. Gardeners, for example, are unlikely to be successful in taking over their neighborhood with their tools, even if they tried.

Not everyone will have access to cameras, though, so cameras fundamentally shift the balance of power further away from the citizenry and toward the government. The incumbent government, whose only real motivation is to maintain and expand its power and control. Gardeners may be a step closer to absolute power with their gardening tools, but they're nowhere near as close as the incumbent government. So the question remains: Do we want our government to move closer to absolute power by widening the gap between the power of the citizenry and the power of its leaders? Do we want our government to continue to increase and expand its knowledge of us, while closing off more of itself every day?

Will cameras help deter and solve crime? Of course they will. But is that worth the risks? Is crime really spiraling out of control?

For the sake of argument, let's say the cameras are overwhelmingly effective, and crime drops to minimal levels. What then? Surely we would leave the system in place, since it's obviously been an effective deterrent. But what do the operators do? Who do they watch when there are no more criminals? What happens then?

Of course, they're likely to only have a moderate impact, at best, which makes the question of benefit vs. cost all the more important. And by cost, I don't mean simply dollars, although that's certianly significant, but the cost of giving up a little more power, a little more freedom, and a little more control over our goverment "of, for, and by the people."

I dunno....

[FooAtWFU]

Right now, I'd be somewhat skeptical of it, but it does seem like a reasonable sort of "future investment". And if there's any place that should be making it and could benefit, NYC is that place (with a huge city and tons of people with media-happy cell phones floating around). I don't think there will be any immediate returns, but... One of the things I guess is problematic is that you can't exactly call 911 and send them a video clip at the same time with today's phones - most seem to have them mutually exclusive.

Anyway. I wonder what the cell phone company will charge you for sending a video clip to the 911 service. :P

Re:I dunno....

[tverbeek]

The 911 system in my area is having a hard enough time simply getting the right emergency responders on the line and to the scene. There's no way they're ready to deal with pictures and video.

Ummm... what?

[Anonymous Coward]

'The more information that the police have and the more quickly that they get it, the more likely that they are going to fight a crime.'

Did anyone read this and think WTF? So police don't fight crime if they don't have cell phone pics to solve it for them? Great.

Re:Ummm... what?

[westlake]

So police don't fight crime if they don't have cell phone pics to solve it for them? Great.

eyewitness testimony is confused and contradictory. the camera can capture the make and model of a car. a license plate. a face, a figure. details that would otherwise be lost.

Re:Ummm... what?

[psiclops]

yeah, but you can take a picture anyway, being able to send it to 911 doesn't really change this.

Re:Camera Fun

[Anonymous Coward]

I couldn't work out how to reply to the orignal post (am I blind or is this really well hidden? I've been a Slashdot frequant reader since '98, yet this is the first time I've tried to be a parent poster) so I think I'll just reply here.

I'm an Aussie who recently moved to London, and the last thing that any city wants is as much constant video surveilance of ourseleves as we are objected to as the public in this city. CCTV, road cameras, papparazzi and ambulance chasers galore mean that you can't live in peace around here, somebody has to draw a line somewhere.

Crap, that was off-topic, huh?

this is a great idea

[timmarhy]

mainly, because what if i can't talk on the phone eg home invasion and i'm hiding or i'm mute or something.

We should all go out strapped

[olivercromwell]

Even wiht cell phone video and stills, the police cannot respond fast enough to prevent an unarmed person from becoming a victim, and a statistic. We should all have the unrestrained right to defend ourselves, and go out strapped. Just showing a potential attacker that you are carying on your belt is enough to make him melt away.

Right != ability

[SleepyHappyDoc]

I wouldn't want to go out packing, for the simple fact that the weapon would more than likely be taken from me by the assailant. Sure, I could spend a lot of time and money learning how to use the gun, how to defend myself and the gun from having it taken away from me, etc, but I don't want to spend my whole life doing nothing but learning how to defend myself. And I sure as hell don't like the idea of a small mugging, where some thug punches me in the nose and steals my iPod, turning into a shooting, where some thug punches me in the nose, steals my iPod and my gun, and then shoots me with it. At least (although I'd be out an iPod and I might need my nose set) I would probably get to go home that night.

Re:Privacy dies evermore.

[Babillon]

This sort of thing kind of makes me curious what world you're living in. What privacy? This is public we're talking about. You don't have any privacy in public. That's why it's called public and not private. Personally, I think this is a very good idea. I've been the victim of crime in a public area, and would of benefited from being able to send the dispatcher a picture of the taxi that the jerks ran off in.

And really... What's the big concern about cameras in public places anyway? Are you doing something in public you don't want video taped? Personally, I think the old mantra works just as well now as it does for putting information on the internet "If what you're doing isn't something you'd like for your Grandmother to find out about, don't do it".

Re:911 Abuse: The Next Generation

[bluemonq]

I don't know about you, but when I was a kid I was taught at school to call 911 only in case of an emergency. That meant that someone is or was going to get seriously hurt (broken bone or worse), or there was someone around who was a threatening presence. Dispatch should never be your concierge. I notice that before that part of the excerpt you posted, it says the following: Call 9-1-1 anytime you have an EMERGENCY when police, fire or medical response is required immediately. Examples of 9-1-1 emergencies include fire, crimes in progress or that just occurred, or a medical crisis. A good rule of thumb is - when life or property is threatened or at immediate risk, or if there is a good chance that a criminal can be apprehended, call 9-1-1. I think that's good enough guidance.

Re:Privacy dies evermore.

[Ortega-Starfire]

40% is people that don't want a permanent record made of their every move when they cheat on their wife or go out to buy porn.

Simple solution:
Don't cheat on your wife and what the hell are you doing buying porn?!?

Re:Impact on criminals

[jlarocco]

I own a business across the street from an unused building. For years it has been a site for heroin dealing, vandalism, muliple assults and batteries, and at least one mugging. I got a netcam, put the camera feed live on a web site, and informed anybody who cared to listen ( this included neighbors, cops, drug sellers and buyers, etc ). It took several months for people's behavior to change ( which was odd...I expected it to change almost overnight ) But now all we have is an occasional vagrant.

Disclaimer: I'm drunk off my ass right now.

Do you have any evidence at all that your camera stopped crime. I mean, sure, it stopped crime right in front of your store, but what about a block over?

Same thing with the city owned cameras. They might have an impact on crime in the immediate area of the cameras, but that'll just push crime to the sides. Does a heroin dealer care if he sells heroin right here, or a block away? Probably not.

I'm all for law enforcement, but there has to be a better way. A way that doesn't have so much potential for abuse.

Re:Privacy dies evermore.

[Alcibaides]

Ah, once again we beat the dead horse. Freedom v. safety. Didn't Thomas Jefferson say something about that?