Am I the only one concerned about the possible repercussions (to the wearer, I mean) of triggering a law enforcement response? There have been multiple cases now where (American, obviously) Law Enforcement have brutalized and injured people experiencing diabetic shock. And what if the fall and unconsciousness is the result of illicit drug use? Surely the wearer doesn't want a call to 911 to be the default behavior in…
>There have been multiple cases now where (American, obviously) Law Enforcement have brutalized and injured people experiencing diabetic shock.
Given the odds, there are likely far more cases of people being seriously injured or even killed from diabetic shock that do not pop up on the public perception radar because they are not attached to a social spectacle.
>And what if the fall and unconsciousness is the result of illicit drug use? Surely the wearer doesn't want a call to 911 to be the default behavior in that case.
I don't know if that's your (our?) call to make. Whether a drug abuser wants to die from their drug abuse is, I think, a deeply personal choice. Unless they have a DNR (which they can get if they are so inclined), I think the right choice is to try to intervene and get them to survive before throwing the book at them.
FWIW, there are many laws centered around "forgiving" people involved in incidents like this to increase the response/survival rate. For example, I live in a college town and if you report someone (underage even) overdosing on alcohol or any other illicit drug, the police are instructed to not pursue a criminal case against the overdoser or anyone who reports the incident (even if they themselves are breaking the law). The point being that anyone who finds themselves in situations like this will hesitate to call for help, and laws like these increase the odds that people in trouble get the help they need in time.
>Does Apple act with greater discretion in jurisdictions where law enforcement are known to be criminally brutal or corrupt? I suspect that the answer is "no."
Two things here. First, I don't know what "greater discretion" would imply here - they wait longer before calling, or adjust the threshold of what constitutes a fall? Second, "jurisdictions where law enforcement are known to be criminally brutal or corrupt" is a deeply subjective topic, probably one which Apple rightfully should have zero cards in. I also fear that you will find that districts that engage in brutality also happen to have a large minority population (since you state white people are not affected by police brutality at the same rate that minorities are), and this will further reduce the usefulness of this feature for those people.
>Since people of color experience a greater proportion of negative outcomes from law enforcement contact, I surmise this feature is far more useful for white people.
While you make a good point with conditions like diabetic shock and presumably seizures, I think this feature was generally meant for people who have lost consciousness (as the subject in the article did). I think even the most egregiously corrupt police force in the country would still call in an ambulance for a guy who has passed out rather than proceed to taze him or something.