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?

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: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: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".