One of the issues I alluded to in that set of questions related to public expectations about when, where, and how police services are delivered. Also, I think for most people over the age of perhaps 25 or 30, the notion that routinely we might interface not with a live police officer when we are a victim of crime, but by communicating by computer or telephone or some other type of telecommunications device with a computer system driven by artificial intelligence to report our victimization, is hard to fathom, hard to understand, and probably is very much an antithesis to our traditional idea about how citizens interface with government.
Today's youth is growing up more and more with less emphasis on face-to-face contact, and more reliance on technology as a modality of communication. In 10 years, when such technologies are more readily available for very low cost and at a very high technical quality, those folks, as they enter into adulthood, might think nothing of having their victimization reported not to a real, live person, but rather to a computer system that can understand what it is being told and ask follow-up questions, for instance, about the burglary that I've experienced. Therefore, we shouldn't necessarily presume constancy in the public expectation to have a uniformed, live patrol officer there to validate my experience as a crime victim.