Slashdot Mirror


Google Home Ends A Domestic Dispute By Calling The Police (gizmodo.com)

An anonymous reader quotes Gizmodo: According to ABC News, officers were called to a home outside Albuquerque, New Mexico this week when a Google Home called 911 and the operator heard a confrontation in the background. Police say that Eduardo Barros was house-sitting at the residence with his girlfriend and their daughter. Barros allegedly pulled a gun on his girlfriend when they got into an argument and asked her: "Did you call the sheriffs?" Google Home apparently heard "call the sheriffs," and proceeded to call the sheriffs. A SWAT team arrived at the home and after negotiating for hours, they were able to take Barros into custody... "The unexpected use of this new technology to contact emergency services has possibly helped save a life," Bernalillo County Sheriff Manuel Gonzales III said in a statement.
"It's easy to imagine police getting tired of being called to citizen's homes every time they watch the latest episode of Law and Order," quips Gizmodo. But they also call the incident "a clear reminder that smart home devices are always listening."

48 of 256 comments (clear)

  1. Won't be long now by Dunbal · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Coming soon, a law that mandates that all homes be equipped with one of these devices as well as prison sentences for those who attempt to disable them. For the sake of the children, of course. "You are the dead!"

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    1. Re:Won't be long now by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 5, Informative

      XKCD should receive "first post" for this. Or possibly claim an infringement of copyright for the story?

      https://xkcd.com/1807/

    2. Re:Won't be long now by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 3, Funny

      Stop overreacting. How do crazy people like you come up with this garbage? Seriously though, they don't need this stuff because the NSA is already listening to your every word thanks to the radios in your fillings. ;)

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    3. Re:Won't be long now by dead_user · · Score: 5, Informative

      That's just Ctrl-Shift-T in Chrome. It reopens up to the last 10 tabs that were closed. VERY handy feature for when you hit the wrong X. Many people freak out when they see me pull up those tabs they thought were closed though.

      Fun stuff!

    4. Re:Won't be long now by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually, George Orwell probably deserves "first post" honors.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    5. Re:Won't be long now by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Then, coming a little later -- perhaps 20 minutes into the future -- we'll have a Max Headroom situation...

      In the future, an oligarchy of television networks rules the world. Even the government functions primarily as a puppet of the network executives, serving mainly to pass laws — such as banning "off" switches on televisions — that protect and consolidate the networks' power.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    6. Re:Won't be long now by PPH · · Score: 2

      Only members of the Inner Party may turn off their telescreens.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    7. Re:Won't be long now by Kjella · · Score: 3, Funny

      Is that before or after Futurama 3x04? Because I thought of this:

      Farnsworth: "Shut up friends! My internet browser heard us saying the word Fry and it found a movie about Philip J. Fry for us. It also opened my calendar to Friday and ordered me some french fries."

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    8. Re:Won't be long now by Rod+Beauvex · · Score: 3, Informative

      That phrase was in Luck of the Fryish. The movie about Philip J Fry was about Fry's Nephew.

    9. Re:Won't be long now by Zaelath · · Score: 2

      Episode was: The Luck of the Fryrish
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    10. Re:Won't be long now by dargaud · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I tried it recently at a friend's house when I noticed he had Alexa. He matter of factly followed it with "Alexa, cancel order", which led me to believe it wasn't the 1st time.

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    11. Re: Won't be long now by bickerdyke · · Score: 2

      the intelligent women know better.

      And now just go back through your everyday experience and assume that intelligent women are no more frequent than intelligent men...

      --
      bickerdyke
    12. Re:Won't be long now by bickerdyke · · Score: 2

      Then, coming a little later -- perhaps 20 minutes into the future -- we'll have a Max Headroom situation...

      In the future, an oligarchy of television networks rules the world. Even the government functions primarily as a puppet of the network executives, serving mainly to pass laws — such as banning "off" switches on televisions — that protect and consolidate the networks' power.

      Is anyone else wondering why this series never has any re-runs or is not available on DVD? (except some questionable japanese or something version) Even the usual go-tos for less legal outlets like youtube only have some crappy capture of a TV recording on VHS.

      --
      bickerdyke
    13. Re:Won't be long now by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      Mandate? Perish the thought. It will just become so inconvenient to lead your life without it. Much as those tracking devices everyone of us has in hits pockets. You won't be able to buy anything online anymore or order a pizza. Or at the very least it will cost a lot more doing it via phone or internet.

      People will want those things and even pay for the privilege of having them.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    14. Re:Won't be long now by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Did he follow you around the whole time making sure that you didn't slyly order stuff while he wasn't listening?

      Who leaves their terminal unlocked and logged into Amazon and their email without any kind of protection?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    15. Re: Won't be long now by arth1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Claims to treat women well and yet reduces the mating habits of humans to prehistoric times to make a point... You sure there's not more to the picture than raw strength? It's not like all women like all the same things,

      Whether all women do or not is irrelevant. It's not about you; not everything is. Statistics show which men get to father the most children, and that's generally not the mild men. That men on average are larger than women is also evidence in itself. If there were no advantage for men to be bigger and stronger than their rival men, they wouldn't be. Evolution works relatively fast; a few dozen generations should show a markedly shift from bigger and stronger men if it didn't have an advantage, due to disadvantages like requiring more food. And if they have an advantage, it follows that women select for that advantage to increase the chances of their male children. The women who don't will have fewer successful male offspring.

      Women like to think they're in control, but are as much slaves to the biological imperative as men are. There's no "going beyond evolutionary programming", because evolution selects against that.

    16. Re:Won't be long now by houghi · · Score: 2

      Why turn it into a law when people hand over their rights willingly? It is so much easier to do it this way.
      Just change the law to say that it is like speaking in public.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  2. abcnews article is updated, device not Google Home by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    At the very bottom of the linked story

    http://abcnews.go.com/US/smart-home-device-alerts-mexico-authorities-alleged-assault/story?id=48470912

    Editor's note: This story has been updated; an earlier version named a smart home device that was not the type found in the home and credited by police with calling 911.

  3. I call bullshit by technomom · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Google Home cannot yet make phone calls. I'd like to see some proof that this was a Google Home at work. Isn't anyone at all skeptical anymore about news stories?

    1. Re:I call bullshit by Namarrgon · · Score: 4, Informative
      --
      Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
    2. Re:I call bullshit by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2

      It wasn't, you're right, story has been updated. I've stopped sending in story corrections to /. though.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    3. Re:I call bullshit by Namarrgon · · Score: 4, Informative

      That said, the feature may not have rolled out yet, and the original story now has this note:

      Editor's note: This story has been updated; an earlier version named a smart home device that was not the type found in the home and credited by police with calling 911.

      --
      Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
    4. Re:I call bullshit by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 5, Funny

      "Google Home cannot yet make phone calls" vs. "Google Home speaker can now make phone calls"
      Which is right?

      Both. They were house-sitting for Erwin Schrödinger. He keeps his Google Home in a box.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    5. Re:I call bullshit by viperidaenz · · Score: 2

      Google Home can't call 911 or 1-900 numbers.

      Note: Calls to 911 or 1-900 numbers are not supported on Google Home.

      https://support.google.com/googlehome/answer/7394795?hl=en

  4. Re: good thing that the GOP will not give out well by DeathElk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What's the problem with welfare for poor folks? As long as there's an obligation for self betterment with the view to getting off welfare i.e. education, internship, community service, I don't see the problem.

    Corporate welfare on the other hand, I have a big problem with that. It has been demonstrated time and time again that corporate leaders use tax breaks to pad their own packages rather than improve employment prospects. Trickle down simply does not work and greed is the main factor.

  5. Many Possible Permutations Not So Good by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 5, Interesting

    In the end, perhaps it was a good thing.

    But consider that Google Home missed the part about it being a question. I can see other situations where such a sentence might be used where I didn't want a SWAT response or any response at all.

    Yes, I understand the 911 people listened in and made the decision to respond based on what they heard, and again in THIS case they were correct.

    But there are all sorts of permutations of this where Google Home and whoever they called might be bad.

    I certainly don't want to be sitting around bad-mouthing my employer / parents / next door neighbor who owns guns / [insert someone else here] and have Google Home call them so they can here it all...

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    1. Re:Many Possible Permutations Not So Good by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 2

      Yes, I understand the 911 people listened in and made the decision to respond based on what they heard, and again in THIS case they were correct.

      If the law there is similar to that in my home state (Washington), police are obligated to respond to any 911 call when the dispatcher cannot determine what's happening.

      When my daughter was little, she accidentally called 911 on our landline (which had a 911 button). A few minutes later, my wife got started by two police barging into our house (guns were not drawn or anything like that). The dispatcher had heard what sounded like toddler gibberish, but when they couldn't get an intelligible response the police were obligated to check it out.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    2. Re:Many Possible Permutations Not So Good by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 2

      Where I live a hangup call or not understandable one gets police, fire and ambulance. Rather than send the wrong response they cover all bases. The police even recommend doing a hangup if you are afraid to speak rather than putting yourself at risk; they said the fire department generally arrives first and if the sirens and lights don't scare off an intruder multiple fire fighters with pickaxes generally do.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    3. Re:Many Possible Permutations Not So Good by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 2

      In UK the number is 999, which is much more likely to be dialed by toddlers than 911.

      I have it on good authority that the U.K. number is actually 0118 999 889 119 119 725 3.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
  6. Airstrip One called and wants their surveillance b by Entrope · · Score: 2

    This was talked about in 1984. East Germany did as much as they could given their limited tech. China is doing a much more comprehensive job with modern tech.

  7. Re: good thing that the GOP will not give out wel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So you support corporations using the poor as easy position filling? That's what happens when you attach it to things like 'showing self improvement'. You get corporations taking part in incentive programs to 'create jobs'. The jobs in question are bottom of the barrel, violate labor laws (that the ignorant and poor cannot fight), and generally treat people like shit.

    It then becomes a punishment to get off of welfare. We need to sever the tie between corporations, healthcare, and indeed even just surviving. Work needs to provide enough of a benefit that the government isn't needed. What often happens is these people get off welfare and have less money than they did before leaving it. Why bust your ass for pennies when the government takes better care of you?

    Nobody has an answer to that because they're too busy being faux-moral jerkoffs. They believe everyone should suffer to justify their existence, or that some nebulous idea of 'personal responsibility' is the only way to go forward. Those values are proven to fail when challenged, because it becomes an excuse to mistreat people.

  8. Re: good thing that the GOP will not give out well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Fucking NSA agent diverting the conversation to partisan politics so the serfs are distracted from the original topic!

  9. Re: Was his girlfriend's name Google? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Given how shit the voice recognition still is on these things, he probably said something like "ok girl, I don't look at all like Omar Sharif"

  10. Will it call when it hears gunshots? by onyxruby · · Score: 5, Funny

    When I hear about a story like this I think about an experience I had back when Doom II was released. I had hooked up my computer to my home stereo to show the game off to my roommates. I lived in an apartment in a bad neighborhood at the time.

    I started to play and got as far as two shotgun blasts in before pressing pause to answer the phone. Shortly after the phone rang there was a very loud and forceful knock at the door. Said knock was followed by 'open up, police!'.

    I went to the door, confused why the police were banging on my door. Several officers were standing outside with their guns in their hands while I had my phone in my hand. In my confusion I asked them what they wanted. They said they had reports of shots being fired and demanded entrance to my apartment. I let them in and showed them my computer with the game still paused. They were incredulous and didn't believe me, searching the apartment instead.

    Ten seconds later they came back after finding nothing of interest. They then let me show them the computer game. I then showed them that by clicking the keyboard I could make the shotgun noise they heard.

    Many additional police vehicles were outside. The officers had not yet bothered to tell the many additional cops outside that the shotgun was just a videogame. Much panic ensued as the officers outside started to yell 'shots fired' with their fellow officers inside my apartment. /repeat of my own comment from some time ago.

  11. Re: goes ok this time, but how about next? by bestweasel · · Score: 2

    Or the guy hears the SWAT team arriving and shouts at the terrified woman.
    "You liar, you did call the sheriffs"
    "No honey, I swear I didn't", she replies, suddenly confused.
    "Liar!". BLAM BLAM

  12. Re:Tainted Evidence by unixisc · · Score: 3, Funny

    The funniest thing about this story is that the girlfriend neither called the cops herself, nor did she ask Google Home to do it. The boyfriend asked 'Did you call the police', and Google Home heard the last part, took it as his directive, and called the cops.

    He should be allowed to take Google Home w/ him to jail, so that he can train it better.

  13. Re:Better not watch tv near that piece of shit. by Sarten-X · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So you would have them process/blacklist every possible audio track from every show, movie, and radio broadcast ever created?

    ...yes?

    It's not an intractable problem; merely an issue of scale, and the folks producing these systems are excellent at solving scaling issues. After all, the process has already begun with music.

    As one possible solution, start with the libraries from Amazon, Google, and Netflix. Those libraries are already digitized and delivered in high-quality streams. As broadcast streams are produced, take a feed from each content-producing station, and process that. Note that since these streams can be processed faster than they're viewed, the backlog can be eventually caught up.

    On the blacklist side, false positives can be reduced by listening to identify what media is being played. If you're watching Law and Order, for example, the device (or more appropriately, the cloud system behind it) can recognize the episode, and know to ignore the remaining dialog. That in turn increases the confidence of matches that aren't part of the episode's audio track. Conversely, when you change the station, the device can detect the deviation from the soundtrack, and lower that confidence input.

    --
    You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
  14. Re: Tainted Evidence by Sarten-X · · Score: 3, Informative

    For reference, I will defer to an actual lawyer. The Illustrated Guide to Law is an absolutely fantastic reference for basic legal fundamentals. Two pages in particular are good places to start for a particular example, applicable in this case.

    By coincidence, it even addresses the privacy issue: There's no such expectation while in someone else's home.

    The rest of the series is also great material for understanding the principles involved.

    --
    You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
  15. Re: good thing that the GOP will not give out well by Sarten-X · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There is always fraud. If it's possible for someone to get the assistance while still getting income from illegal or under-the-table dealings, someone will do it, even if just as a way to get by while "sticking it to the Man". Yes, that creative ingenuity would probably be more profitable in a legal enterprise, but there is always someone who just wants to get away with a scam. Remember, humans are horrible creatures.

    --
    You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
  16. Re:abcnews article is updated, device not Google H by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    When will they update it to state what actually happened?

    1. Police receive 911 call about domestic dispute from woman who pretended to call someone else.
    2. Man asks woman "Did you call the sherriffs?"
    3. Woman denies it.
    4. Sherriffs show up, man starts threatening woman because she lied to him.
    5. Sherriff spots smart home device, remembers what was said on the call, and defuses situation by suggesting that the woman didn't call them, the smart home device did when the man asked the question.
    6. Journalist overhears and thinks he has a news for nerds story worthy of slashdot front page.
    7. ....
    8. Profit

  17. Re: good thing that the GOP will not give out wel by Sarten-X · · Score: 2

    Sure it does...

    Now how much income? How do we account for inflation? Who gets to answer those questions? Is there any accommodation for unequal needs? What qualifies as "universal"? Does it apply to all citizens? Does it apply to all residents? Do convicted felons still get the paycheck while in prison? How do we stop fraud? Where does the money come from? Is that fair and just?

    This basically summarizes why the government rarely implements simple solutions. They're rarely simple.

    --
    You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
  18. "Didju"... aka "Bitch" by lannocc · · Score: 2

    Train your virtual assistant to the name "Didju." Alternatively, the name "Bitch" may prove quite useful and/or hilarious.

  19. Re:Better not watch tv near that piece of shit. by Sarten-X · · Score: 2

    Ah yes, the uncivilized land of Australia, where Google can't possibly get a data-sharing contract with the production studios.

    --
    You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
  20. Re:Woman goes nuts threatens daughter by ledow · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Guy intervenes, gets hurt, ,..."

    and then breaks the law by using force other than in self-defence, and then breaks another law by pulling a gun when his life is not in immediate danger.

    No matter how much you might dislike it, a gun is literally the last resort and you don't pull it unless you fully intend to shoot to kill. If you pull it and don't shoot, it's because of a major change in the situation, but - like an airbag going off - is something that should automatically involve the police if things have got this far.

    Either way, you want the police coming at that point. And your correct response would not have been to pull the gun unless you genuinely thought that you needed to use it as a lethal weapon (rather than just showing it off to shut people up), or - if you didn't intend to use it - using reasonable force to restrain - AND - having called the police.

    Responsibility comes with it the ability to know the legal limits. Even "fighting back" is a grey area unless the safety of yourself or others is in question if you don't. And there you want police to come too.

    Sorry, in this case, penis means "I'm going to pull out a weapon when it's unjustified and threaten people with it". The exact thing that the rest of the world is always pointing at when the US doesn't punish its own police force for doing that. Let alone a private citizen.

    Much scarier than that people tolerate devices listening all the time is that they can call emergency services just by hearing certain phrases. Much scarier than that is idiots pulling guns because of a domestic. Much scarier than that is idiots like that being able to source and carry guns, legally.

    If you had restraint, nothing would have been able to get to that kind of position anyway.

  21. Re: good thing that the GOP will not give out well by Cryacin · · Score: 3, Funny

    Exactly. It's detracting me from asking the most important question of all! How do I use the 3 sea shells?

    --
    Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
  22. Re:abcnews article is updated, device not Google H by AVryhof · · Score: 2

    Based on some of the things my Echo responds to.... I bet "Did you' in a strong accent could sound like "Echo" which is a trigger word.

    My concern is that the Echo can only call other Echo users.... so my guess is that it was one of the other AWS enabled devices.

    Unless one of them is a developer and was building something that could do that. I don't imagine such folks are immune to domestic disputes. I knew a girl once who was very intelligent, (probably could have put ProtaOS on a Raspberry Pi) but always made bad choices for her SO.

  23. Re: good thing that the GOP will not give out wel by kilfarsnar · · Score: 2

    Sure it does...

    Now how much income?

    Double the poverty line.

    How do we account for inflation?

    Peg an increase to the inflation rate; similar to what we do with Social Security

    Who gets to answer those questions?

    Congress does.

    Is there any accommodation for unequal needs?

    No, it's universal

    What qualifies as "universal"? Does it apply to all citizens?

    Yes, every man, woman and child above a certain age

    Does it apply to all residents?

    Maybe

    Do convicted felons still get the paycheck while in prison?

    Perhaps they would get a portion, considering their room and board are already being paid for by the state

    How do we stop fraud?

    It's universal, so there would not be much fraud. But you could tie it to the Social Security system and track it that way.

    Where does the money come from?

    The federal government. They could tax for it, or just print it.

    Is that fair and just?

    Yes.

    Hey, check it out, I just worked out a basic income! ;-)

    --
    "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
  24. Re: good thing that the GOP will not give out well by OhPlz · · Score: 2

    That's flat-out wrong. There are plenty of people that want to live on handouts and to never work an honest day in their life. I know people like this. They know every trick in the book to game every welfare-like program, and when the government does a sweep of welfare looking for cheats, they jump over to disability. If that stops working for them, they go back to welfare.