OT/ICE

The problem with this idea is that in order for it to work, you would
have to turn off password security, so that if you ever lose your phone,
anyone can use it. I figure that if they can find a cell phone in
working order, then they can find my wallet with my next of kin contact
details.

I don't know who dreamed this up, but it seems somewhat ill-considered.
Men usually have their wallets in their pockets, and in the case of a
woman who may carry her id in a handbag then her phone would probably be
in the handbag as well. They wouldn't know who owned it.

Carry id and next of kin info by all means, but counting on a cell phone
to do so seems unrealistic. How many people carry a cellphone but no
other form of id? How many cellphones are still going to be working
after a fire or explosion etc.? A wallet will always be there, usually
in a pocket, but a cellphone, being more "weighty" is likely to be
dislodged from your body. How would they know it was yours if there was
more than one victim?

I don't think that this has really been thought through. It came up
after the London bombings, and the media has been busily expounding on
it, but it really doesn't seem practical.

In my case, they won't be able to use my phone because there is no way I
will turn off the keylock security. It has never happened to me, but I
have heard and read of too many horror stories about people who have
lost their phones or had them stolen and ended up with huge phone bills.

Regards

David

--

To email me, please include the letters DNF anywhere in the subject line.

All other mail is automatically deleted.

J. David Anderson wrote:
|| The problem with this idea is that in order for it to work, you would
|| have to turn off password security, so that if you ever lose your
|| phone, anyone can use it. I figure that if they can find a cell
|| phone in working order, then they can find my wallet with my next of
|| kin contact details.
||
|| I don't know who dreamed this up, but it seems somewhat
|| ill-considered. Men usually have their wallets in their pockets, and
|| in the case of a woman who may carry her id in a handbag then her
|| phone would probably be in the handbag as well. They wouldn't know
|| who owned it.
||
|| Carry id and next of kin info by all means, but counting on a cell
|| phone to do so seems unrealistic. How many people carry a cellphone
|| but no other form of id? How many cellphones are still going to be
|| working after a fire or explosion etc.? A wallet will always be
|| there, usually in a pocket, but a cellphone, being more "weighty" is
|| likely to be dislodged from your body. How would they know it was
|| yours if there was more than one victim?
||
|| I don't think that this has really been thought through. It came up
|| after the London bombings, and the media has been busily expounding
|| on it, but it really doesn't seem practical.
||
|| In my case, they won't be able to use my phone because there is no
|| way I will turn off the keylock security. It has never happened to
|| me, but I have heard and read of too many horror stories about
|| people who have lost their phones or had them stolen and ended up
|| with huge phone bills.
||
|| Regards
||
|| David
||
||

I have become a huge advocate of the ICE program and have encouraged
everyone I know to participate. I don't agree with the viewpoint of your
arguments -- but YMMV of course. If you're careless with your phone and/or
are fearful of having your service hijacked, by all means don't participate
and continue to password protect your phone. Remember though, that many
people also lose their wallets or have them stolen, and your personal
information can be obtained that way. ( I've lost two cell phones, and when
I realized they were missing called the company and had them cut off with no
problem. It's like losing a credit card, if you report it missing you won't
be held liable for calls after that.)

The department of Homeland Security is very cool to the ICE idea; they agree
with you. But the director as much as said it's because it wasn't their
idea. They publish a form on their website to fill out and carry with you
for i.d. I looked at this form and laughed. It has WAY too much personal
information. I'll trade off the chance that I might lose my cell phone and
have it used illigitimately vs. the chance that my wallet is lost or stolen
and any schmuck can gain access to excessive knowledge about me and mine.
The DHS's plan smacks a bit of Big Brother IMO.

I feel good knowing that if I should have another stroke or other serious
illness, the EMT's can pick up my phone and immediately identify and notify
my relatives.

Peter

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 08:01:12 +1000, "J. David Anderson"

jdavidanderson_@hotmail said:

In my case, they won't be able to use my phone because there is no way I
will turn off the keylock security. It has never happened to me, but I
have heard and read of too many horror stories about people who have
lost their phones or had them stolen and ended up with huge phone bills.

Everyone does not have key lock security turned on. ICE is not and
never was made to be a be all and end all for everyone to identify
them. It's meant to be yet another method to identify people. Is it
perfect? No! Is it another way to help identify people? Yes. I'm
not sure I see what your problem is. Someone's phone being stolen and
the ICE program don't have a thing to do with each other and I don't
know why you even bring it up! Anyone whose phone is stolen and
doesn't contact their carrier is a little bit foolish. I thought I'd
lost my phone and called my carrier so I was covered. It turned out
not to be stolen after all but I had the presence of mind to contact
my carrier. A little common sense works well!

- -

In article <[email hidden]>,

Joseph said:

Anyone whose phone is stolen and
doesn't contact their carrier is a little bit foolish.

Even those who lose their phone and don't realize it for a few hours or
a day or so?
--
D.F. Manno | [email hidden]
"As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely,
the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great
and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
- H. L. Mencken, in the Baltimore Sun, July 26, 1920

Joseph said:

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 08:01:12 +1000, "J. David Anderson"

jdavidanderson_@hotmail said:

In my case, they won't be able to use my phone because there is no way I
will turn off the keylock security. It has never happened to me, but I
have heard and read of too many horror stories about people who have
lost their phones or had them stolen and ended up with huge phone bills.

Everyone does not have key lock security turned on.

Yes, I know. Some people just tempt fate.

Quoted message said:

ICE is not and
never was made to be a be all and end all for everyone to identify
them. It's meant to be yet another method to identify people. Is it
perfect? No! Is it another way to help identify people? Yes. I'm
not sure I see what your problem is. Someone's phone being stolen and
the ICE program don't have a thing to do with each other and I don't
know why you even bring it up!

Of course they have something to do with each other.

A phone left unprotected to enable ICE means that the difference between
losing or having a phone stolen is the cost of the phone or the cost of
the phone plus the cost of any calls made between the time that you
discover the loss and the time you can cancel the service. That can
amount to quite a hefty difference. One directly impinges on the other.

Anyone whose phone is stolen and

Quoted message said:

doesn't contact their carrier is a little bit foolish.

I cannot imagine ANYONE who would not contact their carrier; once they
became aware of the loss. It might be a day or two before they
discovered that the phone was missing, longer if they are traveling or
on vacation etc.

I thought I'd

Quoted message said:

lost my phone and called my carrier so I was covered. It turned out
not to be stolen after all but I had the presence of mind to contact
my carrier. A little common sense works well!

That's exactly what I was saying. There is little common sense to
recommend this ICE concept.

Think about it.

If I am lying, injured, be it from a bomb or a car wreck, and I saw a
paramedic trying to work out how to use my phone, I would get pretty
damn [censored]. The paramedic's primary function is to stabilise and
transport ill or injured people, not to worry about informing their next
of kin, or discovering who they are or where they live. Time enough for
that once you have reached a care facility and have been examined and
diagnosed by a doctor.

I do not want my next of kin informed before it is known just exactly
what they need to be informed about. It will not make one bit of
difference to me whether my next of kin is informed immediately or an
hour or so later, but it might make a great deal of difference to my
next of kin. I would rather they knew exactly what my condition is,
after proper and thorough diagnostic testing, not be told in a hurried
and very limited form by a person at the scene, who regardless of
training and experience, is neither a doctor, nor has a range of
diagnostic equipment on hand. I do not want my next of kin alarmed
unnecessarily. If it is truly serious, they will find out eventually, if
not, then they won't have been put through unnecessary stress.

I have been severely injured several times in my life, I am recovering
from a near fatal traffic accident and subsequent surgery at the moment.
I see no value or benefit to me or mine with ICE.

I think that it is an ill-considered, impractical, knee jerk reaction to
the difficulty in identifying bodies in recent mass trauma events. It is
not an answer. The phones have always been there, it only takes a Police
call to the carrier to identify the owner. In fact pressing number one
on most people speed dials would get you to someone who was close to
them. ICE adds nothing of value and may slow down the administering of
initial care if paramedics waste time with phones. Tags on wrist watches
would be simpler and more practical. More people wear watches than have
phones and watches are strapped on, less likely to part company with the
body.

Regards

David

--

To email me, please include the letters DNF anywhere in the subject line.

All other mail is automatically deleted.

"Cheri" <gdotservicedotatinreachdotcom> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In Case of Emergency ...

Paramedics will turn to a victim's cell phone for clues to that person's
identity. You can make their job much easier with a simple idea that
they are trying to get everyone to adopt: ICE.

ICE stands for In Case of Emergency. If you add an entry in the contacts
list in your cell phone under ICE, with the name and phone no. of the
person that the emergency services should call on your behalf, you can
save them a lot of time and have your loved ones contacted quickly. It
only takes a few moments of your time to do.

Paramedics know what ICE means and they look for it immediately. ICE
your cell phone NOW!

There has been a hoax going around saying that ICE is a hoax, it's not, see:
http://www.icecontact.com/

Oh, come on now. You're just being way too cynical here.