I would envision this leveraging SIRI and Touch ID (passcode)
I think that the system could monitor the Microphone, instead of just for "loud noises", but for "HELP!" or "HELP ME!" that have enough "volume", or perhaps only listen after the phone detects some of the aforementioned "trigger events"
it could then buzz, and have Siri ask "Do you need help?, if not please enter your pass-code/touchID" if the user says "yes" or "help" then the system immediately calls 911, etc.. otherwise it has a timeout say 30-60 seconds or whatever.
in the case of rapid deceleration (car crash) the system could bypass the listening for "help" and go straight to "Do you need help?" with the standard timeout.
I think the "dead man switch" is a pretty good idea, actually. I can imagine someone walking home late at night in a scary neighborhood, and keeping their finger on the button, knowing that if anything bad happened, all they would have to do is let go for it to alert the authorities. You'd probably want a 5-second delay or something, just in case somebody's hand slips, but I don't think this part of the idea is that unreasonable.
Sounds totally absurd to me. Better idea: Don't walk through bad neighborhoods.
I can see it now: "Oh its ok my iPhone will protect me. Oops, I'm dead. Well at least the cops will be here soon."
Sounds totally absurd to me. Better idea: Don't walk through bad neighborhoods.
I can see it now: "Oh its ok my iPhone will protect me. Oops, I'm dead. Well at least the cops will be here soon."
1) Not everyone can avoid having to walk through bad neighborhoods because many live in bad neighborhoods.
2) I don't see this as being something Apple should include.
3) It does give me an idea for a Dead Man's Switch app. You set it up with email, iMessage, phone calls, to send out a canned message if engaged, and can also have it start recording via the mic, taking snapshots from both cameras, and recording GPS location, which it then sends to someone every 5(?) seconds after the switch has been activated.
Sounds totally absurd to me. Better idea: Don't walk through bad neighborhoods.
I can see it now: "Oh its ok my iPhone will protect me. Oops, I'm dead. Well at least the cops will be here soon."
Maybe the "bad neighborhood" thing was a bad example on my part. I live in one of the nicest neighborhoods of New York City, but the only two people I know who were mugged in New York in the last decade or so had their iPhones stolen at gunpoint within a few blocks of my house (and the house of Senator Schumer, and the house of Mayor de Blasio...). Almost definitely the same guy, and within a few weeks of each other. It's pretty rare to get shot here by someone you don't know. We don't have "stand your ground" laws or a lot of trigger-happy paranoid people.
I don't know if people would actually use it, but if my friends had been using something like this, it could have helped the police chase the dude as he rolled down the hill on his Razor scooter (both times).
Sounds totally absurd to me. Better idea: Don't walk through bad neighborhoods.
It doesn't necessarily have to be a 'bad' neighborhood. What a man might consider a dangerous situation and what a woman might think are often completely different. Say a woman is arriving at a metropolitan airport at night and has to walk through the parking garage alone with her laptop, luggage, etc. to find her car. Prime target for a opportunist mugger and totally frightening situation for most women. Anyplace downtown in a urban area at night could be considered dangerous. Like getting out of a theater, or restaurant and walking city streets. Some people have to take mass transit. Not always the safest place but sometimes unavoidable.
As a skier who keeps my iPhone (sealed) on my person while I ski, I can only imagine how it would register when I lose it and have a "yard sale" on the slopes. When I'm trying to dig myself (and my skis) out of the snow, the last thing I need on top of that is to have my iPhone loudly alarming in my pocket. Do not want.
Of course, Apple would make it impossible to disable, for extra convenience.
Using bio sensors from, say, a hypothetical iWatch could add further accuracy to distress situations. Of course, even with sound, motion, and bio sensors, the system could be falsely triggered under certain situations (say, riding a roller coaster) or getting scared at a Halloween spook house.
Utterly stupid and completely impossible to implement correctly.
This is how they slip in invasive technology..through the guise of safety. And it is so amazing the way idiotics just lap it up. Detect loud noises? Yeah you know what that means? Finding an excuse to listen through your microphone all the time, which they want, and have now thought of an excuse for you to opt it to it! Google would love that. So would the NSA.
There is absolutely no way this stupid gimmick could ever work as there is literally NO way the iPhone can ever know that there is a real emergency happening, or you're just vacuuming or working out. Complete idiocy that needs to be called out for what it is: a scam.
There are correct ways for rapid motion 70+ miles an hour or for medical with digital monitors, obviously microphone access limited to option even then activated after another sensor is triggered, now most ways aren't useful still.
Utterly stupid and completely impossible to implement correctly.
This is how they slip in invasive technology..through the guise of safety. And it is so amazing the way idiotics just lap it up. Detect loud noises? Yeah you know what that means? Finding an excuse to listen through your microphone all the time, which they want, and have now thought of an excuse for you to opt it to it! Google would love that. So would the NSA.
There is absolutely no way this stupid gimmick could ever work as there is literally NO way the iPhone can ever know that there is a real emergency happening, or you're just vacuuming or working out. Complete idiocy that needs to be called out for what it is: a scam.
Be quiet, they don't work with the NSA. It'd be a cool feature!
Of course, Apple would make it impossible to disable, for extra convenience.
/s
No they wouldn't. You'd be able to disable it. Stop downgrading Apple! They try to help and everyone criticizes! Stop it! They're a good force for the world, and all everyone does is go against them. Why not go against the real cheaters, Samsung?
Be quiet, they don't work with the NSA. It'd be a cool feature!
She calls it.....
No they wouldn't. You'd be able to disable it. Stop downgrading Apple! They try to help and everyone criticizes! Stop it! They're a good force for the world, and all everyone does is go against them. Why not go against the real cheaters, Samsung?
Even if Apple implemented something to fix that, what happens when the battery is spent?
That doesn't matter, because you would need a fingerprint/pass code to turn it on anyway. It's the turning off that's the weak link at the moment.
One of the problems is the hard reset. That could be considered an important function. And where I feel an iWatch could come into its own. If the iDevice moves away from the iWatch, the iDevice could automatically lock itself, take regular photos, email them to owner plus police station, take video, give regular location updates, disable all buttons thereby disabling hard resets and emit an alarm; in short, make life difficult for the thief. And the iWatch would control these functions.
That doesn't matter, because you would need a fingerprint/pass code to turn it on anyway. It's the turning off that's the weak link at the moment.
At least after 5 bad attempts with Touch ID it then requires the passcode before TouchID is reenabled. I assume, perhaps falsely, that this also dibbles TouchID after 5 false passcode attempts. (I'll try it later)
One of the problems is the hard reset.
I think Apple could solve this with a specialized HW chip. Basically it would make all HW hard resets not turn it off but turn it off and on, like you can do with a restart in SW, but this would be the default HW setting of the device whenever the main device loses power, and not unlike how it works when your battery dies and it goes into the deep sleep just to auto wake after it's been charging for awhile.
This is fool proof as a thief could stick it in a container that blocks wireless signals but it would be another step in the right direction for me.
At least after 5 bad attempts with Touch ID it then requires the passcode before TouchID is reenabled. I assume, perhaps falsely, that this also dibbles TouchID after 5 false passcode attempts. (I'll try it later)
What's the rationale for this policy? Is there such thing as brute-forcing a fingerprint reader?
Take a look at the patent filed to USPTO on the same domain (problem/solution) and dated to AUG/2011: METHOD FOR USING SMARTPHONES AS PUBLIC AND PERSONAL SECURITY DEVICES BASED ON TRUSTED SOCIAL NETWORKS (available at www.agentto.com/dev/patent1)
Comments
I would envision this leveraging SIRI and Touch ID (passcode)
I think that the system could monitor the Microphone, instead of just for "loud noises", but for "HELP!" or "HELP ME!" that have enough "volume", or perhaps only listen after the phone detects some of the aforementioned "trigger events"
it could then buzz, and have Siri ask "Do you need help?, if not please enter your pass-code/touchID" if the user says "yes" or "help" then the system immediately calls 911, etc.. otherwise it has a timeout say 30-60 seconds or whatever.
in the case of rapid deceleration (car crash) the system could bypass the listening for "help" and go straight to "Do you need help?" with the standard timeout.
just some ideas
I think the "dead man switch" is a pretty good idea, actually. I can imagine someone walking home late at night in a scary neighborhood, and keeping their finger on the button, knowing that if anything bad happened, all they would have to do is let go for it to alert the authorities. You'd probably want a 5-second delay or something, just in case somebody's hand slips, but I don't think this part of the idea is that unreasonable.
Sounds totally absurd to me. Better idea: Don't walk through bad neighborhoods.
I can see it now: "Oh its ok my iPhone will protect me. Oops, I'm dead. Well at least the cops will be here soon."
1) Not everyone can avoid having to walk through bad neighborhoods because many live in bad neighborhoods.
2) I don't see this as being something Apple should include.
3) It does give me an idea for a Dead Man's Switch app. You set it up with email, iMessage, phone calls, to send out a canned message if engaged, and can also have it start recording via the mic, taking snapshots from both cameras, and recording GPS location, which it then sends to someone every 5(?) seconds after the switch has been activated.
Sounds totally absurd to me. Better idea: Don't walk through bad neighborhoods.
I can see it now: "Oh its ok my iPhone will protect me. Oops, I'm dead. Well at least the cops will be here soon."
Maybe the "bad neighborhood" thing was a bad example on my part. I live in one of the nicest neighborhoods of New York City, but the only two people I know who were mugged in New York in the last decade or so had their iPhones stolen at gunpoint within a few blocks of my house (and the house of Senator Schumer, and the house of Mayor de Blasio...). Almost definitely the same guy, and within a few weeks of each other. It's pretty rare to get shot here by someone you don't know. We don't have "stand your ground" laws or a lot of trigger-happy paranoid people.
I don't know if people would actually use it, but if my friends had been using something like this, it could have helped the police chase the dude as he rolled down the hill on his Razor scooter (both times).
It doesn't necessarily have to be a 'bad' neighborhood. What a man might consider a dangerous situation and what a woman might think are often completely different. Say a woman is arriving at a metropolitan airport at night and has to walk through the parking garage alone with her laptop, luggage, etc. to find her car. Prime target for a opportunist mugger and totally frightening situation for most women. Anyplace downtown in a urban area at night could be considered dangerous. Like getting out of a theater, or restaurant and walking city streets. Some people have to take mass transit. Not always the safest place but sometimes unavoidable.
http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s16e10-insecurity
Of course, Apple would make it impossible to disable, for extra convenience.
/s
She calls it.....
No they wouldn't. You'd be able to disable it. Stop downgrading Apple! They try to help and everyone criticizes! Stop it! They're a good force for the world, and all everyone does is go against them. Why not go against the real cheaters, Samsung?
/s=sarcasm
How about first we make the iPhone impossible to turn off with using a PIN/TouchID, otherwise the part about theft is pointless.
Even if Apple implemented something to fix that, what happens when the battery is spent?
That doesn't matter, because you would need a fingerprint/pass code to turn it on anyway. It's the turning off that's the weak link at the moment.
One of the problems is the hard reset. That could be considered an important function. And where I feel an iWatch could come into its own. If the iDevice moves away from the iWatch, the iDevice could automatically lock itself, take regular photos, email them to owner plus police station, take video, give regular location updates, disable all buttons thereby disabling hard resets and emit an alarm; in short, make life difficult for the thief. And the iWatch would control these functions.
At least after 5 bad attempts with Touch ID it then requires the passcode before TouchID is reenabled. I assume, perhaps falsely, that this also dibbles TouchID after 5 false passcode attempts. (I'll try it later)
I think Apple could solve this with a specialized HW chip. Basically it would make all HW hard resets not turn it off but turn it off and on, like you can do with a restart in SW, but this would be the default HW setting of the device whenever the main device loses power, and not unlike how it works when your battery dies and it goes into the deep sleep just to auto wake after it's been charging for awhile.
This is fool proof as a thief could stick it in a container that blocks wireless signals but it would be another step in the right direction for me.
At least after 5 bad attempts with Touch ID it then requires the passcode before TouchID is reenabled. I assume, perhaps falsely, that this also dibbles TouchID after 5 false passcode attempts. (I'll try it later)
What's the rationale for this policy? Is there such thing as brute-forcing a fingerprint reader?
Take a look at the patent filed to USPTO on the same domain (problem/solution) and dated to AUG/2011: METHOD FOR USING SMARTPHONES AS PUBLIC AND PERSONAL SECURITY DEVICES BASED ON TRUSTED SOCIAL NETWORKS (available at www.agentto.com/dev/patent1)
I guess you didn't read the article. What's so impossible about a dead man's switch with a delay/reset? Drop dead easy.