Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NYC 911 to Accept Cellphone Pics and Video

Posted by Zonk on from the looking-through-the-phone dept.

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?

10 of 251 comments (clear)

  1. In answer to your question ... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 4, Interesting

    How practical do you think it is to expand this sort of project to cities across the country?

    Very. Chicago is, I understand, laying a massive fiber loop for just this purpose. I don't know how far advanced their scheme is though. It is interesting that cities around the country are cutting back on public services, and yet still have plenty of money to spend spying on us.

    Moreover, is it worth the expense?

    Nope.

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    1. Re:In answer to your question ... by chicagotypewriter · · Score: 2, Interesting

      As far as the camera network goes, Chicago already has many of these cameras in place, but right now they are only in place in high-crime areas. Here is an image of what they look like, and they also have microphones on them and can record gunshot sounds. These cameras are very well liked from what I have read and there are plans to install more of them across the city, not just in high-crime areas.

  2. Worth the expense to who? by Short+Circuit · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Worth the expense to who? The taxpayers, or law enforcement?

    --
    tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
    1. Re:Worth the expense to who? by value_added · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Worth the expense to who? The taxpayers, or law enforcement?

      Depends on how you measure it, and what your perspective is.

      Last I checked, the taxpayer was paying for law enforcement (salaries, benefits, pensions, etc.). The taxpayer is also paying for the absence of or shortcomings in law enforcement (property crime, lower property values, social burdens, etc.). If the police need something, you pay for it. If they need something and don't get it, you still pay, but out of a different pocket.

      I'd like nothing more than to see English-style bobbies patrolling the streets. That ain't gonna happen. Here in LA, for example, we have sprawl. Law enforcement determines that to do their job effectively, they need, for example, 100K officers. The public says we can't afford it, so the mayor says no, and only half that gets hired along with a few extra patrol vehicles. The unmet need is left unmet, and workarounds are put in place (bigger guns, laxer policies, acceptance of increased delays, tolerance of crime, etc.).

      The following year, instead of submitting a request for the missing 50K officers in their next budget, the police submit instead a recommendation to buy and install cameras to take the place of say, 25K officers. The accountants do the arithmetic and determine the cost of cameras is cheaper. The public says "WTF. We can't afford 50K officers, but we can afford the cameras." and the cameras get bought. The unmet needs gets met at a lower cost.

      How you feel about cameras or their effectiveness is the real question. Fact of the matter is that in today's world, people are expensive. No one wants to hire them when a technological solution is available. And we all love technology, right?

  3. Potentially VERY useful for EMS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    One aspect of this that could be especially valuable is for the Emergency Medical Services side of 911. I'm a Firefighter/EMT, and responding to a call, the more information we have the better, and pictures/videos could definitely be useful. Often times we get dispatched for things like a hemorrhage or amputation, and its not clearly communicated to us responders what we are going to find - whether it is just someone that lost a fingertip, or if their whole arm is gone (which understandably affects what we'll bring with us to the scene as well as how we manage the whole call. My guess is this probably mostly a result of the people on scene (understandably) freaking out in an emergency and not being able to clearly communicate the severity/magnitude of an incident, so if they could send 911 operators a picture, that would help a lot.

  4. A new system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Does this mean they will shoot less bullets into unarmed grooms?

  5. Re:911 Abuse: The Next Generation by PieSquared · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Until you find a google image photo of someone bleeding to death, or a really good photoshop job... then it makes things worse.

    Still, just treat a fake picture like you would a normal false call (I.E. they send people out and you were lying you get fined or worse...) and I'm all for this. It could certainly save lives, and (after initial abuse) wouldn't make things worse on the "prank call" front.

    --
    Does a line appended to your comment give your post meaning in and of itself, or only in relation to those without?
  6. Re:Well that's shweet and all by alshithead · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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. I LIKE red light cameras. I LIKE the idea that someone mugging me after an ATM visit might get caught because there are cameras covering the street. Surveillance cameras, public and those used by businesses have become an integral part of getting bad people caught and just as importantly, convicted.

    --
    I reserve the right to think for myself. Others' opinions are optional. Puppy on lap = typos...not illiteracy.
  7. Re:it pays for itself! by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 2, Interesting
    lots new fines for crimes on camera, all those jaywalkers = profit! because its easy to do, feel the mu

    That was tried about 10 years ago when Giuliani first came into office. It stopped quickly since everyone in NYC jaywalks and the enforcement campaign eventually pissed off the wrong people. Look at any intersection in NYC - there are plenty of people jaywalking even in front of cops. You'd still need a cop to hand out the summonses and NYC cops generally have better things to do. Automated enforcement like a red light camera? Possible, I guess, but people don't wear license plates :) And automated facial recognition technology isn't 'there' yet and probably will never be. Can you imagine the furor if a few thousand people *incorrectly* get automated tickets for jaywalking?

    The only reason that NYC "functions" at all is that 90% of its laws are enforced selectively if at all.

    -b.

  8. Re:Well that's shweet and all by neomunk · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You seem to think that slums are places where criminals live. That's just not true, slums are places where POOR people live. I've lived in slums, cause I've been poor. I'm not a criminal. In fact, if you wanna do a 'cost of criminal behavior (in dollars) per capita' I'd be willing to bet real money (even though I'm not TOO far above poor now, and don't gamble) that slums are on the lower end of the scale and that rich neighborhoods within commute distance of New York and Washington are the real winners.

    Controlled easier? Because they live in a certain neighborhood? Are you fucking kidding me? Just because you've accepted that you are willing to trade your own personal responsibility for Big Macs and American Idol doesn't give you any kind of right to assign control over anyone else, especially control by baton (or pistol as is so often the case).

    In fact, now I'm just guessing, but I'd guess you at one of those fake patriot flag wavers that only cares about freedom when it's your OWN 'freedom' to suppress someone else. God Bless America, Land of the Free, but fuck those fags, niggers, jews, whoever else my pundit masters wanna tell me is to blame for my fucked up empty life... You make me sick, I wish you and all your friends who hate freedom so much would just move to Saudi Arabia or something where you can live under a dictator like the sheep you are. At least you wouldn't have to worry about all those uncontrolled free people.

    Some people are too scared to live in a democracy, and that's fine, they have other options. Use them.