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?

Camera Fun

[McFortner (881162)]

I for one welcome our Dispatcher Overlords. Oh, wait, I'm a Dispatcher! BOW DOWN BEFORE ME SWINE! McF

Re:Camera Fun

[Columcille (88542)]

Well all of this surveillance is the fault of the tin-foil-hat people. Their campaign has been far too successful and there are too many people these days wearing their hats. The aliens, working through human government leaders, need new ways to monitor our brainwave patterns. These kinds of things are just a start of the next phase of their new monitoring tactic. If you want to see less of these cameras, stop wearing your tin foil hats!

Well that's shweet and all

[The Bungi (221687)]

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 (894875)]

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

[ThosLives (686517)]

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:

[Macthorpe (960048)]

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 s

Re:

[StikyPad (445176)]

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 significa

Re:Well that's shweet and all

[dosboot (973832)]

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

[alshithead (981606)]

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.

Re:Well that's shweet and all

[Martin Blank (154261)]

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:

[jamstar7 (694492)]

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 bel

Re:

[ultranova (717540)]

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 restauran

Re:Well that's shweet and all

[smoker2 (750216)]

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:

[alshithead (981606)]

"okay try this in a week you are seen on camera in

1 chemical supply store
2 a hardware store
3 a gun store
4 "with" a person of interest

So on the basis of this "evidence" during a sweep you get given a ticket to Gitmo as being part of a terrorist plot"

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.

Re:

[jlarocco (851450)]

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 i

Impact on criminals

[Harmonious Botch (921977)]

Parent says: "this will: waste tax payer money, inconvenience innocent people, and have zero impact on actual criminals."

This has a significant impact on criminals. I speak from experience.
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.

BTW, I share the concern, expressed by several posters, that cameras can be misused. The solution is to make them all public netcams, available to anyone with a browser. The cops can use information, but it is less likely for them to misuse it, because anybody could have copies.

Re:

[jlarocco (851450)]

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.

Disclaim

Re:

[shawn(at)fsu (447153)]

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

[Breakfast Pants (323698)]

"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

Moo

[Chacham (981)]

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 [com.com]: New York to use cell phone photographers to help fight crime [com.com]

The service is to be implemented by PowerPhone [powerphone.com] which has a Press Release here: Technology delivers cell phone photos to 9-1-1 operators [powerphone.com]

Re:Moo

[ptbarnett (159784)]

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.

I dunno....

[FooAtWFU (699187)]

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:

[tverbeek (457094)]

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.

In answer to your question ...

[ScrewMaster (602015)]

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.

Re:

[chicagotypewriter (933271)]

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 [usatoday.com] 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.

Re:In answer to your question ...

[chicagotypewriter (933271)]

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

Worth the expense to who?

[Short Circuit (52384)]

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

Re:

[value_added (719364)]

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 nothi

Potentially VERY useful for EMS

[by Anonymous Coward]

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.

911 Abuse: The Next Generation

[bluemonq (812827)]

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...

Re:

[Kesh (65890)]

I predict about two seconds after this goes live.

Seriously, while it has potential to help, it's going to be flooded with crank photos. Not to mention I doubt some of the dispatchers really want to see what some folks are going to send them...

Re:

[PieSquared (867490)]

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.

Re:

[Martin Blank (154261)]

When you call 911 on a cell, your cell number comes with it, so it can be traced to you. On many phones, if there's a sufficient signal, your GPS coordinates may also be sent. There's enough there to provide deterrence from people abusing the system through false images, including possibly some extra penalties regarding fraudulent 911 calls.

Re:

[Martin Blank (154261)]

Your friend may not be your friend much longer when he's hit with a charge of making a fraudulent 911 call, or possibly aiding and abetting. In Indiana, the base crime is a class B misdemeanor (Indiana Code 35-44-2-2(c)), punishable by "imprison[ment] for a fixed term of not more than one hundred eighty (180) days; in addition, he may be fined not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000)" (IC 35-50-3-3). At that point, he may readily turn you over to avoid facing such a charge.

Prepaid phones still have inf

Re:

[zakezuke (229119)]

I live in one of the largest cities in my state. It has a population of approximately 85,000. The police ask people to use 911 for all communication with the police, including noise complaints and other non-emergencies.

85,000 as one of the largest cities in a state sounds rather smallish from my perspective, sounds like Wyoming, or perhaps North Dakota. Don't get me wrong, good sized city, just I can't think of many states who's larger cities are smaller than 100,000.

But yes.... my point exactly. While "I

this is a great idea

[timmarhy (659436)]

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 (654085)]

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 (813919)]

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:

[ScrewMaster (602015)]

You might want to look at some of what Gary Kleck has written about the defensive uses of handguns. Personally, I feel much the same way you do, but when looked at from a societal perspective defensive gun use (and his definition of that is very specific) do more to preserve lives than take them.

Re:Right != ability

[sgtrock (191182)]

There's a ten year old study [uchicago.edu] that says that just having other citizens carry concealed weapons improves your safety overall. I've never heard a rebuttal that held any water. So, even if you don't want to carry a weapon yourself, you do want to live in a state that allows it. :)

Re:Right != ability

[b0s0z0ku (752509)]

There's a ten year old study that says that just having other citizens carry concealed weapons improves your safety overall. I've never heard a rebuttal that held any water. So, even if you don't want to carry a weapon yourself, you do want to live in a state that allows it. :)

Crime also went down in Kennesaw, GA (but increased in surrounding towns) in the decade following its passage of an ordinance that required each household in the town to own at least one servicable firearm. To those who claim that such an ordinance would be unfair by mandating the ownership of an object, it was purposely written to be full of exemptions - conscientious objectors, ex-convicts, etc were exempted. Nor has anyone actually been fined for not owning a weapon. But the law was designed to set an example to follow.

-b.

Street corner video camers only in london?????

[p.gogarty (684488)]

Street corner video cameras prety much everywhere in the UK from the smallest towns to the largest citys, We live under the eye of big brother over here

Planning on doing what where?

[icepick72 (834363)]

From the posting: They're also planning on implimenting a program of streetcorner video cameras,

... and a spell checker to provide correct spelling for Slashdot posts.

Cell phones and 911

[p2ranger (606522)]

I also am a fulltime FF/EMT. If there was one thing that cell phone users could do to help, it would be a law requiring callers to stay on the scene when they call in something. You would not believe the number of calls we get for a dead guy (who is really a drunk guy asleep against a building or a tired traveler sleeping in their car), smoke investigations which turn out to be smoke from a fire place, odor investigations which can not be found at all, car wrecks which can't be found. Many times we are sent on a wild goose chase because the information we got from the caller isn't enough for us to locate the complaint. Having the caller stick around to point out what they found or educate them on their stupid call in so they don't do it again would be great. I can see where it could be usefull for having pictures or video sent in. We have computers on our apparatuses that send us information from dispatch. Getting a picture of a reported sturcture fire where you can see flames coming out of the windows could aid in planning and requesting additional resources early. This is opposed to the call for a structure fire when its really just some dummy who left their beans on the stove too long and smoked up the whole apartment. One engine can take care of that instead of having an entire first alarm respond to take a smoking pot out of the building.

Re:Privacy dies evermore.

[Babillon (928171)]

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:

[Ortega-Starfire (930563)]

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:

[mrchaotica (681592)]

Cameras can't prevent crimes any more than your grandmother can!

Re:Ummm... what?

[westlake (615356)]

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:

[psiclops (1011105)]

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

Re:

[b0s0z0ku (752509)]

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 enforceme