Umm... The iPhone already lets you call emergency numbers if a phone is locked. You can even call an emergency number if your AT&T contract is no longer working.
You made some good points, but I don't agree that it's crazy talk. I'm skeptical though. My question is whether your ECG still identifiably yours under typical conditions of variation. I'm thinking of conditions that lead to an increase in heart rate. I think you would agree that atrial fib and v tach are not exactly typical conditions. So potentially, this method could work reliably. I imagine that the inventors have consulted heart rhythm experts in order to figure out how to think about this. I think that this technique will never be used in a device unless the validation process demonstrates its reliability. That is the Apple approach. That's why there is no handwriting recognition on the iPad. It's just not reliable.
Your thought about analyzing the ECG when there's chest pain is interesting. There could be an app for that. However, I expect that the app would be used to feed data to a medical professional. Any other use would expose Apple to legal risk. I'm sure that you can imagine the scenario that I have in mind.
You have very good points. But, I would like to point this out on the thought of info being sent to medical professionals. Our 12 lead ECG in the ambulance sends the information to the ER physician or Cardiologist (if he is near) so they can analyze it and prepare for treatment. In theory, this is what is supposed to happen. 9 times out of 10, that fax never leaves the fax machine sitting next to them until after all is said and done and the patient has been there for a while.
I guess my point is, just because technology improves, our doctor's unfortunately don't. *in most cases* Sad, but true.
I'm serious, if you win I will happily hand over my money. Up for the bet?
I'll take you up on that - I'll bet all my worldly possessions.
Just let me get this right - if the world does end - then you get ALL my stuff and if the world does
NOT end - then you send me $100, right?
The only way I see the "world " ending in 2010 is if some dumb arse gets a hold of a nuclear weapon and decides he is "fated" to use it.
Still - even in that case - the planet will go on even if humans and or anything resembling human civilization does not.
The whole Mayan calendar predicting the end of the world is something that the Mayans do not believe - their calendars were all about finding the cycles of life - not the end of anything. And the galactic alignment etc - big freakin deal - not going to have any effect whatsoever.
A new embedded security method in a future iPhone could lock out unauthorized users who do not have an identified "cardiac signal," measured through a heart sensor in the hardware.
Great. So when I'm having a heart attack I can't call 911.
I am glad that many of the posters understood how crazy this approach is to identify a person.
There are better, less costly and far easier ways to identify a person, if need be. Face recognition in combination with finger prints would be more foolproof.
More than likely, the average smartphone user may not even take such precautions, much like many would not even use a password, as a simple precautionary measure for many computing devices.
One last thing, what happens if you consent for someone else to use your phone?
No quite the contrary. It's a win win. I'm betting the world does NOT end! If it ends, and I am wrong I will gladly hand over my wager !
I guess I got it backwards - you are betting that the world does not end - if you win and the world does not end you keep your $100 and collect on the bet - if the world does end and you lose you would have to pay the $100 - provided someone could find a way to collect that $100 after the end of the world.
Or in other words - if someone says to you that they will bet $100 the world WILL end - you would cover that bet with your $100 that the world will NOT end. If the world does not end then you collect the winnings - if it does end then it wouldn't matter since the world has ended.
You have very good points. But, I would like to point this out on the thought of info being sent to medical professionals. Our 12 lead ECG in the ambulance sends the information to the ER physician or Cardiologist (if he is near) so they can analyze it and prepare for treatment. In theory, this is what is supposed to happen. 9 times out of 10, that fax never leaves the fax machine sitting next to them until after all is said and done and the patient has been there for a while.
I guess my point is, just because technology improves, our doctor's unfortunately don't. *in most cases* Sad, but true.
Exactly... In theory - everything that Doctor may see in those ECG's as 'issues' could (and should) be automated. If you can see it, reason it, make a conclusion, then that process/information can be programmed.
The 'Cardiologist Board'(if thats the proper group/term) should be putting out 'an app for that' for the parametics, GP/ER docs etc.
IMO the Doc's need to get into the tech world and start automating their knowledge...in a formal methodical(sp) manner. They can't automate everything, but they sure can do 95%.
What the tech world has learned is that for 'system knowledge' no one person can 'know it all'. And in medicine its getting harder each day with the Docs not being able to 'keep up'. Its just not possible, technology needs to step in.
Who would trust their personally-identifiable (in theory) biometric information to their portable computing device? Especially one that's usually connected to the internet, and (without adding extra 'firewall-ish' software) regularly communicates with various sites behind your back, including Apple.
If this were available today, and worked reasonably well as a personal identifier, how many of you would actually use it? I'll cast the first vote: Nope, never, no way.
Exactly... In theory - everything that Doctor may see in those ECG's as 'issues' could (and should) be automated. If you can see it, reason it, make a conclusion, then that process/information can be programmed.
The 'Cardiologist Board'(if thats the proper group/term) should be putting out 'an app for that' for the parametics, GP/ER docs etc.
IMO the Doc's need to get into the tech world and start automating their knowledge...in a formal methodical(sp) manner. They can't automate everything, but they sure can do 95%.
What the tech world has learned is that for 'system knowledge' no one person can 'know it all'. And in medicine its getting harder each day with the Docs not being able to 'keep up'. Its just not possible, technology needs to step in.
Automated ECG interpretation has been around for a long time and it is great for routine screening but complex interpretation requires neural net processing. This requires a well trained MD who is acquainted with the entire clinical picture. Most physicians I know are well ahead of the technology wave and embrace new technologies early but the majority of good medicine still occurs between the ears and between a patient and doctor.
I think there are a lot of assumptions here. If there is identification by heartbeat/rate it doesn't say anywhere that that is the only way to activate. There could easily have a passcode to enter as well. The heartbeat check if it worked most of the time would be very convienient. No pointing camera at eye or placing finger on pad. This is a very apple idea, patent something that could make security super simple and have a backup system if the result is negative.
Comments
Haven't you guys ever seen the locked screen?
You made some good points, but I don't agree that it's crazy talk. I'm skeptical though. My question is whether your ECG still identifiably yours under typical conditions of variation. I'm thinking of conditions that lead to an increase in heart rate. I think you would agree that atrial fib and v tach are not exactly typical conditions. So potentially, this method could work reliably. I imagine that the inventors have consulted heart rhythm experts in order to figure out how to think about this. I think that this technique will never be used in a device unless the validation process demonstrates its reliability. That is the Apple approach. That's why there is no handwriting recognition on the iPad. It's just not reliable.
Your thought about analyzing the ECG when there's chest pain is interesting. There could be an app for that. However, I expect that the app would be used to feed data to a medical professional. Any other use would expose Apple to legal risk. I'm sure that you can imagine the scenario that I have in mind.
You have very good points. But, I would like to point this out on the thought of info being sent to medical professionals. Our 12 lead ECG in the ambulance sends the information to the ER physician or Cardiologist (if he is near) so they can analyze it and prepare for treatment. In theory, this is what is supposed to happen. 9 times out of 10, that fax never leaves the fax machine sitting next to them until after all is said and done and the patient has been there for a while.
I guess my point is, just because technology improves, our doctor's unfortunately don't. *in most cases* Sad, but true.
I bet you £100 the world does not end in 2012.
I'm serious, if you win I will happily hand over my money. Up for the bet?
I'll take you up on that - I'll bet all my worldly possessions.
Just let me get this right - if the world does end - then you get ALL my stuff and if the world does
NOT end - then you send me $100, right?
The only way I see the "world " ending in 2010 is if some dumb arse gets a hold of a nuclear weapon and decides he is "fated" to use it.
Still - even in that case - the planet will go on even if humans and or anything resembling human civilization does not.
The whole Mayan calendar predicting the end of the world is something that the Mayans do not believe - their calendars were all about finding the cycles of life - not the end of anything. And the galactic alignment etc - big freakin deal - not going to have any effect whatsoever.
Just let me get this right - if the world does end - then you get ALL my stuff and if the world does
NOT end - then you send me $100, right?
Bwahahahahahah! Guess he doesn't realize it is a lose/lose situation for him huh?
A new embedded security method in a future iPhone could lock out unauthorized users who do not have an identified "cardiac signal," measured through a heart sensor in the hardware.
Dead men tell no tales or use iPhones...
Great. So when I'm having a heart attack I can't call 911.
That was my first thought as well!
You guys get way too 'hard' reading patents.
Great. So when I'm having a heart attack I can't call 911.
I am glad that many of the posters understood how crazy this approach is to identify a person.
There are better, less costly and far easier ways to identify a person, if need be. Face recognition in combination with finger prints would be more foolproof.
More than likely, the average smartphone user may not even take such precautions, much like many would not even use a password, as a simple precautionary measure for many computing devices.
One last thing, what happens if you consent for someone else to use your phone?
CGC
I'll take you up on that - I'll bet all my worldly possessions.
Just let me get this right - if the world does end - then you get ALL my stuff and if the world does
NOT end - then you send me $100, right?
Bwahahahahahah! Guess he doesn't realize it is a lose/lose situation for him huh?
No quite the contrary. It's a win win. I'm betting the world does NOT end! If it ends, and I am wrong I will gladly hand over my wager !
I'll take you up on that - I'll bet all my worldly possessions.
Deal!
What have you got? This is like christmas but without the annoying family members.
Great. So when I'm having a heart attack I can't call 911.
That's why Flash won't make it into the iPhone... BECAUSE IT'S DEAD
No quite the contrary. It's a win win. I'm betting the world does NOT end! If it ends, and I am wrong I will gladly hand over my wager !
I guess I got it backwards - you are betting that the world does not end - if you win and the world does not end you keep your $100 and collect on the bet - if the world does end and you lose you would have to pay the $100 - provided someone could find a way to collect that $100 after the end of the world.
Or in other words - if someone says to you that they will bet $100 the world WILL end - you would cover that bet with your $100 that the world will NOT end. If the world does not end then you collect the winnings - if it does end then it wouldn't matter since the world has ended.
Never was a fan of double negatives.
You have very good points. But, I would like to point this out on the thought of info being sent to medical professionals. Our 12 lead ECG in the ambulance sends the information to the ER physician or Cardiologist (if he is near) so they can analyze it and prepare for treatment. In theory, this is what is supposed to happen. 9 times out of 10, that fax never leaves the fax machine sitting next to them until after all is said and done and the patient has been there for a while.
I guess my point is, just because technology improves, our doctor's unfortunately don't. *in most cases* Sad, but true.
Exactly... In theory - everything that Doctor may see in those ECG's as 'issues' could (and should) be automated. If you can see it, reason it, make a conclusion, then that process/information can be programmed.
The 'Cardiologist Board'(if thats the proper group/term) should be putting out 'an app for that' for the parametics, GP/ER docs etc.
IMO the Doc's need to get into the tech world and start automating their knowledge...in a formal methodical(sp) manner. They can't automate everything, but they sure can do 95%.
What the tech world has learned is that for 'system knowledge' no one person can 'know it all'. And in medicine its getting harder each day with the Docs not being able to 'keep up'. Its just not possible, technology needs to step in.
If this were available today, and worked reasonably well as a personal identifier, how many of you would actually use it? I'll cast the first vote: Nope, never, no way.
Exactly... In theory - everything that Doctor may see in those ECG's as 'issues' could (and should) be automated. If you can see it, reason it, make a conclusion, then that process/information can be programmed.
The 'Cardiologist Board'(if thats the proper group/term) should be putting out 'an app for that' for the parametics, GP/ER docs etc.
IMO the Doc's need to get into the tech world and start automating their knowledge...in a formal methodical(sp) manner. They can't automate everything, but they sure can do 95%.
What the tech world has learned is that for 'system knowledge' no one person can 'know it all'. And in medicine its getting harder each day with the Docs not being able to 'keep up'. Its just not possible, technology needs to step in.
Automated ECG interpretation has been around for a long time and it is great for routine screening but complex interpretation requires neural net processing. This requires a well trained MD who is acquainted with the entire clinical picture. Most physicians I know are well ahead of the technology wave and embrace new technologies early but the majority of good medicine still occurs between the ears and between a patient and doctor.