7 ms·

I am very surprised that automated systems like this aren’t illegal. If Apple wants to start a service like this, they should be required to install an intermed

by bmitc 4y ago

I am very surprised that automated systems like this aren’t illegal. If Apple wants to start a service like this, they should be required to install an intermediary to properly handle the calls instead of just wasting the time of emergency operators and responders and endangering people’s lives by tying up the system. I believe that’s how OnStar worked/works. As it is now, they’re just outsourcing implementations of the feature to emergency services. I absolutely hate the world where our government sits around and waits for Apple to “fix” this, whatever that means, instead of actively prosecuting them to force this feature off and penalize them. A quick web search shows that several people have been charged and jailed over spamming 911. Apple should be too. As a thought experiment, say you were a person on a ski slope watching people ski and immediately calling 911 when a fall occurred. Would that stand? No. So why should Apple get away with it just because they’ve automated it and outsourced it to phones and scaled it geographically?

g_p 4y ago
Interestingly, this seems to be one of the ways their satellite based emergency services system works - using a relay station to receive messages from phones. This would suggest they already have infrastructure they could use for these features. I believe there is established precedent in some countries that you can't connect alarm auto dialers straight to the emergency phone number (precisely because of false call-outs), and therefore need to go through an alarm monitoring company. Apple seems to be doing a direct link to emergency services here, in a world where circuit switched telco precedents seem to be missed in the packet switched world. My guess is they think they can win in the court of public opinion because it's for "people like you" using a phone that you have, rather than something for "other people". It would be interesting to see how Apple could be forced to implement proper quality assurance and scenario-based negative test validation of their products before they are allowed to do these kinds of things.
- bmitc 4y ago
  > My guess is they think they can win in the court of public opinion because it's for "people like you" using a phone that you have, rather than something for "other people". This stuff just really upsets me because, if it happens like that, it just shows the corporate capture of the U.S. and Apple's nearly limitless market power. > It would be interesting to see how Apple could be forced to implement proper quality assurance and scenario-based negative test validation of their products before they are allowed to do these kinds of things. It seems to me that the bar should be incredibly high, which would mean that it's basically impossible to hook up automated systems to the emergency services line. Because I don't see a way that they could rule out false positives, especially when they're actively pushing their Apple Watch to the active and extreme sports crowds.
  - brazzy 4y ago
    Ruling out false positives most definitely should not be the highest priority when it's about saving people's lives. Note that even the emergency personnel directly involved are not arguing that the feature should not exist or only be allowed if it's perfect. Because they would much rather respond to five false alarms than be too late for a real one.
    - avidphantasm 4y ago
      What happens when they can only respond to N calls at a time, but have 2N routinely coming in, 2N-1 of which are false positives? They can’t respond to them all. At some point systems like this will unwittingly DOS the 911/first responder situation.
      - brazzy 4y ago
        Yes, of course the false positives can become so frequent that it's not tolerable. But that absolutely does not mean that allowing none at all is a sensible goal, because that invariably means more false negatives. And the article does not sound like the false positives are at the intolerable level, in the opinion of the people actually affected.
        avidphantasm 4y ago
        But your original comment doesn’t acknowledge the limits on ability to respond. Yes of course in the abstract they would rather respond to all false alarms so as to not miss true alarms, but there’s always a limit. This is why fire departments charge for false alarms. When I worked at my university after graduating, we had a string of false alarms from the data center, and at some point the city allegedly started charging for them. I see no reason not to bill Apple if a jurisdiction has a similar policy already in place.
        brazzy 4y ago
        > But your original comment doesn’t acknowledge the limits on ability to respond. It also doesn't say that false positives are irrelevant, just that eliminating them should not be the highest priority. Because the comment I was replying to stated that "the bar should be incredibly high, which would mean that it's basically impossible to hook up automated systems to the emergency services line."
- iudqnolq 4y ago
  I'm unfamiliar with how Apple's relay works, but Garmin's relay (IERCC) doesn't do much screening. It wouldn't have screened out these calls, as an activation by someone who doesn't reply to texts is treated as a very badly injured person who isn't capable of communication, forwarded directly to the appropriate authorities, and in most cases in the US if conditions permit those authorities will dispatch a rapid response. There's a good reason for this. In TFA, for example, the authorities are merely asking Apple to properly calibrate the algorithm to skiing. They like the general concept, and have examples of it helping. One thing I find interesting is that in this kind of thread there are lots of people who don't work in backcountry search and rescue condemning this sort of technology on behalf of search and rescue. I don't have relevant experience, but plenty of people I listen to who do support this kind of technology. They want to get more help to inexperienced people faster because their top priority is helping people and not punishing potential moral failings.
  - willcipriano 4y ago
    Do any of the Garmin devices self activate? You can configure mine to automatically drop pins on the map every few minutes/hours but it won't signal for an emergency unless you hit the button and confirm on the prompt. The button is behind a rubber stopper to prevent accidental activation, without being completely careless you can't kick it off by accident.
    - iudqnolq 4y ago
      > without being completely careless you can't kick it off by accident. I thought so too, but apparently accidental activation is a real problem. Here's a nuanced look at the issue by an experienced Canadian SAR volunteer: https://blog.oplopanax.ca/2017/09/accidental-triggering-device/ https://blog.oplopanax.ca/2017/09/accidental-triggering-devi... Edit: But you're right, it's not a perfect analogue.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
williamcotton 4y ago
Dozens of false alarms seems worth even a single saved life so to actively punish Apple seems ludicrous.
- sprayk 4y ago
  “We are absolutely diverting essential resources away from people who need it toward a feature on a phone,” Dummer said.
  - williamcotton 4y ago
    The journalist in question did not do any research towards how large of an effect this is. That quote does nothing but service the claim that this is a “problem” worth discussing, and more importantly, a “problem” worth sharing on commercial social media…
    - williamcotton 4y ago
      Also, from the article: Grand County Sheriff Brett Schroetlin called the calls are “problematic and time-consuming,” but said they have not impacted dispatch operations. Journalists are trained at extracting provocative statements that are conspicuously apt for misinterpretation. The above quote is a perfect example. The original conversation could be 3 minutes about how this is a nothingburger but then the Sheriff being badgered into conceding that in isolation the calls are problematic and time-consuming…
    - more_corn 4y ago
      What? How is talking to the dispatchers inundated by false alarms failing to do research? That’s literally the people who would know. The biggest danger of false alarm is alert fatigue. If your false to real ratio is ten to one you’ve seriously messed up. This sounds like exactly the case where false alarms are causing real harm to people in need. Your stance shows a serious misunderstanding of incident response.
    - bmitc 4y ago
      The article is from a local Colorado news outlet. They're supposed to do a nationwide study before publishing this story?
williamcotton 4y ago
As a thought experiment, if someone saw a skiing accident and called 911 then that person would not get in to any sort of trouble if the person who crashed was basically OK. If I was in a skiing accident I would prefer to live in a world where people erred on the side of calling emergency services when they assumed there was an emergency. What exactly is the the problem with only dozens of false positives?
- watwut 4y ago
  There is difference between you calling 911 once because of bad looking incident and calling ir again and again every time you see someone fall.
- rkagerer 4y ago
  The difference is human judgement. I can forgive if once in a blue moon a person mistakes what turns out to be a minor mishap for a severe incident. But when a computer running an inacurate algorithm starts spamming the system, that's unacceptable. If it was a person initiating all those false alarms we would similarly make them stop crying wolf. It's a lot more than dozens. 71 false alarms in the course of a weekend is a significant strain when you've only got two 911 operators. And that's just one county.
- rchaud 4y ago
  > What exactly is the the problem with only dozens of false positives? Significantly stricter restrictions for all visitors, regardless of skill level would be one. Like when people say "Back in my day, you didn't need a safety warning on a hot cup of coffee", we may need to do the same once the local 911 dispatch centre starts recording higher numbers of calls.
- bmitc 4y ago
  I have called 911 as a bystander before, usually noticing something on the road or some other situation when driving on the highway. Although I am not afraid to call 911 to notify them, before calling, I think thoroughly about doing so and evaluate the situation appropriately. The operators also ask questions, like is the object on the road, was there anyone in the car in the ditch, they’ve already been notified, etc. Why does Apple get to play by different rules and operate more recklessly? From the article, none of the automated calls were an emergency situation. Humans don’t react well to false positives, and over time, those calls will be handled with much less priority or attention. In the particular situation of skiing, they have their own patrols. I’m not aware of endemic situations where people are injured but not discovered or helped. My issue is that Apple is using emergency services as the last mile implementation rather than handling it themselves.
fuu_dev 4y ago
The thought process of apple is that every saved person is worth whatever cost it might have especially if you as a company don't get to carry it. And the topic is fairly hard to discuss given that justification. You only need one single case where the feature was helpful to win the argument.
- kramerger 4y ago
  False alarms may cause someone in real distress to not receive the help they need.
  - cookie_monsta 4y ago
    This is exactly the point. Tying up phone dispatchers time is annoying and marginal. Sending limited search and rescue teams off on wild goose chases could have fatal consequences.
rchaud 4y ago
Companies of a certain size get a lot of leeway. Governments didn't move fast enough to block Uber and other illegal taxi services, partially because these well-funded startups had the means to tie things up in courts for months, while continuing to operate.
lttlrck 4y ago
Maybe they could geofence ski-resorts and pop up a warning that the feature is disabled.
- more_corn 4y ago
  Maybe apple could give users the option to disable this feature while skiing? Or even create ski mode that behaves differently. (I honestly can’t think of the perimeters but I’m sure apple has software engineers who are more clever by half) I know this sort of user first mentality is becoming more and more alien to the Apple ideology, but there’s a reason we keep coming back to it. The user knows what they want and if you think you know better you better be damn sure.

by bmitc 4y ago

g_p 4y ago

Interestingly, this seems to be one of the ways their satellite based emergency services system works - using a relay station to receive messages from phones. This would suggest they already have infrastructure they could use for these features. I believe there is established precedent in some countries that you can't connect alarm auto dialers straight to the emergency phone number (precisely because of false call-outs), and therefore need to go through an alarm monitoring company. Apple seems to be doing a direct link to emergency services here, in a world where circuit switched telco precedents seem to be missed in the packet switched world. My guess is they think they can win in the court of public opinion because it's for "people like you" using a phone that you have, rather than something for "other people". It would be interesting to see how Apple could be forced to implement proper quality assurance and scenario-based negative test validation of their products before they are allowed to do these kinds of things.

bmitc 4y ago
> My guess is they think they can win in the court of public opinion because it's for "people like you" using a phone that you have, rather than something for "other people". This stuff just really upsets me because, if it happens like that, it just shows the corporate capture of the U.S. and Apple's nearly limitless market power. > It would be interesting to see how Apple could be forced to implement proper quality assurance and scenario-based negative test validation of their products before they are allowed to do these kinds of things. It seems to me that the bar should be incredibly high, which would mean that it's basically impossible to hook up automated systems to the emergency services line. Because I don't see a way that they could rule out false positives, especially when they're actively pushing their Apple Watch to the active and extreme sports crowds.
- brazzy 4y ago
  Ruling out false positives most definitely should not be the highest priority when it's about saving people's lives. Note that even the emergency personnel directly involved are not arguing that the feature should not exist or only be allowed if it's perfect. Because they would much rather respond to five false alarms than be too late for a real one.
  - avidphantasm 4y ago
    What happens when they can only respond to N calls at a time, but have 2N routinely coming in, 2N-1 of which are false positives? They can’t respond to them all. At some point systems like this will unwittingly DOS the 911/first responder situation.
    - brazzy 4y ago
      Yes, of course the false positives can become so frequent that it's not tolerable. But that absolutely does not mean that allowing none at all is a sensible goal, because that invariably means more false negatives. And the article does not sound like the false positives are at the intolerable level, in the opinion of the people actually affected.
      - avidphantasm 4y ago
        But your original comment doesn’t acknowledge the limits on ability to respond. Yes of course in the abstract they would rather respond to all false alarms so as to not miss true alarms, but there’s always a limit. This is why fire departments charge for false alarms. When I worked at my university after graduating, we had a string of false alarms from the data center, and at some point the city allegedly started charging for them. I see no reason not to bill Apple if a jurisdiction has a similar policy already in place.
        brazzy 4y ago
        > But your original comment doesn’t acknowledge the limits on ability to respond. It also doesn't say that false positives are irrelevant, just that eliminating them should not be the highest priority. Because the comment I was replying to stated that "the bar should be incredibly high, which would mean that it's basically impossible to hook up automated systems to the emergency services line."
iudqnolq 4y ago
I'm unfamiliar with how Apple's relay works, but Garmin's relay (IERCC) doesn't do much screening. It wouldn't have screened out these calls, as an activation by someone who doesn't reply to texts is treated as a very badly injured person who isn't capable of communication, forwarded directly to the appropriate authorities, and in most cases in the US if conditions permit those authorities will dispatch a rapid response. There's a good reason for this. In TFA, for example, the authorities are merely asking Apple to properly calibrate the algorithm to skiing. They like the general concept, and have examples of it helping. One thing I find interesting is that in this kind of thread there are lots of people who don't work in backcountry search and rescue condemning this sort of technology on behalf of search and rescue. I don't have relevant experience, but plenty of people I listen to who do support this kind of technology. They want to get more help to inexperienced people faster because their top priority is helping people and not punishing potential moral failings.
- willcipriano 4y ago
  Do any of the Garmin devices self activate? You can configure mine to automatically drop pins on the map every few minutes/hours but it won't signal for an emergency unless you hit the button and confirm on the prompt. The button is behind a rubber stopper to prevent accidental activation, without being completely careless you can't kick it off by accident.
  - iudqnolq 4y ago
    > without being completely careless you can't kick it off by accident. I thought so too, but apparently accidental activation is a real problem. Here's a nuanced look at the issue by an experienced Canadian SAR volunteer: https://blog.oplopanax.ca/2017/09/accidental-triggering-device/ https://blog.oplopanax.ca/2017/09/accidental-triggering-devi... Edit: But you're right, it's not a perfect analogue.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

williamcotton 4y ago

Dozens of false alarms seems worth even a single saved life so to actively punish Apple seems ludicrous.

sprayk 4y ago
“We are absolutely diverting essential resources away from people who need it toward a feature on a phone,” Dummer said.
- williamcotton 4y ago
  The journalist in question did not do any research towards how large of an effect this is. That quote does nothing but service the claim that this is a “problem” worth discussing, and more importantly, a “problem” worth sharing on commercial social media…
  - williamcotton 4y ago
    Also, from the article: Grand County Sheriff Brett Schroetlin called the calls are “problematic and time-consuming,” but said they have not impacted dispatch operations. Journalists are trained at extracting provocative statements that are conspicuously apt for misinterpretation. The above quote is a perfect example. The original conversation could be 3 minutes about how this is a nothingburger but then the Sheriff being badgered into conceding that in isolation the calls are problematic and time-consuming…
  - more_corn 4y ago
    What? How is talking to the dispatchers inundated by false alarms failing to do research? That’s literally the people who would know. The biggest danger of false alarm is alert fatigue. If your false to real ratio is ten to one you’ve seriously messed up. This sounds like exactly the case where false alarms are causing real harm to people in need. Your stance shows a serious misunderstanding of incident response.
  - bmitc 4y ago
    The article is from a local Colorado news outlet. They're supposed to do a nationwide study before publishing this story?

williamcotton 4y ago

As a thought experiment, if someone saw a skiing accident and called 911 then that person would not get in to any sort of trouble if the person who crashed was basically OK. If I was in a skiing accident I would prefer to live in a world where people erred on the side of calling emergency services when they assumed there was an emergency. What exactly is the the problem with only dozens of false positives?

watwut 4y ago
There is difference between you calling 911 once because of bad looking incident and calling ir again and again every time you see someone fall.
rkagerer 4y ago
The difference is human judgement. I can forgive if once in a blue moon a person mistakes what turns out to be a minor mishap for a severe incident. But when a computer running an inacurate algorithm starts spamming the system, that's unacceptable. If it was a person initiating all those false alarms we would similarly make them stop crying wolf. It's a lot more than dozens. 71 false alarms in the course of a weekend is a significant strain when you've only got two 911 operators. And that's just one county.
rchaud 4y ago
> What exactly is the the problem with only dozens of false positives? Significantly stricter restrictions for all visitors, regardless of skill level would be one. Like when people say "Back in my day, you didn't need a safety warning on a hot cup of coffee", we may need to do the same once the local 911 dispatch centre starts recording higher numbers of calls.
bmitc 4y ago
I have called 911 as a bystander before, usually noticing something on the road or some other situation when driving on the highway. Although I am not afraid to call 911 to notify them, before calling, I think thoroughly about doing so and evaluate the situation appropriately. The operators also ask questions, like is the object on the road, was there anyone in the car in the ditch, they’ve already been notified, etc. Why does Apple get to play by different rules and operate more recklessly? From the article, none of the automated calls were an emergency situation. Humans don’t react well to false positives, and over time, those calls will be handled with much less priority or attention. In the particular situation of skiing, they have their own patrols. I’m not aware of endemic situations where people are injured but not discovered or helped. My issue is that Apple is using emergency services as the last mile implementation rather than handling it themselves.

fuu_dev 4y ago

The thought process of apple is that every saved person is worth whatever cost it might have especially if you as a company don't get to carry it. And the topic is fairly hard to discuss given that justification. You only need one single case where the feature was helpful to win the argument.

kramerger 4y ago
False alarms may cause someone in real distress to not receive the help they need.
- cookie_monsta 4y ago
  This is exactly the point. Tying up phone dispatchers time is annoying and marginal. Sending limited search and rescue teams off on wild goose chases could have fatal consequences.

rchaud 4y ago

Companies of a certain size get a lot of leeway. Governments didn't move fast enough to block Uber and other illegal taxi services, partially because these well-funded startups had the means to tie things up in courts for months, while continuing to operate.

lttlrck 4y ago

Maybe they could geofence ski-resorts and pop up a warning that the feature is disabled.

more_corn 4y ago
Maybe apple could give users the option to disable this feature while skiing? Or even create ski mode that behaves differently. (I honestly can’t think of the perimeters but I’m sure apple has software engineers who are more clever by half) I know this sort of user first mentality is becoming more and more alien to the Apple ideology, but there’s a reason we keep coming back to it. The user knows what they want and if you think you know better you better be damn sure.