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

[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

[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

[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.

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

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.

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.

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:Ummm... what?

[psiclops]

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

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: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?!?