Tough Day in Dallas and Seattle

This is a message I sent to the women and men of the Seattle Police Department’s information technology unit today, Friday, July 8, 2016:

dallas-police-shooting

(Photo by Ting Shen, AP/The Dallas Morning News)

“Today is a difficult day for those of us working in law enforcement.   We acutely feel the pain of the police officers, civilians and families of the Dallas Police Department.   We work closely with our own uniformed officers and can’t help but share their worry and concern as they go about their jobs today.

“You all are proud of the work you do supporting the Seattle Police Department.   I’ve seen that pride manifest itself in many ways, in what you say and what you do.   Indeed, a primary reason I accepted the job as SPD’s interim Chief Information Officer was because of the satisfaction of knowing the work we do helps keep the 650,000 people of the City of Seattle safe and improves their quality of life.

“Thank you for continuing to adapt and apply technology to the work of the Seattle Police Department, supporting its officers and civilians and, indeed, those 650,000 people who live in our City.  We will redouble our efforts to make that technology rock solid, to streamline it, and to adopt new technologies to improve the safety of our citizens – and our officers.

“It is extraordinarily important work, and I’m proud of it.

“And you.”

Leave a comment

Filed under employees, Law Enforcement, Seattle Police

Why would anyone buy FirstNet?

firstnet-rfpOn May 31st the First Responder Network Authority – FirstNet – accepted proposals from private companies to build its nationwide public safety wireless LTE network.   We don’t know how exactly many companies or groups of companies submitted proposals (although today Rivada announced a number of its partners who have together submitted one bid).   We do know FirstNet has been quite public in its process and wants a “vendor partner” who will develop and deploy its nationwide network with a lifespan of 25 years and an estimated value of $100 billion.

But why would any police department or fire department or transportation authority or electric utility or other agency which responds to public safety incidents ever “buy” and use FirstNet?

Almost every agency involved with the protection of the safety of the public – first responders but also utilities and transportation and public works and others – already uses a wireless LTE network for its field workers.   T-Mobile, Sprint, Verizon, AT&T and others have robust networks which are getting better every day.

Why would an agency switch from a proven network provider to a network provided by an untested partner of a federal government agency?

Here are some good reasons, if FirstNet and its contracted vendor can make them happen:

  1. Public safety partners. FirstNet talks a lot about its industry or vendor partner.   FirstNet needs to speak about and model its partnership with public safety agencies too.  Responder agencies can and do buy services as a “customer” from many carriers.   And, frankly, the commercial services are quite good.   To be competitive FirstNet – and whoever gets its contract – need to build a model where its “partner” responder agencies have a lot of input and control over its products.
  2. A great vendor partner. Generally public safety agencies have a love-hate relationship with their telecommunications carrier.  Each agency can enumerate a set of concerns and issues with their provider.  FirstNet will almost completely rely upon the winner of its RFP to provide service to its public safety partners (customers).   Indeed, if it weren’t for item #1 – the need for a true “partnership” with public safety agencies – FirstNet might devolve into a simple contract administration bureau.    FirstNet must choose a vendor which can rapidly deploy the network, make it robust, and provide superior, turn-on-a-dime, service superior to the existing carriers.
  3. Public Safety users. FirstNet must be broad – embrace a “big tent” – in its definition of public safety responders.   Clearly many governmental and non-government agencies have public safety responsibilities and should be able to use FirstNet, at least part time:  transportation, transit, public works, elected officials, emergency management, water/electric/wastewater utilities and more.  Furthermore many individuals volunteer their time for search-and-rescue, firefighting, paramedic, and other public safety functions, and need some access to FirstNet.   Even the media (TV, radio, newspapers, etc.) have a public safety/information responsibility during daily incidents and disasters.
  4. Commercial and consumer service conflicts. A broad definition of an allowable user as defined in paragraph 3 above would take customers away from the commercial carriers, which was not the intent of Congress.  So FirstNet and its vendor must devise some way of “deputizing” users.    For example, when a citizen transforms from a consumer to a volunteer firefighter, their personal device must be “deputizable” to become a FirstNet device, transitioning from the citizen’s commercial carrier to the FirstNet-authorized service befitting a public safety responder.    Indeed, when a teacher is in a classroom and her school goes into lockdown for any reason, that teacher can become a “first responder” and should become a FirstNet user able to communicate to responding law enforcement officers.

    Managing FirstNet Priority

    Managing FirstNet Priority

  5. Priority. Priority for first responders is often cited as THE significant advantage of FirstNet.  Traditionally priority service has not been available from commercial carriers.  However both Verizon and AT&T are offering or planning to offer such service.  FirstNet’s priority service must be clearly superior.
  6. Local control. In the past, “local control” has meant local control of priority – having an incident commander able to designate which users or devices or applications have network priority.  We’ve come to recognize that LTE has considerable inherent mechanisms for this, which do not need much manual intervention.  Most local control of priority can be handled during provisioning.  The federal Department of Commerce’s Public Safety Communications Research (PSCR) group and FirstNet are well down the road of developing mechanisms for such local control and they need to be implemented.
  7. Local control of deployment and expansion. Public safety agencies have little control over the deployment and expansion plans of commercial carriers.   Occasionally an agency will say to a carrier “we really need another cell site here” or “please don’t do maintenance and bring the network down at 2:00 AM Sunday morning as the bars are closing”.  FirstNet, however should offer much better local control over network deployment and expansion.  FirstNet – or its state partners – might have public processes and even workshops and conferences where regions can specify their priorities for expanding coverage, or adding applications or improving capabilities such as those listed below.  Such “local control” will be the truest and best demonstration that this network is, indeed “public safety’s network”.
  8. Deployables.
    An LTE Site Deployable on a Trailer (Nokia Corporation)

    An LTE Site Deployable on a Trailer (Nokia Corporation)

    It is not feasible to deploy cell towers across an entire large state or geography, particularly if most of that geography is national forest or desert.  Yet communications are really important in the first hours of a disaster or emergency like a wildfire.   In 2014 three firefighters died during the initial attack on an emerging wildfire in the state of Washington. FirstNet could be much more dynamic than commercial carriers in rapid deployment of cell sites during such an event.  PSCR is researching small fleets of unhumaned aerial vehicles (UAV) containing such sites which could be quickly launched after a wildfire or landslide or other disaster occurs.  Other solutions might include cell sites on fire apparatus, back-packable sites, cell sites on trucks and so forth.   This demonstrated ability to rapidly deploy would hasten adoption of FirstNet by local agencies.

  9. Voice.    Any cellular network offers cellular telephone calling – one person calling another.  FirstNet needs to offer a wider range of voice calling apps for responders.   One such capability is push-to-talk – where a single user can push a single button and communicate with a whole police department or fire department, and dispatchers can use the same capability to broadcast to an entire precinct of patrol officers.  Another capability is “direct mode” where one device can talk to others nearby without the need to communicate through a cell phone tower (which may be destroyed by a natural disaster).  PSCR is actively working on such capabilities.
  10. Private “channels” for user groups. Channels would allow, for example, tribal police departments across a state or the nation to communicate (voice, video, text, email etc.) with each other privately.  There really no comparable communications mechanism available today, as each county or department has its own land-mobile radio network and it is hard to interoperate across large geographies.    Private channels could be used by elected officials across a region to communicate securely during a disaster, tribal gambling agents at multiple casinos to talk about emerging enforcement issues, or multiple fire departments from a wide region, all responding to a wildland fire, to communicate with each other and air support.

    PSCR's Mobile Architecture

    PSCR’s Mobile Architecture

  11. Provisioning. Every agency has people who buy stuff.   FirstNet and its contracted vendor need to make it easy to buy it stuff – tablet computers, smart phones, traffic ticketing devices, body-worn video cameras and more.   But FirstNet can also bring additional capability to this process.   A police department, for example, will want its Samsung S7 smartphones configured with a certain set of free commercial apps (Google maps), its own vendor apps (computer-aided dispatch), perhaps local apps (crisis intervention app or wanted/warrants app) and a mobile device management system (for example: Airwatch, Mobileiron, Intune).   A police department will also want encryption, VPN, advanced authentication (FBI CJIS policy).   If FirstNet and its vendor can offer a quick and simple configuration tool to ship devices to each department pre-configured, it would be a significant advantage to the using agency.  PSCR is actively working on a mobile device architecture which would enable these capabilities.
  12. Provisioning roles. FirstNet should be planning to allow responder agencies to specify certain roles for users, applications and devices.  For example a police officer might have a role of “patrol officer” and be carrying a device with the role “body-worn video camera” using an application such as “streaming video”.   Police departments should be able to define such roles for all their users, applications and devices.  This provisioning – and the ability to make rapid changes in provisioning (e.g. from police patrol officer to SWAT member) feeds right into the local control of priority specified above.
  13. Fusion center apps.   There are about 70 fusion centers nationwide who collect information to help detect and prevent terrorism, gang activities and other criminal issues.  Fusion centers have trained a cadre of liaisons who feed them information about suspicious activities.  But communications between fusion centers and such liaisons or other agencies can be hard.  A special app or a private channel could significantly improve the functioning of fusion centers be allowing law enforcement and other liaison officers to rapidly and securely send information to the fusion center, and the fusion center to rapidly disseminate intelligence to responders.
  14. Opt-in Plus. FirstNet and its contracted vendor could use (and pay for) sites already owned by local and state governments in order to improve coverage and capacity.   FirstNet could also allow local and state agencies to buy eNodeB’s (cell sites) and similar equipment for deployment on fire apparatus or other areas which need coverage.

    Amazon's Echo

    Amazon’s Echo

  15. Personal assistants, speech-to-text and similar leading edge capabilities. Consumers know and use Siri and Cortana and Amazon’s echo.   FirstNet should provide such capabilities – tailored to public safety’s unique lexicon and need – for using agencies.

There are a whole host of other potential capabilities which would give FirstNet a marketing and service edge on commercial carriers, helping to encourage public safety responder agencies to switch to the FirstNet service.   A few others are:

  • Robust, virtually unbreakable, cybersecurity.
  • ICAM – identity, credentialing and access management to identify the user of the device as well as the device.
  • “Public safety grade” – rock-solid sites, electronics, backhaul able to withstand disasters local and regional – earthquakes and hurricanes and terrorism.
  • High sites or “boomer” sites in rural and remote areas to cover wide swaths of area.
  • 911 calling for FirstNet users, plus also secondary users who are consumers and businesses.
  • Integration with public safety answering points (PSAPs), their emergency service internet protocol networks (ESI Nets).
  • Integration with Next Generation 911.
  • A robust applications store of curated, tested, cyber-secure applications.
  • Certain nationwide apps or capabilities deployed on every responder device, e.g. situational awareness.
  • IoPST – The Internet of Public Safety Things. This is a future network where sensors and cameras and intelligent transportation systems and fire detection and similar interconnected devices send information to responders quickly to help in mitigation of public safety incidents.
  • IoFRT – The Internet of First Responder Things. This is a future network which includes sensors and devices on First Responders or their vehicles or nearby to monitor them and keep them safe as they protect the public.

State and local responsibilities.   “Partnerships” are two-way.   Local and state responder agencies – governmental, non-governmental and private – need to be good partners with FirstNet and its contracted vendor too.   I’ll write more about this in the future, but these using agencies need to, for example:

  1. Standardized applications statewide, e.g. push-to-talk apps or situational awareness/mapping apps, which help to coordinate response from multiple agencies to a single incident or disaster.
  2. Designate knowledgeable officials to work with FirstNet and its contracted vendor to design and deploy the network locally.
  3. Work with FirstNet to help prioritize needs across a region or a state. Such needs might be expanded coverage, apps and app stores, in-building coverage and more.
  4. Insofar as possible, help remove or mitigate local permitting and regulatory processes thereby allowing rapid FirstNet deployment to occur.
  5. Step up and fund user fees and devices for those local and state responders – volunteer firefighters for example – who cannot afford them.
Sue Swenson

Sue Swenson

Sue Swenson, Chair of the FirstNet Board, laid down the challenge to FirstNet staff in a speech at the PSCR Annual Conference on June 7, 2016, in San Diego.   Over the next year, she said, FirstNet needs to plan for the “excellent operation of this network.”  FirstNet “has to be better than any other network in the world today.”

She went on to say FirstNet is “demanded by public safety, shaped by public safety, FirstNet is public safety’s network.”

Amen.

1 Comment

Filed under deployables, disaster, drones, FirstNet, future of technology, Internet of Things, PSCR

Fearing Government, Fearing Technology: the Ying and Yang

America's Top Fears 2015Americans fear government corruption more than anything else.

More than terrorist attacks, identity theft, running out of money, economic collapse, drunk drivers, police brutality, insects and snakes.   Gee, we fear Government Corruption more than we are afraid of Obamacare and even more than Reptiles.

Government corruption?  In the United States of America?   Our greatest fear?

And that fear trumps any other by a wide margin – 13 percentage points.   Our second greatest fear – Cyberterrorism – isn’t even close.

Well, so says Chapman University’s Wilkinson College of Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences which recently completed a statistically valid survey of what Americans fear.

Chapman classified all the fears into 10 “fear domains” such as man-made disasters, technology, government, crime, daily life, and so forth.   As a group (or domain), Americans most feared man-made disasters, then technology, then government.  Lowest domains on the “fear scale” are Personal Anxieties, Daily Life and the Judgment of Others.

This makes some sense.  We believe we have much control our personal lives than we do over global issues such as war, disaster, or even the march of technology.  “Daily Life” we as individuals can conquer.  “Cyber terrorism” not so much.

Here are the respondents’ worst fears:

Fear Fear Domain Afraid or Very Afraid
Corruption of Government Officials Government 58.0%
Cyber-terrorism Technology 44.8%
Corporate Tracking of Personal Information Technology 44.6%
Terrorist Attacks Man-Made Disasters 44.4%
Government Tracking of Personal Information Technology 41.4%
Bio-Warfare Man-Made Disasters 40.9%
Identity Theft Crime 39.6%
Economic Collapse Man-Made Disasters 39.2%
Running out of Money in the Future Personal Future 37.4%
Credit Card Fraud Crime 36.9%

 

Many, if not most, of these concerns revolve around technology.  Even a couple of fears classified as “crime” are really technology-based:  identity theft and credit card fraud.

“Fear of technology” is a long-standing and even ancient human dread.   Such fears gave rise to the Luddite movement, when humans smashed power looms creating cloth in the early 19th Century, and many science fiction stories ranging from Frankenstein to the 1927 film Metropolis to the computerphobia of the 1980s (“you’ll never get one of those damned computers on my desk.  I have a secretary with a typewriter.”)

New waves of techno-phobia are now washing our shores, including the fear of robots taking over work and a significant new fear of artificial intelligence (AI).  Even tech heavyweight entrepreneurs such as Elon Musk and Bill Gates have voiced the fear of AI, which, of course, might be the last fear humans ever have, as our future robot overloads decide to do away with the frail, short-lived, human beings who created them.   This concern about AI has caused the White House to hold four workshops around the United States to address the effects of artificial intelligence.  The first one, held in Seattle on May 24, 2016, focused, perhaps not surprisingly, on the effects of AI on government and the legal system.

Tracking Personal Information

Some of these fears interact with other.   Respondents to this survey clearly are concerned about tracking of their personal information by corporations and governments.   Yet many of us willingly “opt in” to this tracking, using store loyalty cards or tagging the faces of our friends and children on sites such as Facebook and Instagram.

Don’t we know that we are willingly building huge corporate databases every time we search for something online or make a credit card purchase?    Every time we tag a friend’s face online we are contributing to vast corporate data store which will be (or perhaps is) being used for facial recognition.  For these reasons, and the advent of apps like FindFace, the Observer recently recommended individuals pull all their photos off the Internet. (if you check out my Facebook page you will see very few photos of family.)

And access to these databases is sold to the highest bidder.   Soon we’ll walk into a restaurant or other store and be greeted by name, thanks to a database of faces and facial recognition software.  Perhaps the greeter will be a robot replacing the infamous elderly WalMart employees at the door.   The greeter will ask what we want for dinner or what we are shopping for, and even make suggestions based upon our previous purchase history of food and menu items, or our most recent online searches on Amazon.

Mobile phone companies are getting into the tracking game.  Verizon has tried it, and NTT Docomo launched its tracking software in May, 2016 (that link, if you click on it, has a tracking code embedded as well!).

Potentially even more disturbing uses exist.   Perhaps a store will match our face and identity with our history of unpaid parking tickets.  And some big data algorithm will identify that people with unpaid parking tickets who have few Facebook friends but are looking to buy camouflage clothes are at high potential for shoplifting.

Many private buildings and stores also use video surveillance.  These private videos were essential to capturing the Boston marathon bomber.   But how do corporations use their troves of video data?   Are they marrying facial recognition databases, online search/shopping data and video so they know and track who is on premise?  Certainly such data is useful in solving theft and other crimes, but how else might corporations use it?   It is possible that the whereabouts of individual human beings might be constantly tracked in the future, as soon as they leave their private homes.

Government Tracking and Corruption

Edward Snowden revealed new information about United States Federal Government tracking of data including a database of cell phone call data (although not, as far as we know, recording of domestic calls themselves).   We also know local and federal law enforcement has used “stingray” devices to simulate cell sites thereby capturing the identities of all cell phones in a geographical area.   Many jurisdictions have extensively deployed video surveillance cameras as well as dashboard cameras and now body-worn video.

Furthermore some police departments are monitoring social media including twitter, Instagram and Facebook.  Much of this “monitoring” is really for criminal investigation.  Many crooks are notoriously vain and stupid, posting their hauls from home burglary on Facebook or fencing the goods on Craigslist.  Unfortunately domestic violence threats and threats toward teachers and schools are also often found on social media.

No police department, in my extensive personal experience, is building a giant database of facial images and personal information for tracking and spying on citizens.  Certainly such databases exist for people who have been booked into jail, and facial recognition apps exist for use by law enforcement, based upon mug shot databases.  But collection of information about individual law-abiding citizens is, I think, rare.

And this brings me full circle back to Americans’ Number 1 fear:  government corruption.

Again, in my personal experience, corruption simply does not exist in the work of the average government employee.  On the West Coast, at least, police officers don’t accept $20 bills when you hand over your driver’s license after being caught speeding, and building plans officials don’t expect cash to expedite a permit or overlook certain violations of the building code.   There certainly are individual cases of corruption such as one which recently occurred in Utah.

Politicians – elected officials – get in trouble all the time, to the point where Virginia and Illinois both seem to expect corruption from their Governors.

And, indeed, perhaps this is why Americans fear Government Corruption.   It is not the cop they meet on the street, or the building inspector, or the DMV license examiner.  It is the Governor, the assemblymen, who are on the take.   It is Hillary Clinton, who kept her State Department email on a server in the basement of her home, or Donald Trump, who lies publicly about Muslims rejoicing after 9/11, yet wins elections.

Perhaps government corruption should be our number 1 fear.

1 Comment

Filed under corruption, cybersecurity, disaster, fear, government

Handicapping the States and FirstNet

What decision will State Governors make?

What decision will State Governors make?

Why would the governor of a State refuse an offer from the Federal government to build a statewide wireless network supporting public safety responders?  Cities, counties and states have invested hundreds of millions of dollars to build their own two-way radio networks to dispatch firefighters, paramedics, law enforcement officers, transportation, transit, public utilities and other responders.  Now the Federal government plans to deploy a nationwide cellular network for such responders, called FirstNet, so their smart phones, mobile computers and other devices have connectivity.

Yet some Governor’s may “opt out” of allowing such a network to be built in their states.  In this blog post I advance some of my theories as to why that might happen, and the chances of a State’s success in building its own cellular network.   Read the entire post here.

Leave a comment

Filed under FirstNet, wireless

Echo, Public Safety, FirstNet

Amazon's Echo

Amazon’s Echo

I recently attended and spoke at the Government Technology Beyond-the-Beltway event.  Our panel of local and state Chief Information Officers (CIOs) was asked “what is the most significant technology advance in your lifetime”.   I answered “either the IBM PC or the iPhone”.  Others mentioned the Internet and the world-wide-web.   (No one mentioned the development of email, invented by Ray Tomlinson, who just recently passed away, and sometimes considered the bane of our existence.)

A more significant question might be “what will be the most significant technology advance in the near future”.   Or, to narrow it a bit, what will be the most significant technology advance for public safety first responders in the near future?

I’m convinced such technologies already exist, or, in the words of William Gibson:  “the future is here, it is just not evenly distributed yet”.

One of the candidates is Amazon’s Echo.

Echo is a speech-enabled technology which is arguably better than Apple’s Siri or Microsoft’s Cortana and which can be used right now in homes to do everything from order more laundry detergent to play music to control the thermostat. All by recognizing speech.  And connecting to Amazon’s website, of course.

We hire and extensively train police officers, state troopers, sheriff’s deputies, firefighters and paramedics as first responders. Then, because we want to be “data driven”, we tell them to sit down at computers and type crime reports, hand-write medical reports, prepare fire code inspections and do what are essentially clerical tasks which take them away from the real work of law enforcement and fire protection.

Enter Echo.

Why don’t we have Echo-like devices in police vehicles and fire apparatus and even in police officer badges or firefighter helmets?

star-trek-comm-badge

Comm Badge

Can you imagine a cop who comes to your house to investigate a burglary, taps her badge (just like the CommBadge in Star Trek) and asks “Alexa, have any red Schwinn bicycles been recovered lately?” or “Alexa, search all nearby pawn shops for Canon EOS rebel single-lens reflex cameras sold in the last three days”.

Or the traffic officer who goes to his police car and simply speaks to the car “Car 54 take a collision report for two vehicles who collided at this intersection twenty-two minutes ago,” then proceeds to dictate the report to the car.  And the Echo-like device in the car prompts the officer for any additional information, even doing database searches returning information like “Officer Schrier, I detect that the red Ford Mustang involved in this collision has fourteen unpaid parking tickets.  Shall I call for a tow truck?”

Similarly paramedics responding to an emergency medical call could talk to their devices “Alexa, get me the detailed health records for William M. Schrier, apparent heart attack victim, specifically including any known medications he is using and any known adverse reactions to meds”.  Or “Call Schrier’s personal physician at the highest priority, locating the doctor immediately for this emergency.” And that same paramedic could dictate observations and reports, rather than hand-writing them or typing them.

language-translation-software-image

Language Translation

Another significant use for speech-activated devices are language translation.   We are a nation of immigrants, and real-time translation services like Google translate or Skype.

Although most police cars are equipped with mobile data computers today, many police officers are justifiably skeptical of writing reports in their vehicles, especially if it means looking down at a screen and a keyboard, and not paying attention to their surroundings.   Killing of police officers like those in New York City, Houston/Harris County, and Lakewood (Washington) have reinforced this fear.  But with speech-to-text such as Echo, officers might be able to spend more time on the street, less time at computers in the police station.

Even in daily situations, police officers who need to tap or type on their in-car computer while driving represent a potential hazard to themselves and others.  Being able to give verbal commands such as “acknowledge that dispatch and set status to en route” or “text Sergeant Schrier that I’ll be following up immediately” improve not only speed but also safety for officers.

Echo and similar technologies do, however, require high speed Internet access.

FirstNet-logo-vertical

FirstNet

For first responders working in the field, that means 4G LTE networks.   The First Responder Network Authority (“FirstNet”) is planning to build just such a network, specifically designed for first responders.  FirstNet will, perhaps, have applications, apps and devices specifically tailored for first responder missions.  FirstNet recognized the importance of such voice technologies in a blog post here.

Even more importantly, public safety software vendors of computer-aided dispatch systems (CAD) and fire/police records management systems (RMS) should immediately start integrating speech-to-text technologies into their products.   A speech-enabled RMS will significantly reduce the time for a paramedic, law enforcement officer or firefighter to create reports.  Such reports will be more accurate and of higher quality, and first responders will spend more time on the streets and less time typing in front of a computer.

Echo or similar speech-to-command technologies should be high on FirstNet’s list.  And on the list of any company creating software for first responders.

 

5 Comments

Filed under emergency operations, eRepublic, firefighting, FirstNet, future of technology, Law Enforcement

The Internet of Speeding Parking Things

School Zone Speed Camera

School Zone Speed Camera in West Seattle

My spouse recently got a speeding ticket.  In the mail.  From the Seattle Police Department.  For 32 miles per hour in a 20 mile per hour zone.

Not just any zone.  A school zone.

On her way to work.  As a teacher.

234 bucks.

It was a ticket from one of those automated semi-robotic radar guns with a camera which shoots innocent citizens as we drive past schools so fast we’re like bowling balls racing toward the pins.  Well … perhaps … racing past the “kids”, as the case may be.

Now I have nothing against kids.  Gee, we’re raising two of them.  Six and ten years old.  The last thing I want to do is have them mowed down by racing middle-aged banshees trying to get to work.  But getting a ticket in the mail two weeks after you commit the offense is not exactly what I would call “preventative policing”:  protecting kids by slowing people down and giving them (the drivers, not the kids) immediate, on scene, in-your-face feedback that they are going too fast.

Don’t get me wrong.  A $234 speeding ticket got the attention of both my spouse and me.  For a few minutes.  Until the next time we are late to work.

Like most (generally) law-abiding citizens, we don’t want to speed.  Especially in school zones.  Or in places where there is an automatic semi-robotic radar gun with camera waiting for us.

Isn’t there a better way to protect kids and keep law-abiding citizens … Well … Law abiding?

Enter the Internet of Speeding and Parking Things (IoSPT).

arnold-terminator

Arnold the Terminator as voice for your new “Don’t Speed” App

Why don’t we attach a transponder (fancy word for “radio”) to every speed zone sign in a City?  Then let’s distribute – for free – an app to every citizen and to every automobile we own (yes, cars run apps too).   The speed sign talks to the app and the app talks to the smart phone (or to the car itself) and the phone screams at the driver “slow the hell down, dumbo, you are going too fast, and you are going to get a ticket.  A two-hundred and thirty-four dollar ticket.  And the judge is going to throw the book at you because you are driving like a pitcher’s fastball toward the umpire but aimed at a bunch of innocent kids in a school zone.  Get your frigging act together and step on the brake, dammit.”

Perhaps the app can have the voice of Arnold Schwarzen-what’s-his-name or Clint Eastwood.  “Slow down or you are going to Make the Mayor’s Day” (or at least help the Mayor close her budget gap).

While we are at it, how about putting IoSPT things in a lot of places in our roadways, not just speed-zone signs?  Like in every parking meter (do those even exist any more?) or embedded in curbs or guard rails.   Such devices could really help us law-abiding citizens stay law-abiding.

Example:   Warning us when our parking time is about to expire – and we could use our app to pay a premium to buy more time.

IoSPT devices in every parking space could visually map all the parking spaces available in a city, directing people to immediately available on-street parking rather than encouraging endless “circling the block” to find an open space.  THAT contributes to pollution and climate change.  (San Francisco actually is piloting this technology).

IoSPT things in traffic lights could alert cars and their drivers via an app to stop when the light turns red, and even prevent cars on the cross street from starting up too fast to hit the red-light runner (who would automagically get a $234 ticket, by the way).

fingernail-painting-driving

Painting Nails while Driving

IoSPT devices in guard rails and median strips and other roadway obstacles could help semi-automated cars stay in their lanes, or at least alert those of us who text or do email while driving (or paint our fingernails or do our hair while driving) that we are swerving out of our lane.

We talk to our smart phones all the time, with digital assistants like Siri and Cortana and Google Voice.   I suppose Amazon will even have “Echo for the Car” soon so the car can automatically order itself more oil or windshield wiper fluid when needed.

So why not have the road talk to the car?  And its driver?

I suppose some governments, taking a clue from George Orwell’s “Big Brother”, will force cars to slow down in school zones.  In other words, the speed sign talks to the car and tells the car it can’t go faster than 20 miles per hour.   And it doesn’t.

eckstein-drunk-driver-killer

Eckstein Middle School Zone after Drunk Driver kills Grandparents

But is that so bad?  Perhaps “Big Brother” cars will prevent tragedies like the multiple-time drunk driver who killed two grandparents and seriously injured a mother and her newborn at Seattle’s Eckstein Middle School in 2013.  And keep the rest of us on time for work because we are not going to get to speed through a school zone.  Period.   And perhaps let a few more innocent kids live to become speeding adults.

Oh sure, the IoSPT would put some people and things out of work.  Meter maids (I mean:  “parking enforcement officers”).   Automated semi-robotic radar guns with cameras.  Perhaps a few police officers.  But gee, don’t we have enough other crime and public safety problems that perhaps a few of those folks could be redeployed to address them?

Except the automated semi-robotic radar guns with cameras.

Those go to the junkyard.

3 Comments

Filed under apps, future of technology, government operations, Internet of Things

Cops and Teachers: The New Social Workers

Social Worker

Social Work

The social workers and case workers of the future probably reside in our schools and police stations, carry gradebooks and body-worn video cameras, walk the halls of schools and the streets of our cities.

Let’s face it, police officers and teachers have always been astute, street-wise (and “hallway-wise”) psychologists.  Few people have the guts to be locked into a roomful of 30 high school sophomores in a required math class for 60 minutes.   Not too many of us have stepped out of a patrol car to investigate an assault in a bar only to be greeted by a crowd of drunken, angry, college students.  (Having been both a police officer and high school teacher, and faced both situations, I’ll take the bar crowd any day.)

Good teachers rapidly learn to “out-psych” their students and trick them into learning.    I’m not talking about the advanced placement classes, mind you.  Anyone can teach advanced placement English or high school calculus.   But trying to teach a classroom of C and D students basic English grammar is a challenge of a different order.  Good teachers rapidly develop techniques to control the class and actually make students interested in the material.

Similarly police officers – especially detectives – develop techniques to help discover concealed information from suspects and informants – even witnesses – and use it to solve crimes.

Social work, however, is becoming a new calling for teachers and police officers.

Foster High School

Foster High School

The Seattle Times recently wrote about Foster High School in Tukwila, Washington, and a turn-around in its performance.    The article states:

The school’s guidance counselors serve as de-facto social workers, fielding requests for help with utility bills and eviction notices — even dealing with bedbugs and moldy apartments.

“We come in and hear hard, hard stories,” said Laura Linde, Foster’s chief guidance counselor. “We don’t always have the resources to help.”

They usually find a way.

Teachers have long recognized that effects outside of the classroom have a huge effect on learning.  Angry, abusive parents, hunger, homelessness, fear, even out-of-date (“uncool”) clothing all affect students’ ability to learn.   In the past educators and schools felt there was little they could do to affect such outside influences.

School lunch programs were an early intervention, instituted before World War II, to address the issue of hunger in schools.   Some schools implemented uniforms to reduce social inequity between students which prevents learning.

Schools such as Foster take this intervention to a new level, actively seeking those factors which distract students, and working with parents and social service agencies to address them.   Perhaps individual teachers are not becoming social workers, but certainly they are at the forefront of seeing problems with learning and helping to identify specific problems with individual students, so guidance counselors and others can intervene.

Similarly, many police departments are trying to move from a “warrior culture” to more of a “guardian” one.   Former King County Sheriff Sue Rahr, now executive director of the Washington Criminal Justice Training Commission, has been a leader in such a cultural shift.     Part of the “guardian” idea is that police officers’ jobs are not just to apprehend criminals and catch members of the public doing something wrong (speeding), but rather to help determine and correct the underlying causes of crime in individuals and families.

Seattle Police Crisis Intervention Team

Seattle Police Crisis Intervention Team

The Seattle Police Department, among others, has been at the forefront of this cultural shift.  Every Seattle Police Officer has received at least 18 hours of crisis intervention training.  More than 400 officers have received 40 to 80 hours of such training.  When police officers encounter people in crisis – specifically the mentally ill or homeless individuals who are potentially at risk – they attempt to engage social services to address their physical and mental health needs.  For individuals who police frequently encounter, the Crisis Intervention Team is building an individual Crisis Intervention Plan, which includes resources such as their caseworker, social worker, concerned family members and others who can be engaged to immediately help the individual.

Every such encounter is logged.   Sometimes an individual is violent, or armed, or so mentally impaired that officers have no choice but to use force and the result is jail or a mental ward.  But less than 7% of encounters end in this fashion.

Washington DC Frequent 911 Caller

Washington DC Frequent 911 Caller

Fire departments also encounter people in real or imagined medical crisis.  One woman called 911 in Washington D.C. for medical help 226 times in a single year.  Another study found that 14 to 27 per cent of calls to 911 for medical reasons are really not emergencies and could be handled in doctor’s offices or walk-in clinics.  A third study found that 1% of “frequent flyer” users account for 22% of the health care costs.

Salt Lake City addressed this with a “Nurse Navigator” program – a trained nurse-dispatcher handles low-acuity 911 medical calls, attempting to find the proper resources, other than a fire department paramedic and ambulance – to address needs of some frequent callers.

As Sergeant Dan Nelson of the Seattle Police told radio station KUOW’s David Hyde: “I say all the time, police and social workers are two completely different jobs while we’re going towards the same common goal. We want this person to not be relying on the emergency rooms and jails, not have to be such high utilizers of the system, and at the end of the day we want this person to have a nice productive life.”

I’m not sure where these efforts will ultimately lead.   Perhaps every American will, to some extent, become a social worker.  This actually would take us “back to the future” – back to a time when families and communities “took care of their own” before a time when government was expected to be the first line of attack for social problems.

But I hope the new equilibrium we reach does not abandon government programs all together, but rather involves most government workers – especially teachers and cops and firefighters – as “guardians” of the social fabric, yet keeps many critical social programs such as Medicaid, food stamps, school hot lunches and housing subsidies in place.

Of course there will always be hardened criminals, and evil people, arsonists and people so mentally unbalanced that they need to be institutionalized.  We’ll still need jails and mental hospitals and professional “guardians” of our social fabric.

But, with a little bit of luck, every American will become more involved again in taking care of our neighbors.

Leave a comment

Wednesday, 2 March 2016 · 8:59 pm