This shouldn’t be a REQUIREMENT. We know this will somehow be used or abused against people who engage the service. I expect this to greatly make people think twice before engaging it.
I’m torn on this. On one hand, geographic areas can have unique triggers that are extremely relevant to handling a call (i.e. PNW has a lot of seasonal depression due to weather, high elevations have unique triggers for depression, etc). On the other hand, some areas don’t have a ton of population density, and if you know some of the dispatchers (e.g. my coworker’s SO works for 911), you may avoid calling.
Perhaps we should have two numbers. We can use a nationwide, randomly assigned center by default, and refer callers to local dispatch if they think they’re better suited, and the caller can use the local number the next time instead (should also be short and easy to remember).
Don’t be an idiot, read the article. This is a good thing.
I read the article and the statement. I understand the need to coordinate with local specialists in some cases, but some people may want to call anonymously and not expect someone to be dispatched to their homes or whatnot.
I worked phones and did counseling in this space for quite some time for high school and college aged kids, and the number of people who DON’T call because they’re concerned about someone showing up at their house or otherwise being identified is quite high already. I don’t expect this will help that segment of people.
can they just use the *67 prefix?
Archive link: https://archive.ph/3FYt5
