As part of the ongoing 11-year renovation of the Chelsea, owners Richard Born and Ira Drukier of BD Hotels have been in the process of installing a “life and fire safety” system in the hotel. However, apparent glitches in the system, including repeated false alarms, have raised concerns among residents. At the root of these apprehensions is the system’s “smart” technology, by which I mean that the individual fire alarm units apparently contain a speaker and a voice communication system connected to the enterprise WiFi network.
Since plans for the new system were announced, tenants have been asking questions about issues of reliability, security, privacy, eavesdropping, surveillance, and hacking. Are the smart speakers activated by smoke or by sound? (That is, do they “hear” the alarm component of the device go off and then report it? And could they be triggered by an outside alarm? Even one from the street?) Are these smart systems capturing and saving audio data from inside tenants’ apartments? If so, where is this data stored? And who has access to this data? Will outside parties be able to hack into the system, perhaps to install spyware or to facilitate some criminal enterprise, such as burglary?
Perhaps there’s nothing to worry about, but rather than needlessly sacrifice our personal security, privacy, and peace of mind, tenants have asked repeatedly to see the specifications of the system in question, in order to have them evaluated by an outside expert. Needless to say, this information has not been forthcoming. Instead, Born and Drukier sued tenants to force us to accept the installation of the dubious devices.
Judge Lynn Kotler of the New York State Supreme Court seems to agree that our request is reasonable. She states in her decision that Chelsea Hotel Owners:
“. . . has not shown that any law requires the installation of speakers and an emergency voice/alarm communication system inside apartments or dwelling units, as part of any emergency or fire safety system. Indeed, fatal to the plaintiff’s application is a detailed demonstration in evidentiary form of what the proposed fire and safety system would entail.”
The judge’s decision leaves open the possibility that Born and Drukier could return to court with some compelling rationale as to why this particular fire safety system is necessary. Presumably that would involve providing the specifications of the system.
The new fire safety devices are presently located throughout the building, in some of the transient guest rooms, and in some of the permanent residents’ rooms. As to the permanent residents who had them installed, some were probably not aware that the devices contained the “smart” technology, and others were unaware that refusing them was an option.
Recent Comments