On 9/10/2013 3:09 PM, Ben Scott wrote: > On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 1:02 PM, Michael ODonnell > <michael.odonn...@comcast.net> wrote: >> I assume that, ideally, a 911 operator would like to have a >> conversation with the caller to better assess the nature/urgency of >> the emergency, but I also assume that's not strictly necessary as >> long as location info is included in the transmission, as obtained >> either via GPS or tower-triangulation. > > That may be illegal. > > I don't know one way or the other, but there are rules against abuse > of 911, and deliberately attaching a terminal without voice > capability might qualify as abuse. > > I'm not even sure auto-dialers with recorded messages are legal. > > Might be fine, too. I dunno. I'd check, if I were you. > > -- Ben
My knowledge is a bit dated, but I believe the general principals still hold. Automated calls to 911 are generally legal, however, they are frowned upon. (This may vary by jurisdiction.) You should (must, in some jurisdictions) contact the police before any call is placed and let them know about the device. An automated call that is placed, without an actual police emergency, can incur significant fines, as it is treated as a false 911 call. Repeated false alarms can be grounds for arrest. A phone call without any voice on the line is considered a high priority by the 911 staff, and dispatched urgently. The idea is that no voice means the person cannot talk, which could be either a medical emergency or a hostage situation. You would not want cause the reasonable ire of the police for such a call. _______________________________________________ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
