Slashdot Mirror
Apple Refuses To Enable iPhone Emergency Settings that Could Save Countless Lives (thenextweb.com)
An anonymous reader shares a report: Despite being relatively easy, Apple keeps ignoring requests to enable a feature called Advanced Mobile Location (AML) in iOS. Enabling AML would give emergency services extremely accurate locations of emergency calls made from iPhones, dramatically decreasing response time. As we have covered before, Google's successful implementation of AML for Android is already saving lives. But where Android users have become safer, iPhone owners have been left behind. The European Emergency Number Association (EENA), the organization behind implementing AML for emergency services, released a statement today that pleads Apple to consider the safety of its customers and participate in the program: "As AML is being deployed in more and more countries, iPhone users are put at a disadvantage compared to Android users in the scenario that matters most: An emergency. EENA calls on Apple to integrate Advanced Mobile Location in their smartphones for the safety of their customers." Why is AML so important? Majority of emergency calls today are made from cellphones, which has made location pinging increasingly more important for emergency services. There are many emergency apps and features in development, but AML's strength is that it doesn't require anything from the user -- no downloads and no forethought: The process is completely automated. With AML, smartphones running supporting operating systems will recognize when emergency calls are being made and turn on GNSS (global navigation satellite system) and Wi-Fi. The phone then automatically sends an SMS to emergency services, detailing the location of the caller. AML is up to 4,000 times more accurate than the current systems -- pinpointing phones down from an entire city to a room in an apartment. "In the past months, EENA has been travelling around Europe to raise awareness of AML in as many countries as possible. All these meetings brought up a recurring question that EENA had to reply to: 'So, what about Apple?'" reads EENA's statement.
As usual, these CONservatives hate us and want to spy on us.
When you read an article that describes this incredible thing and all the advantages it brings, and how easy / painless it would be to implement, I kinda start to feel like a car salesman is telling me how cheap some car is. I suspect there's more to the story, and quite possibly a good reason Apple's not enabling this service.
Anyone out there have the other half of the story? I'm gonna go get some caffeine.
Is it just me, or does this summary seem very one-sided and accusatory?
I'd like to hear Apple's rationale - too often, security is sacrificed in the name of "safety"
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
When someone tells you something is "countless", it usually means they want you to believe it's sufficiently many to accept their argument, but have no evidence to back that up.
How many people would this actually save?
What is the potential for abuse?
Yeah cause we can trust that this advanced location tracking feature won't be abused by governments to spy on its citizens. Its not like apple had to stand up against the intelligence industrial complex of multiple nations and tell them that encryption is part of the right of free speech and they won't submit to weakened encryption, or assist governments in decrypting phones outside of due process and in violations of ones 4th amendment rights.
For non-americans out there: 4th amendment right is your right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. Its a right that pre-dates and existed before the United States, is an unalienable right of all humans not just Americans, and if your government doesn't already promise/guarantee such a right in a written and binding document similar to the U.S constitution, you should demand one from your government!
ITs called 'Lib-er-ty' Specifically i should have the option of NOT providing my location constantly. Any smartphone that doesnt offer root by default should be banned outright, no exceptions. See i can spout unrealistic absolutes too.
Good-bye
What are people trying to secure?
Their location and identity in the event they are trying to report an incident anonymously.
Have gnu, will travel.
Remember, apple isn't a technology company, they're a luxury brand marketing company.
How does tripe like this get modded "Insightful"?
Apple make good things. Apple are good at marketing those things. One does not preclude the other, you know. It's entirely possible to make good things and be able to have a team of people devise a really good marketing strategy for them too.
You can even have those people in the same building at the same time, if you like. It's amazing, but you can have different "departments" within the same campus, with teams of people taking care of different parts of the business.
But I guess this doesn't satisfy our outlet for tribalism when it comes to technology. Or sports teams. Or car brands. Or your favourite fucking brand of socks.
Law enforcement and government will find a way to turn it on "for the public good." Sometimes you just have to stubbornly say no in order to protect rights, freedom, and privacy. Rights cost, not just on the battlefields of our nation's wars, but in our daily lives. Sad, but very true.
E Proelio Veritas.
There are android phones out there that are, (don't get value-judgment on imperfect, its a neutral term here) imperfect substitutes for iPhones.
Sure. And there are Android phones out there that are superior to iPhones, too.
Personally, running on hardware of equal power, I find Android to be superior to iPhone (as long as it's not one of those modified Android versions that the carriers crank out). But the reality is that both operating systems are roughly equally capable, so which one a person prefers is more a matter of taste than of some sort of objective superiority.
There are scenarios where you'd want to call emergency services but not reveal your location. They might not be very common, but they might still be very important. It's not unheard of for police department to be compromised by assassins. Why not ambulances too?
I'm sure that's a possibility, but unless you got the wrong side of Jason Bourne recently it's probably not something most of us need to worry about when calling for an ambulance.
On the other hand, ambulance services here in the UK deal with more than 100,000 Red 1 calls every year. These are the most urgent kind of medical emergency, things like cardiac arrests or where a casualty has stopped breathing. The target for an emergency vehicle arriving at the scene in these cases is usually 8 minutes, because the casualty's chances of survival drop rapidly if they don't receive that level of care by that time.
If you consider calls to all potentially life-threatening situations, which also typically have an 8 minute target, the figure is more like 50,000-100,000 per day. Although most calls aren't for something as serious as a cardiac arrest, there are many other conditions -- strokes, for example -- where providing care even a little faster can significantly improve a patient's chances of survival or a good recovery.
Not adopting a system that will get significantly faster help to millions of people with potentially life-threatening conditions every year because you're worried about a hit man infiltrating the ambulance service seems like a decision for movie script writers, not people making real world decisions with real lives at stake.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.