Police Use Fitbit Data to Charge 90-Year-Old Man in Stepdaughter’s Killing
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
As these wearables become more reliable — e.g. a report of a sudden stopped heartbeat is unlikely to be a hardware failure — I wonder if society will expect companies to be more proactive in contacting the user and emergency authorities. I mean, more than what the new Apple Watch offers as (I assume) opt-in, like how credit card companies call you quickly after suspicious activity.
Straight to cryogenic storage from there.
Without the surveillance video, the Fitbit data would arguably have been useless.
But from the article, I gather that there weren't signs of forced entry or robbery. So investigators very likely suspected that the victim knew the murderer. And so mom and step-dad were likely on the short list.
Also, they'd still have seen his car in the video. And they knew when she stopped showing up at work.
I'm suprised this isn't already a thing, at least on overpriced specialty devices. My grandfather already wears a device that detects when he falls (or pushes the button) and will call the company, who will then call us and an ambulance if they cannot determine everything is okay.
They seem to be okay with a pretty high false positive rate.
As you move into less at risk populations, your tolerance for false positives will go down though.
Also, I'm pretty sure the case of "oh no I can't feel a heartbeat - oh wait, I'm on the charger" is detectable, too (that is: if it's charging, don't assume the user is dead because of an inability to detect a pulse).
For example, a murdurer wanting to stick the charges on some other person could steal that persons devices (phone, fitbit, etc). Wear them while commiting the murder. Then return them, without notice if done at night or something.
The other person would then have a very hard time proving that he/she did not in fact commit to the murder, simply because courts have started to rely on these devices too much.
So if a second person puts on your device, and their physical numbers (heartrate, gait, perspiration, etc) differ from yours, you can get a notification, just like when you log into your email from an unknown location.
A good theft-prevention measure, such as locking the device whenever it’s taken off, should prevent such a scenario.
It's more about people putting more trust into smart devices than they should; and the fear this gives me for the future.
"...it recorded her heart rate slowing rapidly, and stopping at 3:28 p.m., about five minutes before Mr. Aiello left the house, the report said."
"the police said their investigation used a combination of video surveillance and data from Ms. Navarra’s Fitbit, an Alta HR device"
On a different note, a new product stands to be created based on this kind of morbid data + ML. We should have an open database of cardiac events and all wear devices that immediately send for help via E911/Location when an event with a morbidity p-value > C is detected. Seems like a no brainer if we care about protecting everyone optimally.
Does anyone know if a database of cardiac events exists from which to train a NN?
Coming from an old-school Italian family, reading this article felt like it could just as well have been about one of my parents or cousins. They hold familial grudges forever, serve revenge ice cold, and murder is not particularly off-limits - especially when you're already nearly dead of old age yourself.
Many might think about ice-cold revenge, but most forget about it after a few decades. Fortunately.
I think that you mean agility and strength, no?
So this was a 90-year-old man vs a 67-year-old woman. From his photo, he's in pretty decent shape. She was wearing a Fitbit, but maybe that indicates that she was infirm, and not fit. I'm guessing that he mainly caught her by surprise.
Barring a new mental health issue which turned this guy murderous, he was probably not-a-nice-person earlier in life, thus already capable of (and perhaps never held responsible for) many earlier misdeeds.
So, wild guess: step-daughter declared intent to reveal his prior crimes, to mom and/or authorities. Then, step-father kills to keep his secrets.
('Crocodile').
This is fine as long as it's optional, but there comes a point where "protecting everyone optimally" is in conflict with other basic rights, like not wanting the government to have access to minute-by-minute data on your biological functions.
Additionally, if it did work by calling 911, it would probably need to bundle a mobile phone, at which point it becomes impossible to go anywhere without the government knowing approximately where you are.
annnnnnnnd I'm never speaking to police again
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
That really should be required viewing in every civics class.
0) You are video recorded. Hide your face. If possible sit under the camera. (They usually mount it on the ceiling).
1) A trick: Letting your friends/family visit you. Always refuse.
2) Giving you many servings of soft drinks and water without bathroom breaks. Refuse liquids.
3) A trick: Telling you they have more evidence than they do. "Your friend said you did this...", "We have you on film..." "Your wife said..." "It will be easier if you just..."
0. They know you're in there, don't they?
1. OK, so don't talk to family in that room, right?
2. Seriously? Why is that? Couldn't you just pee below the camera (if they repeatedly refuse to let you go, and you previously announce it, ...)?
3. OK, that's common sense to me.
Heh. Yes. But, after 4 hours alone in a small room, many people roll their eyes, do exercises, scream, yell, talk to themselves.
1. OK, so don't talk to family in that room, right?
Yes. BUT. Your family sure will within seconds start talking.
2. Seriously? Why is that? Couldn't you just pee below the camera (if they repeatedly refuse to let you go, and you previously announce it, ...)?
Yeah. People just become agitated. Start agreeing to things, start rocking, start looking nervous, sweating, pacing around, or peeing on the floor -- it isn't a great look on camera.