NYC 911 to Accept Cellphone Pics and Video 251
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?
Well that's shweet and all (Score:5, Insightful)
They're also planning on implimenting a program of streetcorner video cameras, as seen in the city of London.
I dunno.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyway. I wonder what the cell phone company will charge you for sending a video clip to the 911 service. :P
Ummm... what? (Score:1, Insightful)
Did anyone read this and think WTF? So police don't fight crime if they don't have cell phone pics to solve it for them? Great.
Re:Camera Fun (Score:1, Insightful)
I'm an Aussie who recently moved to London, and the last thing that any city wants is as much constant video surveilance of ourseleves as we are objected to as the public in this city. CCTV, road cameras, papparazzi and ambulance chasers galore mean that you can't live in peace around here, somebody has to draw a line somewhere.
Crap, that was off-topic, huh?
this is a great idea (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Well that's shweet and all (Score:4, Insightful)
The video cameras? Not a fun idea to entertain, as far as a citizens point of view would go.
We should all go out strapped (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Ummm... what? (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ummm... what? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Privacy dies evermore. (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Well that's shweet and all (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).
Re:911 Abuse: The Next Generation (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Well that's shweet and all (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:2, Insightful)
In this case, just the words "as seen in the city of London" should scare the crap out of all of us.
OTOH, I'm currently posting from China...
Re:Well that's shweet and all (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:Well that's shweet and all (Score:3, Insightful)
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 it off the internet. Or...
Even with lesser crimes like robbery or mugging, the best case scenario is that the robbers/muggers/rapists/purse snatchers move a couple of blocks over, away from the cameras. Maybe every once in a while one of them will have a change of heart while walking to the new location, but I wouldn't count on it.
So, to sum up, this will: waste tax payer money, inconvenience innocent people, and have zero impact on actual criminals.
The other part, being able to send images on 911 calls, actually sounds like a really good idea. Probably explains why they piggybacked the idiotic survelience part.
Re:Well that's shweet and all (Score:1, Insightful)
Funny that, the supreme court already ruled that if the cops can see into your house from the street without using any "special" hardware, then you don't expect privacy.
Yet people certainly do expect privacy, after all, thats what we have stalker and peeping tom laws for.
Re:Well that's shweet and all (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Well that's shweet and all (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Well that's shweet and all (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Privacy dies evermore. (Score:3, Insightful)
Simple solution:
Don't cheat on your wife and what the hell are you doing buying porn?!?
Re:Impact on criminals (Score:3, Insightful)
Disclaimer: I'm drunk off my ass right now.
Do you have any evidence at all that your camera stopped crime. I mean, sure, it stopped crime right in front of your store, but what about a block over?
Same thing with the city owned cameras. They might have an impact on crime in the immediate area of the cameras, but that'll just push crime to the sides. Does a heroin dealer care if he sells heroin right here, or a block away? Probably not.
I'm all for law enforcement, but there has to be a better way. A way that doesn't have so much potential for abuse.
Re:I dunno.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Well that's shweet and all (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
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 spade just because they might beat someone to death with it".
Re:Privacy dies evermore. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Well that's shweet and all (Score:3, Insightful)
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 restaurant, my competitor comes up with an old picture of me buying potato chips for a meal (at night, of course) in all my 200-kilogram glory - that would really ruin the mood, y'know ?
So that's the reason: I don't want anyone to be able to come up with video footage of me being young and foolish 20 years later. Which, if I'm being recorded by the Big Brother every time I step outside my home, will be easy to do. I want to live my life without having to watch every word and gesture least they return later to haunt me.
Please understand that there's a world of difference between being subject to constant video surveillance everywhere you go which is archived for all eternity (or at least for your lifetime) and being photographed every now and then. Please also understand that police can be too effective; if it becomes able to catch every criminal, then it can enforce any law, no matter how unpopular, therefore paving the way for tyranny.
Re:Well that's shweet and all (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Well that's shweet and all (Score:3, Insightful)
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 significant leverage over another. Gardeners, for example, are unlikely to be successful in taking over their neighborhood with their tools, even if they tried.
Not everyone will have access to cameras, though, so cameras fundamentally shift the balance of power further away from the citizenry and toward the government. The incumbent government, whose only real motivation is to maintain and expand its power and control. Gardeners may be a step closer to absolute power with their gardening tools, but they're nowhere near as close as the incumbent government. So the question remains: Do we want our government to move closer to absolute power by widening the gap between the power of the citizenry and the power of its leaders? Do we want our government to continue to increase and expand its knowledge of us, while closing off more of itself every day?
Will cameras help deter and solve crime? Of course they will. But is that worth the risks? Is crime really spiraling out of control?
For the sake of argument, let's say the cameras are overwhelmingly effective, and crime drops to minimal levels. What then? Surely we would leave the system in place, since it's obviously been an effective deterrent. But what do the operators do? Who do they watch when there are no more criminals? What happens then?
Of course, they're likely to only have a moderate impact, at best, which makes the question of benefit vs. cost all the more important. And by cost, I don't mean simply dollars, although that's certianly significant, but the cost of giving up a little more power, a little more freedom, and a little more control over our goverment "of, for, and by the people."