This topic is touched on in the Krebs article released today (which includes information from the Toronto PD press release), in that the Toronto PD are investigating...
Well, yes and no. In the grand scheme of things, sure, there are more effective and secure methods of authentication. But like anything, you have to weigh security vs. usability. If you make things too secure (read: complex) then users won't use it.
There is also a huge difference between the $15 fingerprint reader you buy off of Amazon, and the "professional" scanner found in enterprise/secure devices (which in my experience, consist of a high resolution camera combined with software that detects (and looks for) movement of the finger on the scanner, "flattening" of the finger as its placed on the glass, among other things).
Further, there is the inherent need for someone (user or malicious person) to be on-site to present the biometric, as opposed 'remote' access using a username/password combination.
Like anything however, you also need to protect the core infrastructure, as well as the end-user interface. All authentication methods are useless if someone has direct access to the authentication server.
I completely agree! A few seconds can certainly save one’s life. The main issue is how to broadcast this warning without suffering from any delay or latency...
For example, elevators in areas prone to earthquakes have sensors installed that can detect the movement of the building [1]. If it sways too far it will automatically move the elevator (up or down) to get the car as far as possible from the heavy heavy counterweight - as there is the possibility that it could break free and smush the car.
I took an emergency suicide first aid course a couple years back, and to this day still carry around the pocket-sized "workflow" in the wallet in the hopes I never need it.
That been said, one of the most important things I took from the course was the need to have the person with the experimental thoughts to agree to stay safe. That is, to agree not to harm themselves for a pre-allotted timeframe. You’re not convincing them not to do it, but instead delaying their feeling of having to do it now. This time gives you both the ability to seek resources to help each other through the crisis.
As said above, be supportive of the person. Hear them out. Pushing them away or making light of the situation is not something that that will benefit anyone. You may not agree with them, but you must understand in order to help them through this period in their lives.
Be honest and tell them you don't know how to help - but agree to seek out help with them. Perhaps they just need someone to show that they are cared for...
tl;dr get the individual who is experiencing suicidal thoughts to agree not to harm themselves for six hours (a completely arbitrary number) so that you both can seek resources for help. DO NOT try intervention unless you are trained to do so - you could make things much much worse...
The premise of the movie seems pretty interesting I love the profit-share model, and the motivation behind creating the film:
"At the core of ALGORITHM’s plot are the questions that are shaking up the tech world to it’s very core, and the nations of the world right along with them: privacy, human rights, the place of government in the lives of citizens, the value and power of technology."
The business model for ALGORITHM is based on the models of tech startups as described in The Lean Startup. It’s a profit-share agreement, giving everyone who works on the movie a vested interest in the success of the project. All profits get shared by the artist who actually made it happen.
Lots of indie movies are put together this way. It's industry code for 'work for free.' I own a percentage of several feature films, none of which are actually worth anything. That's not an altogether bad thing, it can be a good way to gain experience or burnish your credentials, eg I will sometimes work on a project for free because it creates a connection with a particular actor or gives me the ability to call in a favor in the future.
But you should know that it's kind of an indie/student film marketing trick. It's much easier to find talented folk than the money to pay them.
I can definetly understand finding people is easier than paying them. I guess I didn't really factor the economy and indie movie scene into my response.
Experience never hurts - so long as you learn from it (and it is benifical to you (eg. connections and favors; as you pointed out)
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10110649