Digital Social Networking Will Save You From Terrorism (and Other News from the States)
By Dan O'Connor February 16th, 2007
In Stories
And you thought facebook was just a novel way for twelve year old kids in Wyoming to bully each other…
Brains at the University of Maryland are proposing a network of Community Response Grids in partnership with the emergency services. According to one of the brains involved, Professor Shneiderman, traditional telephone reporting systems get overwhelmed during major events (LIKE TERROR by EVIL DOERS), a problem which could be circumvented by co-opting social networking technologies, allowing multiple citizens (always a reassuring word) to report incidents at once.
The Maryland brains admit to potential problems (pranksters and the 911 equivalent of a giant 404), but believe they could have a viable prototype up and running in less than four years. I like the idea - for once citizen-friendly technologies seem to be several steps ahead of the government’s.
Meanwhile, those of you who suspect that the 2-million signature online petition demanding that Tony Blair pay for all cars in the UK to run on fairy dust (or something) is not quite the digital reincarnation of the Chartists, will be thrilled to hear about the US Chamber of Commerce who have decided to dispense with the entire ‘you have to turn up to participate’ vibe entirely, and are organising a ‘Virtual March on Washington‘
Join me next week for my ‘virtual tax paying’ extravaganza…
1 Mat Morrison // Feb 17, 2007 at 8:07 pm
As I understand it, this is a system that lets people report problems (”emergencies, natural disasters, and terror attacks”), a sort of “MySpace for Bad Things Happening Right Now.”
I think I’m missing something here. Surely the reason one calls 911 (or 999, or 112) is that one wants someone better qualified than oneself to come and help one deal with one’s problem. I don’t get any sense that this project is going to address this.
2 Mat Morrison // Feb 18, 2007 at 10:22 am
I’ve looked at this a little more, and, well, still don’t get it.
Forgive me for being pedantic, but - when our phone services go down (switches knocked out by evil-doers or flood water, say; or a massive black-out caused by a Hurricane) - doesn’t it become increasingly hard to use the internet as well?
3 Dan // Feb 18, 2007 at 7:37 pm
But the interwebs are a series of small tubes, as Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska has assured us and are therefore likely immune to terrorist attacks.
I think they’re trying to do away with the one-on-one model of disaster reporting. Presumably the hope is that the information collates itself, rather than trickles in as people get through on the ‘phone.
I’m in Baltimore right now. I should ask someone.
4 Nigel Shardlow // Feb 27, 2007 at 10:20 am
On the day of the 7 July bombings the police cordoned off the street outside the office I was working in. Mobile phones worked intermittently, not because the network had been bombed, but because everybody was using them. We listened to the radio, various stations, but it was clear that nobody on air knew much. I was searching the internet for news - blogs, I guess - but information was difficult to find. And there was a real hunger, I remember, for information - any information. If there had been a ‘Disaster Central’ site to log in to, I would have been there.
5 Dan // Feb 27, 2007 at 10:41 am
I’m not sure I’d believe what I read on a blog. Part of me still tends to want to hear from our elected representatives at times like that. But then, as in Spain after the Madrid bombings, they shut down the TV, and lie to you for 36 hours.
6 Nigel Shardlow // Feb 28, 2007 at 2:09 pm
Exactly - I’m certain I don’t believe most of what I hear from the mainstream media. At least bloggers aren’t paid to lie.
7 Dan // Feb 28, 2007 at 3:44 pm
Well, not yet they’re not…
http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,2012714,00.html