I was listening a NPR segment today discussing new laws some state are considering to curb the publicizing of 911 calls. I couldn’t find the segment online yet but I’d expect it in a day or two, I’ll link it then.
Often the news media will replay 911 recordings on the air as past of news stories. The people calling are calling because they have an emergency. Is it fair to them to be made public figures for doing so? Is it a violation of their privacy to put their voices out for the world to hear?
Currently 911 audios are easy to acquire. One needs no special considerations to access them and use them for any purpose. Someone could go around grabbing these recordings to say make a website for the purpose of humiliating callers.
I found it to be in interesting debate and am wondering what you on the Dope think.
I’m supportive of the transcripts of calls being readily available but I think to access the audio recordings there should be some level of bureaucracy to discourage those without compelling reason from pursuing them.
Ha–I listened to the same thing you did, also thought about starting a GD thread on it (thanks for saving me the trouble), and I pretty much share your viewpoint. I’m a little bothered by the fact that I’m not sure why I feel the way I do.
I definitely do not think that a 911 caller’s privacy rights are infringed by having the tape publicly available. Therefore, I don’t think a lawsuit by a 911 caller to force a government to not produce the tape to a requester would (or should) be successful.
Therefore, I don’t think that a government must or should have a law that 911 tapes will not be released. But, I think such a law is a good thing. If I ever have to call 911, I wouldn’t want to have to accidentally hear my voice on the TV or radio and re-live the whole experience. And I don’t see any compelling interest in other people listening to the tape that outweighs the feelings of those involved in the call.
I hate the fact that they play these things on air. I don’t see why even a transcript needs to be made available except if needed at trial. I imagine it will eventually cause people to hesitate before calling 911. Can you imagine reporting your neighbor or family member for what you had reasonable cause to think was a crime only to find out later it wasn’t? They could make your life hell. How about a witness to a mafia crime?
Even if the 911 tape contains information that contradicts something previously reported, I don’t see any reason why we need to hear the tape. A report on the discrepancies should be sufficient.
The broadcast of Cory Haim’s mother’s 911 call was completely unnecessary.
If an emergency-services tape is used in a courtroom, doesn’t it become a matter of public record? If so, any red tape you put between anyone accessing the tape and the tape itself has to account for this.
If it’s never used in a courtroom, unless there’s a valid privacy concern, I can’t see a reason to withhold them from the public. It’s a public service, and obscuring the way public services are handled is bad for the public.
If we’re going to talk about off chances (like Mafia witnesses), what about the off chance that someone, a private individual, wants to access the tape to make 911 operators more efficient?
A far simpler method of dealing with the situation would be A) disallowing the broadcast of 911 tapes, or B) disallowing the broadcast of any 911 tapes that weren’t redacted for privacy, or C) disallowing 911 tapes availability without redaction, or signature on a NDA.
911 is used to call for emergency medical assistance. In this country we generally believe that people have a right to medical privacy. People will be afraid to call if their calls are going to be put on the news. People also call about domestic violence and other things that are very personal.
Medicare is a public service. Do you think that anyone on Medicare should have their medical records put on the news or the Internet for others to peruse and laugh at?
My personal opinion is that they should be “available” in the sense that anyone can request them, but that the person requesting it should have to show good cause, in order to get it, and then have to show good cause why broadcasting it or publishing a transcript should outweigh the caller’s privacy interest. We don’t need to hear the anxiety in the caller’s voice for a news report to tell us what happened. We don’t need to see a transcript of the type of stammering people sometimes do in emergency situations either. A simple description of what was reported is sufficient.
I think the best way to look at this is ALL PUBLIC RECORDS should be, well public, unless there is a darn good reson NOT to make them public.
Embarassment isn’t a good enough reason in my opinon.
The issue really is coming up because the Internet makes those records so easily accessable. And once something is online it can be there indefinately.
We as society send people double messages. Few people would be ashamed about being robbed, but many women or men even, might be ashamed about being raped.
Yet we say, being a rape victim is nothing to be ashamed of. Yet news will not publish the name of the woman. OK in effect what you’re donig is saying “Rape is a crime that one should be ashamed of.”
It seems easy to say, keep the records private, but there is way too much corruption to do so. Time and time again, you can find examples of people covering things up. It’s not enough to trust the news media will tell you what is truly meant. One needs to hear it for oneself to correctly decide.
Having a much information as possible limits corruption. The more people that have eyes into it the more we can find out about it and stop it.