Travel Technology - Arrest these London photographers NOW!!

Cellphone videos stage center in news

The new technology provides nearly instant amateur images for broadcast that the television news crews were not able to get.
By Matea Gold
Times Staff Writer

July 8, 2005
NEW YORK -- Shortly after bombs ripped through London's transportation system Thursday morning, U.S. and British television networks began airing the first footage of the aftermath — dim images of shaken commuters streaming through a smoky underground tunnel.

The video provided an immediate and intimate look at the scene but was hardly polished or professional. That's because it was shot not with television cameras but with mobile phones — the first widespread use of that technology in covering a major breaking news story.

Because tight security prevented news crews from quickly reaching the bombing sites, the cellphone footage was all that was immediately available from underground. Its instant embrace by traditional news networks underscored how an evolving technology can take on new and unexpected roles.

The camera-equipped cellphone, which wasn't available commercially a few years ago, has become a worldwide cultural phenomenon.

Of the 192 million cellphones in the U.S., about 18%, or roughly 34.5 million, now have cameras. The percentage of camera phones is even higher in Europe, where the technology has been around longer.

Loaded with features including text messaging, video games, cameras, live TV and the ability to record and transmit video through the Internet, the phones have become must-have items, especially among teens. They've been banned as voyeuristic irritants — or worse — at venues ranging from schools to Hollywood movie screenings. But, as they proved in London on Thursday, they can also provide a ground-level view of history.

http://www.calendarlive.com/tv/cl-et-tv8jul08,0,1577992.story

or

http://www.calendarlive.com/tv/cl-et-tv8jul08,0,7283434,print.story

Link to some of the image recorded:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/4660563.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nolavconsole/ifs_news/hi/nb_rm_fs.stm?nbram=1&nol_index=in_depth/uk/2005/london_amateur_footage&news=1&nbwm=1&bbwm=1&bbram=1

(The title was tounge in cheek! Another example of cameras being maligned)

The London terrorist attacks/mass murders are indeed tragic.

This article on the cellphone video phones interests me in a few ways:

1--The phones worked in "the tube". In DC due to exclusive contracts, only Verizon works in the metro.

2--Pax had video phones. I'm pretty technically savvy, and my phone only does still pics. I have phone envy.

3--The wireless data network supported the video stream AND was able to handle what was likely A LOT of calls.

Kudos to the tech companies in Britain.

This thread seems much better suited for the Travel Technology forum. I am moving this thread there.

-Chris

2--Pax had video phones. I'm pretty technically savvy, and my phone only does still pics. I have phone envy.

Video phones are finally available in the technological backwater that is the United States of America.

The Motorola E815 I've discussed in the V710 thread is available through Verizon, and shoots MPEG4 video as well as 1.3MP stills. You can get it for free if you qualify for New Every 2 . . . :D

Cameras built into cell phones have come on in leaps and bounds in the last two years. 2 mega pixels is no longer unusual and this will increase. Combine this with VGA video capability (coming to phones real soon now) and high speed data networks and you have a technology that will change the face of news reporting.

The London terror attacks may be the first time that this technology has impacted news reporting but there have already been numerous instances across Europe where members of the public have used their cameras to take photos of crimes in progress which have subsequently lead to arrests and prosecutions.

Edited to add: I think calling for the arrest of those people who took pictures with their phones is a bit strong. Should those people who took video images of aircraft flying into the World Trade Centre also have been arrested?

The OP ends with a disclaimer that the title was tongue-in-cheek.

That's okay. Not surprising really since I have the attention span of a gnat.

The London terrorist attacks/mass murders are indeed tragic.

This article on the cellphone video phones interests me in a few ways:

1--The phones worked in "the tube". In DC due to exclusive contracts, only Verizon works in the metro.

Were they actually trnasmitting live pictures from the tube or did they simply record video and give it to someone after they returned topside?

2--Pax had video phones. I'm pretty technically savvy, and my phone only does still pics. I have phone envy.

Heh. The U.S. is very far behind in the availability and use of personal tech.

3--The wireless data network supported the video stream AND was able to handle what was likely A LOT of calls.

Kudos to the tech companies in Britain.

Again, was there an indication that this was all live? The last phone I had that could record video didn't transmit it live. You recorded it and could email it later or simply use bluetooth to transfer it to a PC or to someone else.

Were they actually trnasmitting live pictures from the tube or did they simply record video and give it to someone after they returned topside?



Heh. The U.S. is very far behind in the availability and use of personal tech.



Again, was there an indication that this was all live? The last phone I had that could record video didn't transmit it live. You recorded it and could email it later or simply use bluetooth to transfer it to a PC or to someone else.

Quite a lot of the content was indeed live, and was coming from "3" subscribers who can do live video calls, "3" was one of the only networks without any congestion problems as they simply don't have as many subscribers.

Quite a lot of the content was indeed live, and was coming from "3" subscribers who can do live video calls, "3" was one of the only networks without any congestion problems as they simply don't have as many subscribers.

Wow. That is impressive.

I do have to wonder, though, how these subscribers knew, in the midst of a terrorist attack, whom to call at the news stations that could receive the live video call

Wow. That is impressive.

I do have to wonder, though, how these subscribers knew, in the midst of a terrorist attack, whom to call at the news stations that could receive the live video call

More proof that Europe is miles ahead. Some TV channels actually have their own shortcodes you can send pictures and videos to.

Some of the other content I saw was sent to others and captured by them.

The OP ends with a disclaimer that the title was tongue-in-cheek.

When I originally posted this in the Travel Security and Safety forum (it was moved to Travel Tech by he moderator), I was making reference to the poor blokes who have been detained, searched and arrested just because they took photographs of some kind of transportation vehicle like a train or a plane.

It's been a source of many police overreactions in the "Post-9/11" world:

http://www.brownequalsterrorist.com/blogarchives/2005/04/police_seize_pi.php

http://www.bowjamesbow.net/2004/05/25-it_makes_y.shtml

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2943304.stm

http://www.worldtalkradio.com/archive.asp?aid=3266

Turns out that the camera-phone videos were amongst the first clues that the bombs in the Underground trains had gone off simultaneously!

The London terrorist attacks/mass murders are indeed tragic.


Seconded.



This article on the cellphone video phones interests me in a few ways:

1--The phones worked in "the tube". In DC due to exclusive contracts, only Verizon works in the metro.


There's a subway/metro in North America that is wired for cell?

Wow!

(L.A.'s Red Line, which is the only line that is underground, save for the one Blue Line station it shares, 7th & Flower, has no such thing, nor did Atlanta's MARTA when I was there in 2003)

Deleted.

1--The phones worked in "the tube". In DC due to exclusive contracts, only Verizon works in the metro.

2--Pax had video phones. I'm pretty technically savvy, and my phone only does still pics. I have phone envy.

3--The wireless data network supported the video stream AND was able to handle what was likely A LOT of calls.

Kudos to the tech companies in Britain.
1) no they don't, they were able to record video but not transmit it live, also note that a number of tube lines are overland, not underground (Edgeware road blast may come into that category.
2) So last year - look up the joy that is "happy slapping" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_slapping) to see how common the technology is
3) See 1 & the phone system in London did overload, some of the suppliers were prioritising calls, others tried to increase capacity

Here in New York. The authorities have blocked cell signals in the tunnels because of the concern of using a cell signal to trigger an explosive. This trend may continue to other transportation conduits.

Bombers are far more likely to use a phone's timer than actually call the phone in order to detonate an explosive device simply because this is more reliable than radio. The only time a call is useful is where the bomber has a specific human target in mind.

deleted

I heard that was only in the Lincoln and Holland. Do you know FOR CERTAIN that this has happened in the BBT and the QMT?If they've blocked phones in the tunnels that's only the last few days. I've heard nothing about that on the NY snooze. Phones usually work fine in the Lincoln/Holland tunnels, as they're wired for phone coverage. The subways have not been wired, though some stations have service in some areas by way of their proximity to outside antennas.

EDITED TO ADD: I was wrong! I heard on the snooze this morning that they had done this. How stupid can you get -- you can drive tons of metal through the tunnel but you can't use your cellphone. Bruce is correct -- we have become a nation of idiots.

I think it is all four per stroy from the News...

"If you see something, you can't say something - at least not in Manhattan's four vehicle tunnels. Authorities blocked cell phone signals in the Holland, Lincoln, Midtown and Battery tunnels soon after the London subway bombings last week"

Full article below.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/local/story/326988p-279549c.html

Here in New York. The authorities have blocked cell signals in the tunnels because of the concern of using a cell signal to trigger an explosive.

I hope they don't rig it to go off a minute after it loses signal... :rolleyes:

Another snooze story on the turned-off tunnels can be found here (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-07-10-nyc-cell_x.htm).The microcells are owned by Verizon Wireless, the sole vendor for service in the tunnels, but the Port Authority has final say-so over them. The agency isn't saying why it cut the power. Verizon Wireless spokesman Jim Gerace says his company assumes it was to avoid a repeat of the London attacks, in which terrorists may have used phones to coordinate or detonate bombs.

Gerace says the Port Authority has been mum about when, or even if, it plans to restore power. The agency has only told the company that power will stay off "until further notice," Gerace says.

The Holland and Lincoln tunnels have been wired for cell phone service for 10 years. Over that time, Gerace says, the microcells have never been turned off — including the period right after 9/11.

New Yorkers don't have to worry about cell phone service in the subway: There isn't any. The city's subway system is a huge web of hundreds of miles of tunnels. Largely because of the system's size, Verizon has never tried to wire it for service, Gerace says.

The London terrorist attacks/mass murders are indeed tragic.

This article on the cellphone video phones interests me in a few ways:

1--The phones worked in "the tube". In DC due to exclusive contracts, only Verizon works in the metro.

2--Pax had video phones. I'm pretty technically savvy, and my phone only does still pics. I have phone envy.

3--The wireless data network supported the video stream AND was able to handle what was likely A LOT of calls.

Kudos to the tech companies in Britain.
I nthe end they switched to half rate streaming, redcing quality but doubling capacity ...

1) also note that a number of tube lines are overland, not underground (Edgeware road blast may come into that category.


The Edgeware Road bomb and the one near Aldgate occured on the Circle Line which was built in a trench and originally hauled by steam locomotives in 1863. The line was intended to link up the many mainline rail stations in London, which it still does, hence the name. Over time the trench has been covered over by construction in the trench's air-rights, something made especially possible by electrification. (There were indeed some short bits of cut-n-cover tunnels on the original line-My, that must have been fun to ride through in the steam era-cough, cough).

The blast between Russel Square and King's X occurred on the Picadilly Line which is a deep-bore (about 20 meters down) tunnel ("tube") through chalk, lined with cast iron plates, built in 1905. That is where some of the video did come from, though as has been pointed out, the video may have been sent once the person(s) reached the surface.

Quite a lot of the content was indeed live, and was coming from "3" subscribers who can do live video calls, "3" was one of the only networks without any congestion problems as they simply don't have as many subscribers.

I should add that in this country we have a system that allows the number of users on the phone network to be cut down dramatically to just essential users, Fire Ambulance including NHS staff, Police & certain other people etc. First designed with the end of the second world war and the cold war in mind it started out as a fixed line system and now incorporates mobiles as well.

This is used to stop the general public after a major incident from preventing those whose need to make calls, that could be lifesaving, from being able to do so. Just turning off the cells in a disaster area, is not so good if the emergency services are relying on mobile phones for contact with each other, as sadly has been the case due to the differing radio systems used by each emergency service.

It is not used very often, (the phone operators have to be compensated for loss of revenue when it is) and has a very serious purpose. I am unsure as to whether it was activated on Thursday, just as I am unsure if Three would have been forced to switch it on if/when the other networks did. I believe that there is a similar system to this in the US.

Actually, most countries have the same system in place, in the US T-mobile started it, followed by Cingular and Nextel, it is part of the National Communications System and is called "WPS"

http://wps.ncs.gov/

On the WPS system the operator doesn't have to turn anything on, handsets on a WPS enabled subscription simply get priority over other users, and when they require a channel they can even "bump" other non priority users off the system.

Actually, most countries have the same system in place, in the US T-mobile started it, followed by Cingular and Nextel, it is part of the National Communications System and is called "WPS"

http://wps.ncs.gov/

On the WPS system the operator doesn't have to turn anything on, handsets on a WPS enabled subscription simply get priority over other users, and when they require a channel they can even "bump" other non priority users off the system.

Thanks Scott, that's interesting, I see they don't instantly block off most users just give the priority to certain users including the automatic bump function. Bit of a pain having to dial all those numbers, especially in an emergency although I suppose you have them on a speed dial.

The UK fixed system is a little different in that when it's switched on, most users are just switched off. Landlines & any calls in progress are just cut off basically, you can't even call 999 in this case, the phone is just dead - , except if you have a registered line. This was designed with the cold war in mind.

The other one is for wireless or mobile phones and is similar to the WPS system except it allows the phone companies to decide who can do what with their phone. It can stop those who do not have senior enough authority from making and/or receiving calls, and restrict calls to just 999, however those authorised users can keep making calls as normal. It is this that allows you to restrict calls that might overload the system during an emergency, and also stop terrorists from using their phones to place a call and trigger something.

I have heard a rumour that BT did initialise another system that allows them to limit the number of calls to different areas, that can be made at anyone time to prevent overload. They used this when BA offered a limited number of Concorde tickets at either free or at very low prices, over the phone and BT to prevent problems due to the call volume only allowed 1 in 100 (I think) calls through.

This is also used on a daily basis to prevent the exchange at Swansea, home of the DVLA (equivilant of the DMV I think), from overloading on a daily basis.