4 ms·

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. T

by 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."
    - ahepp 4y ago
      Well, it seems like the problem could be solved by treating “normal” 911 calls normally, and attending to automated calls on a “best effort” basis.
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.

by g_p 4y ago

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."
  - ahepp 4y ago
    Well, it seems like the problem could be solved by treating “normal” 911 calls normally, and attending to automated calls on a “best effort” basis.

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.