Slashdot Mirror
An Apple Facility That Repairs iPhones in California Won't Stop Calling 9-1-1 -- and Nobody Knows How To Stop It (businessinsider.com)
The small city of Elk Grove, California received more than 2,000 erroneous 911 calls from Apple devices at an Apple repair facility. The months-long issue is yet to be resolved. From a report: Between October 20, 2017 and February 23, 2018, the police department in Elk Grove, California received 2,028 calls on its 911 lines originating from the Apple facility -- an average of 16 calls per day. At one point in January, the calls from the Apple factory were so frequent that they tied up every single one of Elk Grove's six 911 lines, according to public documents reviewed by Business Insider. "They lit us up like a Christmas tree," one dispatcher wrote in in an email to other dispatchers. It was obvious to Elk Grove police that the 911 calls were not real emergencies, but rather, the equivalent of accidental "butt dials," mysteriously ringing the city's hotline on an assembly-line scale.
For whatever reason, many of the iPhones being repaired at the Apple facility were going rogue and dialing 911. But for city officials trying to stop the nuisance and to ensure that a critical emergency resource was not overburdened, fixing the problem has not been easy. Despite crediting Apple for being responsive to their pleas for help, Elk Grove officials have been frustrated by the company's inability to fix the problem. At one point, officials even discussed the possibility of getting the state government involved and sending police to the factory.
For whatever reason, many of the iPhones being repaired at the Apple facility were going rogue and dialing 911. But for city officials trying to stop the nuisance and to ensure that a critical emergency resource was not overburdened, fixing the problem has not been easy. Despite crediting Apple for being responsive to their pleas for help, Elk Grove officials have been frustrated by the company's inability to fix the problem. At one point, officials even discussed the possibility of getting the state government involved and sending police to the factory.
problem solved.
The problem (from Apple's perspective) is repair facilities like this one reducing it's sales by offering an alternative, so yeah, the company going out of business would solve the problem.
Also, does anyone here believe that Apple isn't behind the 911 calls for the purposes of running a repair service out of business? If you said yes, please rip your own cock off and throw it out the window, because Apple fanbois should not reproduce.
"Prediction: within 10 years, Windows will be a Linux distribution." Me, 7-6-2016
Just send police for every call and charge a false alarm fee for false alarms.
Once it starts costing $1000 per false alarm, Apple will find it much easier to resolve the problem.
Apple needs to set up a stingray at the factory, filter out 911 calls from unknown devices, allow employee phones to dial through to 911 if needed.
Ken
In the US, corporations are liable for just about nothing. They can do whatever they'd like, with impunity. If an individual accidentally called 911 a fraction of the times that this facility did, that person would be in jail. Without a phone. Problem solved.
We *should* be holding the company's owners responsible, but that'll never happen.
I don't respond to AC's.
That's why you store all phones in shielded containers when not being actively worked on. Shielded containers and bags are commonly available and should already be in use in any facility that handles electronics. So, when the phone arrives and is unpacked, it is immediately put in a shielded bag. It stays in this bag until it is being worked on. Any parts of the process where the phone is possibly under power is done with the phone in a shielded container or room.
This isn't rocket science...
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
"knowingly" is a term of art in law, a well-established term with a very well known definition. It's part of a set:
Intentionally - doing it on purpose, trying to cause the result
Grossly negligent - Reckless as to whether it happens
Negligent - Not sufficiently careful to avoid the thing
Knowingly - Aware that you're doing or causing some thing
So knowingly is the the bottom of the list, it requires only awareness. Because they have been aware for a long time, and they know that installing screening (Faraday cage) would prevent the problem, and they have failed to take these reasonable steps, they are now grossly negligent - two steps worse than "knowingly".
--
Going off on a tangent:
It's funny because it's a federal crime to be "negligent" in allowing classified information to be placed on unapproved storage systems. FBI Director Comey announced in the famous press conference that Clinton was "extremely careless in her handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.". Well "extremely careless" means the same thing as "grossly negligent", so that's a felony. He announced that she was guilty of a felony. Then proceeded to say "although there is evidence of violations ... consider the context" a prosecutor won't indict the person about to be elected president.
Slashdot posters have already fucking told you how to fucking stop it.
Send the cops every time a 9-1-1 call originates from there, and follow typical procedure - guns drawn, clear the whole fucking area, violate everyone's rights, etc.
Then fine them gobs of money every time it happens.
The calls will stop.
That's exactly what it is. From the article:
"The calls are described in the Elk Grove reports as "NSI," or non-service initialized, because they originate from devices that haven't yet been activated. According to the manager, Apple said that turning off emergency calls for an unactivated phone was not an option because of Federal Communications Commission regulations."
> The wording seemed to be there to target intentional abuse. This could be considered unintentional, though definitely avoidable.
You used the word "intentional" twice. You may recall that "intentional" is three levels higher (worse) than "knowingly". The authors of the law chose "knowingly", which *means* unintentional, though foreseen. If the law was supposed to mean "intentionally", it would say "intentionally" because that's one of the four choices. Apple knows that what they are currently doing causes 911 calls multiple times per day. Therefore by that wording they are liable.
If the law said "purposefully calls 911" there could be an argument, because "purposefully" isn't one of the four defined levels. Someone would argue that "purposefully" means the same thing as "intentionally" and someone else might argue otherwise. Since the law uses the legal term "knowingly", that's defined to mean intent does not matter. Had the law said "negligently" that would mean Apple is liable of they aren't being careful. Since the word "knowingly" is used, even being careful isn't enough - they know about it, they didn't stop it, therefore they are liable.
Is it just me or have I read this story before? https://apple.slashdot.org/sto...