Maybe ask caller to connect via FaceTime or similar for serious cases? IIRC most phones already share precise caller location when calling 911. Everything else should be treated as spam.
> Maybe ask caller to connect via FaceTime or similar for serious cases? IIRC most phones already share precise caller location when calling 911. Everything else should be treated as spam.
That obviously won't work, because you can't expect people in legitimate emergencies to do something like that. Say they don't even have one of those apps installed, is the 911 dispatcher supposed to talk them through installing Zoom before they send help? That's literally a Kafkaesque nightmare (or straight out of a political attack ad).
Honestly, I think the most realistic way to solve this is my making investigations into SWATing really high priority (e.g. dedicated FBI people investigating these crimes), and then handing out heavy, punitive sentences as a deterrent. The only reason anyone does this is they think they can get away with it (and often do). I think it'd stop once that impression is changed.
Don't know much about Android but every iPhone comes out of the box with it. And it shouldn't even be an option, but default. Like smartphone makers should enforce this. Probably require you to stream from both cameras.
> Don't know much about Android but every iPhone comes out of the box with it. And it shouldn't even be an option, but default. Like smartphone makers should enforce this. Probably require you to stream from both cameras.
It's just a terrible idea. I'm guessing it took less than a minute to come up with it, and you spent that time thinking of reasons to support it and almost no time thinking about the problems with it. It's just that bad.
Some obvious problems:
1. You didn't consider the most popular smartphone OS at all.
2. Not everyone has a smartphone.
3. Not everyone who has a smartphone knows how to use all the apps on it, or can figure a new one out in a stressful situation.
4. How exactly do you think someone who's actually being threatened would prove it to the police over a video call (reveal their hiding place to take video of the perp with the gun)?
5. Don't you think the SWATter (or whatever you call them) could fake a video call using some accepted service, like they already fake phone calls?
6. What if there's no data at their location, or the signal is too poor for video but good enough for voice (like my parents' basement)?
7. Etc. (I could go on, but I think I proved my point)
Definitely not the case with VOIP. I had a case where a roommate in college had to call 911 on our VOIP phone (bad cell service in the house) and we were connected to a dispatcher in a different state (where I had lived previously). I doubt if most people remember to update their location with the VOIP provider when they move.
> Yes all of those are issues that don’t even take a second to figure out. But it’s a step forward.
Most of them are dealbreakers. A few even show that your solution won't even properly address the SWATting problem it's ostensibly meant to solve, even ignoring the bad tradeoffs.
I'll grant you it's a step, just not a step forward.
"I think someone is robbing my house, I'm currently hiding in the attic"
"Great, let me send you a calendar invite for a Microsoft Teams meeting. Can you do 13:30? Oh no wait, my supervisor has a clash then... how about 14:45?"
