> But as it is, I also need to think about how I'll sound if this call is being played on the news or Twitter. If that matters, perhaps it wasn't an emergency

> But as it is, I also need to think about how I'll sound if this call is being played on the news or Twitter. If that matters, perhaps it wasn't an emergency that required the use of 911? I imagine if you had a short-lived mental issue that caused you to go to court over it but were eventually found innocent, that might also be viewed as highly private, but the records would likely be public. There will always be edges around any law or policy where positive outcomes are not includes and negative outcomes are. It's trivial to come up with negative outcomes for almost anything, the question is whether frequency of magnitude of the positive and negative outcomes result in a net gain of enough to make the law useful overall. The question is not whether 911 calls include private information. They do and invariably will by their nature. The qeustion is whether the gain by making them public outweighs the loss, and whether we can incentivize the positives while mitigating the negatives. One possible way to do this might be to make them gates through providing your SSN and name (which is then attached with a timestamp to future requests as an access log), severely rate limiting based on requester's SSN and name (with the ability to petition higher limits based on profession/need, automatically expiring over time), and licensed by the governing institution to only be used/copied in specific ways.