European emergency agency requests Apple enable AML location tracking in iPhone for first ...

Posted:
in iPhone
The European Emergency Number Association is asking that Apple go beyond it's Apple Watch emergency location sending feature, and requests that Advanced Mobile Location be integrated into iOS and the iPhone to assist in locating people in an emergency.




The organization made the call for Apple to implement Advanced Mobile Location (AML) technology on Thursday. The group claims that it has tried to directly contact Apple regarding the matter, and has had no success.

The group does note that the Apple Watch can tell a phone to send the wearer's location to a specified contact. However, the group wants the functionality extended to the iPhone itself, and the data send to emergency services and rescuers.

"Recent news about the 'panic command' on iPhones, including a location function, is also a step in the right direction," said EENA in a statement. "But it is not sufficient: accurate location information should be sent during all emergency calls."

AML is open source, and any smartphone manufacturer or operating system provide can integrate it. Google has done so with Android, starting with Gingerbread -- and calls it Emergency Location Service.

Not all Android phones are compatible with the technology, however. Samsung, for instance, doesn't support the feature across its entire line of smartphones, but does in its flagship Galaxy S8.

When an emergency call is made with a smartphone where AML is enabled, the phone establishes its position and sends this information via a text message to the 112 and 999 service in the UK. Accuracy is within a radius of 50 meters or less for most calls.

The UK, Belgium, Estonia, Lithuania, New Zealand, Sweden, and the state of Lower Austria have already implemented the service, with 10 other countries looking to deploy it before the end of 2017.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 26
    "Open Source" is code for "Hackable"
    lkruppwatto_cobraSpamSandwich
  • Reply 2 of 26
    maltzmaltz Posts: 128member
    "Open Source" is code for "Hackable"
    Oh please. The vast majority of the world's websites use open source software for web services and SSL encryption, including Apple themselves. The underpinnings of macOS itself consist of an open-source fork of FreeBSD called Darwin.
    edited August 2017 Solilolliverjony0
  • Reply 3 of 26
    Open source is battle hardened the more eyes on code the better.   
    gatorguyjony0CyborgKungFuCyborgKungFu
  • Reply 4 of 26
    "Open Source" is code for "Hackable"
    It means that the code is available for free and can be inspected for vunerabilities BEFORE it is used.

    The question is will Apple take the step and integrate it into the iPhone? It makes sense to me but I know nothing.
  • Reply 5 of 26
    uraharaurahara Posts: 211member
    You just tried to look smart when you talked about volnurability....


    Open saurce (format) and vulnerability in this case have nothing to do with each other!

     The format of the message - is open source. Basically, the specification on the format of your location. Put in easier terms, e.g. date format: dd-mm-yyyy or ddd-mmm-yy are two different formats. You should send the data in only one of these formats.
    Wehether it is dd-mm-yyyy or ddd-mmm-yy - there is no volnurability involved.


    edited August 2017
  • Reply 6 of 26
    jbdragonjbdragon Posts: 2,043member
    I thought that when you called like 911 that your GPS location is also sent?
  • Reply 7 of 26
    knowitallknowitall Posts: 1,241member
    maltz said:
    "Open Source" is code for "Hackable"
    Oh please. The vast majority of the world's websites use open source software for web services and SSL encryption, including Apple themselves. The underpinnings of macOS itself consist of an open-source fork of FreeBSD called Darwin.
    Your right, except Darwin isn't a fork of FreeBSD similar to humans not being a fork of chimpanzees: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Unix_timeline.en.svg .
    cyberzombie
  • Reply 8 of 26
    nhtnht Posts: 4,429member
    The protocol looks okay from a quick perusal but EENA isn't an official part of the EU nor directly tied into E112 governance. 

    It's nice that a NGO is trying to do something but it's not an official EU standard...partly because the EU wants (or wanted) to require that Galileo be used for E112 while in US E911 is tech agnostic and has performance requirements that must be met by certain dates by handset and network operators.

    Maybe AML is open source. Maybe it's not:

    Intellectual Property Rights

    IPRs essential or potentially essential to the present document may have been declared to ETSI. The information pertaining to these essential IPRs, if any, is publicly available for ETSI members and non-members, and can be found in ETSI SR 000 314: "Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs); Essential, or potentially Essential, IPRs notified to ETSI in respect of ETSI standards", which is available from the ETSI Secretariat. Latest updates are available on the ETSI Web server (https://ipr.etsi.org/).

    Pursuant to the ETSI IPR Policy, no investigation, including IPR searches, has been carried out by ETSI. No guarantee can be given as to the existence of other IPRs not referenced in ETSI SR 000 314 (or the updates on the ETSI Web server) which are, or may be, or may become, essential to the present document.

     

    lowededwookie
  • Reply 9 of 26
    SoliSoli Posts: 8,692member
    Is it too much to ask that every modernized country use the same three 3-digit code for calling emergency services?
    lostkiwi
  • Reply 10 of 26
    lostkiwilostkiwi Posts: 588member
    Funny, I never heard about this being implemented in NZ, but it is on the Beehive webpage and everything. Maybe I just saw the words 'Android' and 'Location' earlier and assumed it was another story about Google giving "trusted third parties" (anyone who is interested) your precise location. 

    That being said this particular function looks reasonable, as long as Apple can do it securely I would support it. 
    edited August 2017 tzm41watto_cobra
  • Reply 11 of 26
    entropysentropys Posts: 1,627member
    Does the benefit outweigh the cost for society as a whole?
    difficult to say. Good can be used for evil.
  • Reply 12 of 26
    volcanvolcan Posts: 1,772member
    This functionality already exists in the US. It is enabled through software running on the 911 emergency answering service in concert with the carriers, not on the phone.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_9-1-1
  • Reply 13 of 26
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,767member
    Open source is battle hardened the more eyes on code the better.   
    Right... Actually this is as much bullshit as the opposite stance.  both positions are defensible.

    But none are right.

    If the code is newish and everyone who touches it truly understand how the many parts interact together which is easier if the code doesn't have too many legacy dependencies that no one wants to touch, that may be the case.
    But, in cases were it is a sprawling mess of disparate code, which is the case in many large open source that have been running for more than a decade, security is certainly not improved measurably.

    In theory Open source has more eyes,
     but those eyes are more interested in developing shiny things than plowing through tons of poorly designed and documented legacy code.
    Bugs have stayed hidden in old Open Source libs, even very popular and critical ones like OpenSSH for many years.

    Having a company actually responsible if something happen, legally, financially and reputation wise, makes the difference in those cases.

    The bad security in companies happens for the same reason than in open source software, nobody wants to pay for a old program; the client wants the new stuff.
    So, companies have to take profits from their new stuff and plow them into legacy code that the client won't care about until something real bad occurs.
    So, for the company, it is a numbers game; how much money, reputation and all is delaying the fix worth.
    For companies sitting on loads of cash like Apple, it is obviously not worth the risk of reputation hit to not fix things, but for companies with a very low profitability it may be.
    People that buy products from those thin margin companies unconsciously make the same tradeoff : security vs paying more.


    Solilowededwookie
  • Reply 14 of 26
    Soli said:
    Is it too much to ask that every modernized country use the same three 3-digit code for calling emergency services?
    America wanted to be different to England which is also the reason why America drives on the right hand side of the road.

    We'll talk again when America accepts the internationally recognised dd(d)-mm(m)-(yy)yy format instead of it's inane mm(m)-dd(d)-(yy)yy format

     :D  ;) :p
    watto_cobrasingularity[Deleted User]
  • Reply 15 of 26
    nhtnht Posts: 4,429member
    Soli said:
    Is it too much to ask that every modernized country use the same three 3-digit code for calling emergency services?
    America wanted to be different to England which is also the reason why America drives on the right hand side of the road.

    We'll talk again when America accepts the internationally recognised dd(d)-mm(m)-(yy)yy format instead of it's inane mm(m)-dd(d)-(yy)yy format

     :D  ;) :p
    Both are inane since they don't sort.  yyyy-mm-dd is most useful.
    taniwhatoysandmespheric[Deleted User]
  • Reply 16 of 26
    America wanted to be different to England
    Stupid, but appropriate:


    Also, do you guys call them Zed Zed Top?
    inane mm(m)-dd(d)-(yy)yy format

    Yes, because in the English language you would totally say, “Today is tenth March, twenty seventeen.”  :p

    edited August 2017
  • Reply 17 of 26
    SoliSoli Posts: 8,692member
    Soli said:
    Is it too much to ask that every modernized country use the same three 3-digit code for calling emergency services?
    America wanted to be different to England which is also the reason why America drives on the right hand side of the road.

    We'll talk again when America accepts the internationally recognised dd(d)-mm(m)-(yy)yy format instead of it's inane mm(m)-dd(d)-(yy)yy format

     :D  ;) :p
    I've heard such stories before but I've never seen any evidence to back up an entire nation's decision for policy change based on some pettiness against the UK, especially when there are so many other things in common, evidence that US English is close to colonial English than British English is today, and more reasonable explanations, like dialing 9 first on a rotary phone would limit accidental dials, but then using the number 1 for the next two would help speed up the calls to emergency services. This also unsubstantiated but it at least sounds like a reasonable explanation based around utility.
  • Reply 18 of 26
    croprcropr Posts: 914member
    Soli said:
    Is it too much to ask that every modernized country use the same three 3-digit code for calling emergency services?
    The 112 number is part of the GSM standard, meaning that every phone that is used on a GSM networks must support it and every GSM operator must support it.  Which also mean that if I am abroad, I can still use it, which is of course a big advantage because I don't have to know/memorize the foreign emergency number, quite important in a stress situation. 

    Of course every country had before the arrival of GSM a emergency code (911 in the US, 100 in a lot of other countries).  There is nothing wrong with it, but these are national numbers.  With the arrival of mobile phones with roaming functionality, a national solution was not suffcient, and hence the 112 number
    edited August 2017 Soliavon b7
  • Reply 19 of 26
    nhtnht Posts: 4,429member
    cropr said:
    Soli said:
    Is it too much to ask that every modernized country use the same three 3-digit code for calling emergency services?
    The 112 number is part of the GSM standard, meaning that every phone that is used on a GSM networks must support it and every GSM operator must support it.  Which also mean that if I am abroad, I can still use it, which is of course a big advantage because I don't have to know/memorize the foreign emergency number, quite important in a stress situation. 

    Of course every country had before the arrival of GSM a emergency code (911 in the US, 100 in a lot of other countries).  There is nothing wrong with it, but these are national numbers.  With the arrival of mobile phones with roaming functionality, a national solution was not suffcient, and hence the 112 number
    Meh, they should have picked 911 over 112 for the GSM standard but they don't like the US even when we have better solutions. 

    911 is better for mobile phones as butt dialing 911 is less likely than butt dialing 112 given the separation between the 9 and 1.  Avoiding false positives is why the very first emergency number was 999 and not 111.  Wet tree limbs could tap out 111 in a storm back in the day with unshielded copper lines.
  • Reply 20 of 26
    Soli said:
    Soli said:
    Is it too much to ask that every modernized country use the same three 3-digit code for calling emergency services?
    America wanted to be different to England which is also the reason why America drives on the right hand side of the road.

    We'll talk again when America accepts the internationally recognised dd(d)-mm(m)-(yy)yy format instead of it's inane mm(m)-dd(d)-(yy)yy format

     :D  ;) :p
    I've heard such stories before but I've never seen any evidence to back up an entire nation's decision for policy change based on some pettiness against the UK, especially when there are so many other things in common, evidence that US English is close to colonial English than British English is today, and more reasonable explanations, like dialing 9 first on a rotary phone would limit accidental dials, but then using the number 1 for the next two would help speed up the calls to emergency services. This also unsubstantiated but it at least sounds like a reasonable explanation based around utility.
    Actually the 999 thing (here in New Zealand it's 111) has to do with the old phone systems. 999 or 111 are the most opposite end of the old rotary dial phones to the start position. By using these numbers it creates a timespan that the old systems could recognise so you didn't get a misdial. Here in New Zealand when we went to push button tone phones people were pressing 111 too fast and it would misdial every time because the phone system couldn't pick up the tone correctly. We had a campaign called "Think 1-go-1-go-1" to alleviate the issue. Not so much an issue now though. At one stage New Zealand's Telecom had to add 911 to the emergency service numbers thanks to the popularity of William Shatner's 911 in the '90s and people were dialling 911 instead of 111 and getting failed calls.

    America might like to think that their version of English is the closest to colonial English but truthfully there is no such thing. The reason British English uses "colour" instead of "color" has to do with the fact that much of the words in English are taken from French and Spanish as a result of conquests. So by dropping these letters America actually makes themselves further from colonial English than modern British English. Also English is a constantly changing language so there literally is no right or wrong English. English itself is such a mongrel language that to believe in a standardised English is a bit of a misbelief. I mean you've got a Germanic language using words from French, Spanish, Hindi/Gujurati/etc, Latin, Greek, Mandarin, African, and basically any other language that England came into contact with with their own conquests that you can't actually say English has a standard. Even within England there are different forms of English and different ways of using words that getting pedantic about grammar and spelling is a fool's errand. Hell, we still use in some form words that were made up by William Shakespeare so English literally contains made up words and people get all up in arms about how to properly use them? Fool's Errand indeed.
    edited August 2017 Solisingularity[Deleted User]
Sign In or Register to comment.