Slashdot Mirror


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?

16 of 251 comments (clear)

  1. Well that's shweet and all by The+Bungi · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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".

    1. Re:Well that's shweet and all by Uber+Lieutenant · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Well that's shweet and all by dosboot · · Score: 4, Insightful


      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).

    3. 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.
    4. Re:Well that's shweet and all by Martin+Blank · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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?

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    5. Re:Well that's shweet and all by Breakfast+Pants · · Score: 4, Funny

      "The amount of hypocrisy on this site never ceases to amaze me."

      Hey guess what, the people posting comments on this site aren't all the same person. I mean wow, the parent was like "blah blah blah" and then you were like "blah blah blah isn't a good argument!" What hypocrisy! This site just disagreed with itself!!11

      --

      --

      WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
  2. Moo by Chacham · · Score: 5, Informative
    Note that Indiana is doing it first:

    Actually, the state of Indiana has already begun a plan to revamp its 911 networks and allow citizens to transmit images wirelessly to emergency responders.

    There is a much better article on News.com.com: New York to use cell phone photographers to help fight crime

    The service is to be implemented by PowerPhone which has a Press Release here: Technology delivers cell phone photos to 9-1-1 operators
    1. Re:Moo by ptbarnett · · Score: 4, Informative
      The service is to be implemented by PowerPhone which has a Press Release here: Technology delivers cell phone photos to 9-1-1 operators

      I just read the article, which says:

      PowerPhone's ILM system works like this: a citizen calls from his cell phone to report an emergency or suspicious activity-for example, a suspicious person dumping chemicals in a subway station. The caller dials 9-1-1 to report the sighting and says he can send a picture of the man to help identify him. The call handler sends a text message to the caller's cell phone requesting the photo. The caller then replies to this message with the photo attached. PowerPhone's ILM system stores the photo in an incident record for easy reference. The image can be forwarded to responders who are on their way to the scene.

      By following this process, the 9-1-1 center ensures that photos are linked with the appropriate records of the citizen's 9-1-1 call. Even more important, this process discourages citizens from randomly sending photos into the 9-1-1 center-an arrangement that can lead to pranks and other abuses of the system.

      Did they bother to check to test how many cell phones can actually do this? I just tried it with my Motorola Razr, and I don't have the ability to attach a photo to a reply.

  3. I dunno.... by FooAtWFU · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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

    --
    The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
  4. 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: 4, Informative

      As a followup to my vague, sourceless post, this article details some of the stats on Chicago's camera network, for those interested in what the cameras are about.

  5. 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.

  6. 911 Abuse: The Next Generation by bluemonq · · Score: 5, Funny

    Considering how often we hear about people calling 911 for driving directions or other ridiculous reasons, I can't help but wonder when dispatchers will start getting stuff like tubgirl...

  7. Re:Ummm... what? by westlake · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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.

  8. Right != ability by SleepyHappyDoc · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Stasis is death. Embrace change.
  9. Re:Privacy dies evermore. by Babillon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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".