Invite Police Officers into Your Home with Apple Watch’s Auto-911 Feature

Megalith

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
Legal professionals are warning the Apple Watch could open owners up to criminal liability due to a new feature that automatically dials 911 if it senses the wearer has fallen and no action is taken. Due to the "community caretaking" exception to the Fourth Amendment, police could legally enter someone’s home without a warrant after receiving an emergency alert. They would then be free to scope the surroundings out for potential criminality.

This is the notion that law enforcement officers can enter a private space if they reasonably believe that someone needs emergency assistance. It's similar to the "exigent circumstances" exception, which allows police to come in if they believe someone is in imminent danger or physical evidence is being destroyed. In such a situation, the watch would alert first responders, and police officers could enter her home. They might spot a few joints on her coffee table, and the wearer might be subsequently charged with felony drug possession.
 
Keep Calm 2.png
 
This article wrote about the absolute worse case scenario for this feature. It seems really difficult for this to accidentally happen. It's an opt-in feature (that is automatically enabled if your profile lists your age over 65) and if you fall and you're conscious, you have multiple alerts to address before the call even happens.

Honestly, if you're over 65 it should do this. For everyone else, don't opt in. Oh wait, that's not as click-baity as the article. What we have here is a journalist using a single unpopular tweet as the source for an entire article which seems to be the norm these days.
 
Seems like this is the sort of thing for the only reason you'd get an over 65 to be wearing one of these watches to begin with.

I gave up wearing watches 6 years ago and don't intend to wear another ever again unless it's specifically because I'm enfeebled and need a fall response device.
 
Police already do "Wellness Checks", usually at the request of family, friends, neighbors, employers, etc. if someone isn't following their normal pattern and normal contact methods have failed. A fair number of real crimes are discovered this way as are a number of folks who just expired. Not sure how the "in plain sight" rule works in those cases but this would seem to be very similar. Not sure how these watches will be much different from the "I have fallen and can't get up" services. If it bothers you, take it up with your city council. They can set/change police policy to exempt certain crimes from being charged based on evidence seen during a wellness visit.
 
So disable the feature...jesus how is this even news. You guys trying fill your Apple hate quota for the day?
 
  • Like
Reactions: DocNo
like this
Wonder home many deaths Apple will be indirectly responsible for when the potential for a trigger happy cop mistakes an overpriced iPhone for a weapon. Oh the irony.
 
Those Life Alert necklaces have been doing this for years. My grandmother had one and needed to use it. Police and an ambulance showed up, they broke a window to get in then unlocked her door to get her out. If she had a mountain of cocaine in the table, the police would have found it and she would have been charged.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DocNo
like this
From the article, "On September 12, Jennings explained to Ars by phone that, unfortunately, there have been and still are instances "where people are made less safe by the summoning of police."

I'd say depending who you are and where you live that's a serious issue. Definitely some potential to help, but some scary stuff too.
 
If it's an opt-in feature, fine. If it's an opt-out feature - I call shenanigans. If it's an opt-in feature that is secretly running anyways - I call shenanigans.
 
Hi All

I wonder what possibly could go wrong with this new feature
 
Last edited:
I think its a self contained bomb, like the one arnie uses in terminator as his battery.

When the cops come and try to arrest you for lying on the floor of your own home. Just shout Hey Siri and it will blow them up.

Finally, something to shut her the fuck up.
 
Megalith said:
Legal professionals are warning the Apple Watch could open owners up to criminal liability due to a new feature that automatically dials 911 if it senses the wearer has fallen and no action is taken. Due to the "community caretaking" exception to the Fourth Amendment, police could legally enter someone’s home without a warrant after receiving an emergency alert. They would then be free to scope the surroundings out for potential criminality.

This is the notion that law enforcement officers can enter a private space if they reasonably believe that someone needs emergency assistance. It's similar to the "exigent circumstances" exception, which allows police to come in if they believe someone is in imminent danger or physical evidence is being destroyed. In such a situation, the watch would alert first responders, and police officers could enter her home. They might spot a few joints on her coffee table, and the wearer might be subsequently charged with felony drug possession.
Click to expand...

Something tells me that your average police officer is just a TAD too busy to bother to "scope the surroundings out for potential criminality". Now if youre a known drug dealer and they were looking for something on you? Sure maybe. But look at it this way: Would you rather DIE or have them find that stash and go to jail for a few years?

For the average person this is not much different than them calling 911 and inviting the police/emergency responders in anyway.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DocNo
like this
Ya I don't think any old people wearing a watch to assist with medical assistance needs will be sitting at home snorting lines of coke.
 
  • Like
Reactions: noko
like this
Megalith said:
Legal professionals are warning the Apple Watch could open owners up to criminal liability due to a new feature that automatically dials 911 if it senses the wearer has fallen and no action is taken. Due to the "community caretaking" exception to the Fourth Amendment, police could legally enter someone’s home without a warrant after receiving an emergency alert. They would then be free to scope the surroundings out for potential criminality.

This is the notion that law enforcement officers can enter a private space if they reasonably believe that someone needs emergency assistance. It's similar to the "exigent circumstances" exception, which allows police to come in if they believe someone is in imminent danger or physical evidence is being destroyed. In such a situation, the watch would alert first responders, and police officers could enter her home. They might spot a few joints on her coffee table, and the wearer might be subsequently charged with felony drug possession.
Click to expand...
No. How can this be anywhere near legal if you never contacted them, your watch did? Such insane thinking will make all of us a ward of the state by default unless people do not stand for anything remotely close to this BS. The cops love this stuff, I have nothing against the law or cops personally, except I want my rights and there are reasons why people want to be left alone when they aren't doing anything wrong. Some of the cops I've come across are pretty quick to assume you are a criminal when you haven't done anything wrong, and that needs to be stopped.
 
kju1 said:
But look at it this way: Would you rather DIE or have them find that stash and go to jail for a few years?

.
Click to expand...

Would you rather sleep off the four-day bender you've been on by taking a cereal bowl full of Xanax, or have the cops put you away for the next REST OF YOUR LIFE for the coke that's on the table, your nose, your hands, your clothes, your cat's nose...?
 
triwolf said:
No. How can this be anywhere near legal if you never contacted them, your watch did? Such insane thinking will make all of us a ward of the state by default unless people do not stand for anything remotely close to this BS. The cops love this stuff, I have nothing against the law or cops personally, except I want my rights and there are reasons why people want to be left alone when they aren't doing anything wrong. Some of the cops I've come across are pretty quick to assume you are a criminal when you haven't done anything wrong, and that needs to be stopped.
Click to expand...


Yea panic much?


Look, let's run through the scenario best we can and see how it looks after a little critical thinking.

1st, how many seniors are wearing iWatches? Is a freaking Apple Watch a hot item with old people who's eyes are failing etc?

2nd, So we have a percentage of elderly hipsters who, when setting up their new watch decided that this feature was good so they didn't opt-out, or maybe they didn't know about it at all. Everyone not a senior don't matter cause the feature is an auto-opt-out for them.

3rd, how many of our hipster seniors with good eye-sight who aren't aware of this feature in their watch, have an incident and the watch decides to call 911 for them, and "Before actually contacting first responders, the Apple Watch will try to give numerous urgent alerts: tapping the wearer on the wrist, sounding of a very loud alarm, and also displaying a visual alert."

4th, our hipster seniors with good eye-sight start getting these alerts and alarms and fail to prevent the watch from summoning the help, ok, the watch was in their laundry hamper, they carried the hamper into the laundry room and dropped it on the floor starting the process, the alarm was muffled by the dirty clothes, the cops came and the old folkie just didn't know they were coming. Six million dollar question, of the vast number of old hipsters with good eyesight who would buy this watch and leave this feature on, and experience an incident where the phone called the cops without their knowledge, how many do you figure have illegal shit just lying around their home? Wouldn't pick up on the small Army coming into their homes and head them off before it turned into a full blown search of the premises, etc?

Yes it could happen. We all can imagine that it could happen. Are the numbers going to be great? No, not likely. Is there a greater chance that our old hipster with good eye-sight actually get's some help? I would say the odds are far greater that good would be served before an incidental arrest happens. And if someone does get busted, so what, who tied their hands behind their backs and made them do something illegal?

I don't see any need to get my back up over this lawyer's bullshit run up the click-bait flag pole on a slow news day.
 
lcpiper said:
Yea panic much?


Look, let's run through the scenario best we can and see how it looks after a little critical thinking.

1st, how many seniors are wearing iWatches? Is a freaking Apple Watch a hot item with old people who's eyes are failing etc?

2nd, So we have a percentage of elderly hipsters who, when setting up their new watch decided that this feature was good so they didn't opt-out, or maybe they didn't know about it at all. Everyone not a senior don't matter cause the feature is an auto-opt-out for them.

3rd, how many of our hipster seniors with good eye-sight who aren't aware of this feature in their watch, have an incident and the watch decides to call 911 for them, and "Before actually contacting first responders, the Apple Watch will try to give numerous urgent alerts: tapping the wearer on the wrist, sounding of a very loud alarm, and also displaying a visual alert."

4th, our hipster seniors with good eye-sight start getting these alerts and alarms and fail to prevent the watch from summoning the help, ok, the watch was in their laundry hamper, they carried the hamper into the laundry room and dropped it on the floor starting the process, the alarm was muffled by the dirty clothes, the cops came and the old folkie just didn't know they were coming. Six million dollar question, of the vast number of old hipsters with good eyesight who would buy this watch and leave this feature on, and experience an incident where the phone called the cops without their knowledge, how many do you figure have illegal shit just lying around their home? Wouldn't pick up on the small Army coming into their homes and head them off before it turned into a full blown search of the premises, etc?

Yes it could happen. We all can imagine that it could happen. Are the numbers going to be great? No, not likely. Is there a greater chance that our old hipster with good eye-sight actually get's some help? I would say the odds are far greater that good would be served before an incidental arrest happens. And if someone does get busted, so what, who tied their hands behind their backs and made them do something illegal?

I don't see any need to get my back up over this lawyer's bullshit run up the click-bait flag pole on a slow news day.
Click to expand...

You are entitled to your opinion, I hope you don't end up as one of the "small number" of people screwed by it. I don't buy apple or generally intrusive tech anyway, so to each his own. Same as it ever was.
 
triwolf said:
You are entitled to your opinion, I hope you don't end up as one of the "small number" of people screwed by it. I don't buy apple or generally intrusive tech anyway, so to each his own. Same as it ever was.
Click to expand...


I grant you your own opinion as well.

But unless there is an example somewhere, no one has yet been screwed by this feature to date? Sort of argues against circling the wagons from where I sit.

But if it starts to become a problem in the future, you might actually enlist my support. I'm not above changing my mind when situations warrant it. At the moment I'll recommend that we simply "let the buyer beware" cover it, and those who frequently engage in criminal activity are now for-warned.

"Knowing is half the battle" Go Joe !
 
lcpiper said:
I grant you your own opinion as well.

But unless there is an example somewhere, no one has yet been screwed by this feature to date? Sort of argues against circling the wagons from where I sit.

But if it starts to become a problem in the future, you might actually enlist my support. I'm not above changing my mind when situations warrant it. At the moment I'll recommend that we simply "let the buyer beware" cover it, and those who frequently engage in criminal activity are now for-warned.

"Knowing is half the battle" Go Joe !
Click to expand...
See, this is how people should argue.

I'm fine with it IF, and it's a big IF, all companies will do away with the opt in by default, and it and most all options for just about everything should default to NO. They know most users are so data fried at this point no one ever reads or takes two seconds to think of what they are agreeing to.
 
triwolf said:
See, this is how people should argue.

I'm fine with it IF, and it's a big IF, all companies will do away with the opt in by default, and it and most all options for just about everything should default to NO. They know most users are so data fried at this point no one ever reads or takes two seconds to think of what they are agreeing to.
Click to expand...


I didn't used to be so "pliant" when it came to arguments here at [H]. Let's say I am trying to improve my approach :D


P.S. I'm getting to be an old man, so it's a lengthy process.
 
Joust said:
Would you rather sleep off the four-day bender you've been on by taking a cereal bowl full of Xanax, or have the cops put you away for the next REST OF YOUR LIFE for the coke that's on the table, your nose, your hands, your clothes, your cat's nose...?
Click to expand...

Id rather be alive. The rest of your argument is baseless.

triwolf said:
See, this is how people should argue.

I'm fine with it IF, and it's a big IF, all companies will do away with the opt in by default, and it and most all options for just about everything should default to NO. They know most users are so data fried at this point no one ever reads or takes two seconds to think of what they are agreeing to.
Click to expand...

Why all companies? If the user is stupid thats not the companies fault. People should be aware of the consequences of their actions (or inactions even).

lcpiper said:
I didn't used to be so "pliant" when it came to arguments here at [H]. Let's say I am trying to improve my approach :D


P.S. I'm getting to be an old man, so it's a lengthy process.
Click to expand...

Age is just a #.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DocNo
like this
lcpiper said:
I can't help but wonder, from what vantage point (age) you form your opinion ?


My own vantage is that of a 58 year old, (Pulling out the age epeen lol :()
Click to expand...


Well, when one receaches a certain age, epeen may have to suffice....
 
Hallucinator said:
Good luck to those who's 65+ and drunk all the time.
Click to expand...


Well actually, that's my mom to a T. She fell after drinking whisky and had a sudden drop in blood pressure (no surprise to anyone except her). She was knocked out for two hours. This might have been helpful, except she has bad habit of not charging her cell phone, so the same would happen with this (was lucky her cell had some charge at all when she called 911).

Since she won't change her stubborn-ass ways, we hooked up her cell phone to an Echo, and left the cell phone permanently plugged-in.
 
kju1 said:
Id rather be alive. The rest of your argument is baseless.



Why all companies? If the user is stupid thats not the companies fault. People should be aware of the consequences of their actions (or inactions even).



Age is just a #.
Click to expand...
Well, what tends to happen in this world is if too many people make bad decisions, then the decision is taken away from those that dissent. At some point people in power will try to argue your ability to make a choice can be taken away because over 50% of people disagree with you, even if you may feel it totally wrong to go with the majority.

Yes, it is the person's responsibility to make a good decision, the problem is when it's not a good one for you personally, and when enforced it sure doesn't feel like there is much freedom when you are ruled as wrong because of a choice that is best for you personally, but the majority disagree.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top