This week, our SRA 397A class welcomed a video chat with Gisli Olafsson, the Emergency Response Director at NetHope. Gisli has worked with Microsoft as a Disaster Management Technical Advisor. Gisli talked to us about many topics, but what struck me were the answers to some of our questions. He offered ways for students to get involved with groups like NetHope and Ushahidi, whether it's designing a new mobile application or finding ways to collect mass amounts of data from Twitter and filtering them based on the needs of the poster. I was fortunate to have the chance and ask him about the developments towards infrastructure-free communication systems. I feel that this is a future technology that is much like the holy grail of disaster response because responders won't have to rely on paying an ISP for data lines or purchasing phone lines for communication nodes and not have to worry about crashing phone lines or jamming internet lines (obviously not as much of a holy grail as creating a perfectly efficient humanitarian response system). After all, you can't analyze tweets from mobile phones if there aren't ways to send the message out, and applications don't send any information either when cell towers are jammed.
One other thing Gisli covered, which struck me as surprising, was that applications like Foursquare could be extremely useful. I forgot that the application has the capability to track people and provide some location data to a central service. If people "check-in" to specific locations, like designated shelter areas or medical tents, NGOs have the ability to monitor and track what they can do for victims of disasters. If there are too many people at one sheltered community, they can outfit more tents to set up a second shelter area. If 100 people to go see 5 doctors, NGOs can coordinate to get more doctors and nurses on scene. It's a fantastic technology.
Again, I would like to thank Gisli for joining us and presenting us with a great discussion concerning emergency response.
In the news of technology and mobile infrastructure, I wanted to talk about an article I found recently all about a vehicle that includes nearly every form of electronic communications.
California currently has 9 Chevy Tahoes which are outfitted with satellite equipment, VoIP systems, cellular, multi-band radio, and many other network access tools. California is known for its earthquakes and wildfires, so to prepare, the state ordered these Chevys to jump into the action and restore what connectivity they can in the event of a serious disaster. These vehicles don't just connect to communication grids, they actually broadcast their own signals and can broadcast simultaneously to every US governmental agency and provide downlink information for any NGOs that need to step in for response. These vehicles reestablish connections in places where the networks are down. Perhaps if cities invest in mobile units like this in natural disaster prone areas, they too can be prepared for any upcoming situation.
Hi Anthony,
ReplyDeleteI liked your question regarding infrastructure because of its basic focus; if the infrastructure is neither sound nor reliable, than should we really be having discussions about the multiple uses of tech in disaster zones when a country’s ability to practically apply them is tenuous at best? I also enjoyed another question posed which inquired about those in a disaster who don’t own cellphones. Many of the areas we’ve been reading about has somewhere like 60-70% of the population with mobile devices—that’s huge given that these places could still be slums in Ghana or squatter settlements in S. Africa, areas that can barely afford three meals a day and dependable income. Nonetheless, not all people have mobile devices and I’m guessing that these will be the poorest of the poor who can’t afford the constant purchasing of minutes and services. Are they then automatically at a disadvantage by being without these tools since they’d have to rely on whatever the more traditional measures are? Possibly. Another assumption that can be drawn is that if indeed they are the poorest of the poor, this hints to their possible surroundings. The infrastructural capacity (not just in technology but in roads, buildings, transportation, etc) could possible be relatively weaker, which amounts to much more damage and less timely response when a disaster hits. So I guess I’m ranting, but the questions I’m getting at is whether we’re unconsciously “discriminating” against those who don’t have the means for tech tools by focusing so much on those who can afford them in the first place? If there are no tech alternatives for such populations, it would be interesting to hear the dialogue about how traditional methods of disaster response are being adapted and reformed today, given our basic knowledge about its weak points in collaboration/coordination.