It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ban on Public Broadcast of 911 Calls Generates Heated Debate

page: 1
6

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Ban on Public Broadcast of 911 Calls Generates Heated Debate


www.adn.com

JUNEAU -- A hearing on a new bill that would make it a crime to broadcast 911 emergency calls started as expected Wednesday -- with a clash between the First Amendment and a victim's right of privacy.
(visit the link for the full news article)



[edit on 25-3-2010 by burdman30ott6]




posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 12:27 PM
link   


"The sponsor's not arguing that these things should be pulled back from public records and these things should be confidential," Senette said. "Indeed there's a legitimate purpose to having these things out in the open -- disclosure laws ensure that our state agencies are accountable to the people that they serve, and this is something that the sponsor fully supports. It still would be a public record -- you just can't air it."


Ah! I've never once heard of any outcry from the public over having their own 911 call played publicly. I have, however, heard more than a handfull of publicly played 911 calls in which the dispatcher was rude, condescending, and even downright derelict in their duties. Nice to see that an increasing number of states' representatives have resolved every more important issue in their state, freeing up enough time to cover the asses of a handfull of state employees and agencies by ensuring when they screw up, the public won't be as aware of it.

Honestly, let's face a fact... hearing a reporter read off "...and that's when the 911 dispatcher said "So? What do you want us to do about it, come over and shoot your daughter?" and actually hearing the dispatcher say it in a real time recording have totally different levels of impact.


www.adn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 01:07 PM
link   
You make a good point. I don't see a reason why a 911 call (recorded) should be "silenced". Especially considering that your (US) taxpayers pay for that service. Shouldn't that be public knowledge?

Then again, I guess it's easy to sweep it under the carpet with "National Security"



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 01:15 PM
link   
I've had occasion to call 911 3 times since 1998 and twice experienced absolute morons on the other end. Then when the cops came they were already mad at me because I didn't treat the dispatcher with reverence.

Jason



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 01:41 PM
link   
First off, to all the men and women that handle emergency calls...

My continuing experience with the service you provide is much appreciated.

I believe the public right to know is important. And like a cockpit voice recorder, the actual voices of people witnessing an event is important to everyone interested in the truth.

How much would have been lost if the 9/11 calls from planes and the towers were covered up ?





Edit: bbcode

[edit on 25/3/2010 by anxietydisorder]



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 02:06 PM
link   
I'm torn


As an academic, I find the calls highly important in documenting and researching the events of that day.

As a person, if a loved one of mine died that die, I would be unable to listen to all the raw emotion as the events were unfolding, over and over and over again.

As long as transcripts remain available, I have no problem with not having the calls broadcast, could you imagine if out of sheer coincidence you turn on the television and hear the urgent call of your deceased spouse or family member. I wouldn't be able to deal with that. Fortunately, at this point in time you really only have to avoid it on the anniversary, or the occasional documentary.

There is however another option, if someone wants to use a specific segment contact the next of kin and have them sign a waiver.

As someone else stated, I also have not heard any public outcry over the tapes, although I don't live Alaska.



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by anxietydisorder
\
How much would have been lost if the 9/11 calls from planes and the towers were covered up ?


Exactly, I would not be surprised if they soon refuse to allow the press to interview people after a 'terrorist attack' (the definition of which is expanding faster than the government) because of 'national security concerns'. The crackdown on information is here.



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 02:10 PM
link   
i agree with the previous poster. This is a tough call, mainly because the media has abused their power to broadcast these messages.

The media are like savage beasts waiting for any celebrities to make a 9-11 call so they can air it on TV and criticize the people.



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by searching4truth

As long as transcripts remain available, I have no problem with not having the calls broadcast.......etc.


A transcript is just words on a page.
How can type on a screen or piece of paper convey the nuance and emotion of the situation. So much is lost in translation if you don't hear it from the horse's mouth.

Even the voice isn't enough if you consider the information lost if you don't see the face of the person speaking. Expressions say more than just a voice, and if all you have is a voice, then that still conveys more information that any words on a page could ever provide.

Information isn't bad, it's a necessity.
Just ask the government.


[edit on 25/3/2010 by anxietydisorder]



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 02:28 AM
link   
This is just another example of those in offices of responsibility that do not want to be held accountable for their actions let alone contribute in any way shape or form the recordings that would prove their insensitive remarks, rude behavior and most of all remarks which prove that the entire 911 department is riddled with internal issues that need to be addressed.

Denying records of such public data is to me a clear violation and circumvention of what we should be seeing coming from any local, state or federal office that provides records under FOIA. If only they were as honest as they claim to be.

Thanks for the posting.



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 04:00 AM
link   
Yet another "out of sight is out of mind and lets sweep what we can under the carpet" manouvre.

The less we know the quicker everyone will forget..thats right isnt it??

Or are there too many people asking too many questions..like "thats not my son on the phone, i know his voice its not him" or "why is it on the Betty Ong call theres absolute silence behind her ?"

Maybe there are just too many clues in the calls and sooner or later somone will pick up on that clue.



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 05:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by andy1972

"why is it on the Betty Ong call theres absolute silence behind her ?"


How can you say that.


You can tell Betty is in the rear of the aircraft due to the engine noise, and you can clearly hear other voices in the background.

Pull up the call again and listen to it on decent speakers or headphones. This call is an important document because you have the voice of the person witnessing the event as it unfolds. To take away recordings like this would be a crime against all the people.


EDIT: Here's a total WTF.

www.youtube.com...

[edit on 26/3/2010 by anxietydisorder]



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by anxietydisorder
 


1 - I said the call from Betty Ong, and you put up a link which is for C C LYLES, not Betty Ong. Read and RE READ the post.

2 . Betty Ong states "they are using MACE and we cant breath"...however, she shows no sign of respitory problems while talk for 25 minutes. Anyone whos ever had contact with Mace or CS or pepper gas can tell you that if your even close, you choke...but in the confines of a aircraft???

The molecular design is such that it clings to your clothes, so if they hit you with it now , tommorow if you smell your unwashed clothes its still as good. So in a plane....it would be horrendous.

3 - If the hijacking was in process while she rang....why are there no raised voices, screams, noise of moving, people shouting etc...only the noise of the "motors"...

So your WTF
should be for the call of Betty Ong..maybe she had an oxygen mask on...but she doesnt mention that.



[edit on 27-3-2010 by andy1972]



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 11:03 AM
link   
Triple post. please trash. sorry. thank you. damn.

[edit on 27-3-2010 by andy1972]



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 11:05 AM
link   
double post...please trash.Thank you



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 12:55 PM
link   
Primarily I believe it's the public servants who don't want the recordings to be released because it exposes them and the truth of the matter. They would like to control the information in order manipulate or hide the truth when it exposes their lies.

A few years ago I made the mistake of calling 911 in the midst of anger after having a dispute with some people. I actually hung up the phone and was called back. I then told dispatchers that I could deal with it and I didn't want to press charges. I told the police the same thing and then was written an infraction for false reporting, because they were pissed they had to deal with me especially since I wouldn't press charges against the party women who "borrowed" my rental car against my wishes.

A year later I was run through the system mill and ended up being arrested & jailed for missing court and I nearly died in jail, but that's another story.

Knowing the 911 recordings would help prove my case, I requested that the prosecutor provide me with the original 911 recording. 24 hours after my request I was subsequently told the 911 recordings had been deleted and the charges were dropped.

While the judge contends that the recordings were deleted as part of normal IT routine as my case had taken an unusual amount of time. I believe the fact that I nearly lost my life in their jail and they didn't want my 911 tape to become a media event that it was conveniently deleted.



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 01:00 PM
link   
Recently there was an article in the paper about a cut in overtime for 911 operators. Apparently there had been some abuse. The highest earning 911 operator made $142,000 last year. Now, call me cynical but either they were way to overpaid to answer the phone or they were at work way more than could be useful, helpful, or productive. Maybe that is just me, I do not have all the facts.

Either way, for that kind of money I should get to hear how this person does the job I am paying them so much to do.

[edit on 27-3-2010 by K J Gunderson]



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 05:08 PM
link   
As it is written, this law is abiguous enough to prevent someone from even whistleblowing if they have been on the other end of an unprofessional 911 call and recorded it. I'm not a fan of open ended wording in laws because it almost always ends up biting the people in the rear end.



new topics

top topics



 
6

log in

join