3 ms·

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

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.

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.