Yes, of course the false positives can become so frequent that it's not tolerable. But that absolutely does not mean that allowing none at all is a sensible goal, because that invariably means more false negatives.
And the article does not sound like the false positives are at the intolerable level, in the opinion of the people actually affected.
But your original comment doesn’t acknowledge the limits on ability to respond. Yes of course in the abstract they would rather respond to all false alarms so as to not miss true alarms, but there’s always a limit. This is why fire departments charge for false alarms. When I worked at my university after graduating, we had a string of false alarms from the data center, and at some point the city allegedly started charging for them. I see no reason not to bill Apple if a jurisdiction has a similar policy already in place.
> But your original comment doesn’t acknowledge the limits on ability to respond.
It also doesn't say that false positives are irrelevant, just that eliminating them should not be the highest priority.
Because the comment I was replying to stated that "the bar should be incredibly high, which would mean that it's basically impossible to hook up automated systems to the emergency services line."
And the article does not sound like the false positives are at the intolerable level, in the opinion of the people actually affected.