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?
In answer to your question ... (Score:5, Interesting)
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:In answer to your question ... (Score:2, Interesting)
Worth the expense to who? (Score:2, Interesting)
Potentially VERY useful for EMS (Score:5, Interesting)
A new system (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:911 Abuse: The Next Generation (Score:3, Interesting)
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:Well that's shweet and all (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:it pays for itself! (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:Worth the expense to who? (Score:3, Interesting)
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?
Re:Well that's shweet and all (Score:2, Interesting)
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.