Welcome back to another Question of the Week here at The Confusing Middle! After two consecutive weeks of Gregory Stock wading us into the deep, uncomfortable waters of attraction, race, religion, and culture, I have to admit I was hoping for something a little lighter this time around. Maybe something about favorite foods. Or whether we’d rather have the ability to fly or be invisible. You know—easy stuff.

Instead, Stock hands us this: If you were given a voice-activated watch that tracked your whereabouts and would quickly summon the police if you shouted for help, would you wear it? If so, would the added safety lead you to do anything you wouldn’t do now?

So… we’re talking about surveillance, safety, personal freedom, and whether a piece of wearable technology could fundamentally change how we navigate the world. Cool. Light stuff. No big deal.

Let’s dive in.

The Immediate Answer (Which Is “No”)

Here’s the thing: I wouldn’t wear this watch. And before we get into the philosophical implications of surveillance culture or the false promise of technologically-mediated safety, let me just start with the most practical reason first.

I don’t wear watches.

I haven’t worn a watch regularly in about twenty years—basically since the moment I started carrying a cellphone in my pocket at all times. Because here’s my question: why would I need a watch when I have a device that tells time, sends messages, accesses the internet, plays music, takes photos, and also happens to have the capability to call 911 if I need help? The watch became redundant the moment the smartphone became ubiquitous. It’s a solution to a problem I no longer have.

Now, I know what you’re thinking. “Aaron, what about smartwatches? Those do way more than just tell time. They track your steps, monitor your heart rate, remind you to stand up every hour because you’ve been sitting at your desk like a gargoyle for the past three hours…”

Yeah. I tried that. A few years ago, I attempted to adopt one of those fitness-tracking smartwatches, thinking maybe it would motivate me to be more active or at least give me some accountability for how sedentary my lifestyle had become. You know what happened? My wrist broke out in hives. Apparently, my skin and whatever materials they use in those watch bands are not compatible. So I gave up on the whole enterprise and went back to just carrying my phone everywhere like a normal person.

Which brings me to my second reason for not wearing Stock’s hypothetical safety watch: I already live with a tracking device in my pocket. We all do. If the concern here is about adding one more layer of surveillance to my life, that ship has sailed. My phone already knows where I am at all times. Google Maps tracks my location. My fitness apps know when I’ve gone for a walk. If I’m being realistic about it, the watch wouldn’t be adding a new capability to track me—it would just be putting that capability on my wrist instead of in my pocket.

And honestly? I’m not sure I need it there.

The Surveillance Question (Which Is the Real Question)

Stock frames this as a question about safety, but I think what he’s really asking is: how much privacy are you willing to trade for the promise of security?

Because that’s what this watch represents, right? It’s a bargain. You give up a little more of your personal freedom—specifically, the freedom to move through the world without being monitored—and in exchange, you get the reassurance that help is always just a shout away. It’s a trade-off. And like most trade-offs, whether it’s worth it depends entirely on what you value more.

Here’s where I land: we already live in a surveillance state. I don’t think that’s a controversial statement at this point. CCTV cameras are everywhere. Ring doorbells on every other porch. Facial recognition software. License plate readers. Every time you’re in public, there’s a decent chance you’re being watched by something or someone. The idea of privacy in public spaces is already mostly a fiction. We’ve collectively decided—or maybe just passively accepted—that being monitored is the price we pay for living in a modern, interconnected society.

So do I really need one more device tracking my every move, this time wrapped around my wrist?

I don’t think I do. Not because I have some principled stance against surveillance—clearly, I’ve already made peace with my phone knowing where I am—but because I’m not convinced the watch actually adds anything meaningful to my safety. It just adds another data point to the ever-growing archive of where I’ve been and what I’ve been doing.

And for what? The ability to shout “Help!” and have the police dispatched slightly faster than if I just pulled out my phone and dialed 911 myself? I’m skeptical.

The Safety Illusion (Or: Does This Thing Actually Work?)

Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that I did wear the watch. Let’s say I got over my aversion to wrist-based technology and my concern about being tracked and I strapped this thing on every morning. Would it actually make me safer?

I’m not convinced.

Here’s the problem: the watch doesn’t prevent danger. It doesn’t make threatening situations less likely to occur. It doesn’t create a force field around you that keeps bad things from happening. All it does is provide a faster way to call for help after something has already gone wrong. And sure, maybe in some scenarios, that speed matters. Maybe there are situations where shaving thirty seconds off the time it takes to summon the police makes a real difference in the outcome.

But in most dangerous situations? I don’t think it does. If someone means you harm, they’re not going to politely wait around for the cops to show up just because you shouted into your watch. The watch might make you feel safer—and I think that’s actually the point of a product like this—but I’m not sure it actually makes you safer in any substantive way.

There’s a term for this: security theater. It’s the idea that we implement measures that give the appearance of increased security without actually providing meaningful protection. The TSA asking you to take your shoes off at the airport. The “This area is under video surveillance” signs that may or may not be connected to actual working cameras. And yes, a voice-activated watch that tracks your location and promises to summon help when you need it.

It’s not that these things do nothing. It’s that they do far less than they claim to do, and the sense of safety they provide is largely psychological rather than practical. Which is fine, I guess, if what you’re looking for is peace of mind. But if what you’re looking for is actual protection? I think you’re better off just staying aware of your surroundings and avoiding situations that feel dangerous in the first place.

Which, incidentally, is what I already do.

My Actual Life (Which Is Pretty Risk-Averse Already)

I live downtown in Roanoke, Virginia. And Roanoke these days is… well, it’s not exactly the kind of place where I feel comfortable taking a leisurely stroll after dark. I don’t obsessively watch the local news, but I hear things. Random acts of violence. Incidents happening just a few blocks from my apartment. The kind of stories that make you think twice about walking from your car to your building if you’re getting home after sunset.

So yeah, I have some awareness of my surroundings. I’m cautious. I don’t take unnecessary risks. And that’s been true since I moved into my current apartment back in 2019—long before Stock asked me to think about whether a wearable panic button would change my behavior.

The bus station moved to just up the block from my building a few years ago, and that added another layer of… let’s call it situational awareness. I’m not saying the bus station itself is dangerous. But it does attract a certain amount of foot traffic, and not all of that foot traffic feels particularly safe to be around late at night.

Would wearing Stock’s hypothetical watch change any of that? Would it make me more likely to take those after-dark walks I currently avoid?

No. Absolutely not.

Because here’s the thing: just because the watch exists doesn’t negate the danger of certain actions or activities. It just means there’s another way to call first responders if something goes wrong. And I’m doubtful that it would even cut down on response time in any meaningful way. You’re still waiting for the police to arrive. You’re still hoping they get there in time. The watch doesn’t change the fundamental reality of the situation—it just gives you a different method of asking for help.

And I already have a method for that. It’s called a phone.

The Real Target Audience (Which Isn’t Me)

The more I think about Stock’s question, the more I think the product he’s describing isn’t really meant for someone like me. It’s meant for someone with a very different relationship to risk and safety than I have.

I’m not a risk-taker. I’ve never been a risk-taker. I’ve made it to my forties without ever breaking a bone—unless you count a cracked rib from a particularly nasty bout of bronchitis, which I don’t, because that’s not exactly the result of skydiving or rock climbing or doing anything remotely adventurous. It’s the result of coughing too hard for too long.

My life is not full of situations where I’m pushing boundaries or testing limits or putting myself in harm’s way. I’m cautious by nature. I stick to what’s familiar and comfortable. I don’t go looking for trouble, and I generally don’t find it.

So a watch that promises to keep me safe while I do risky things? It’s solving a problem I don’t have.

But I can imagine the person this watch is designed for. Someone who travels alone frequently. Someone who jogs through unfamiliar neighborhoods. Someone who has an irrational fear of worst-case scenarios and can be convinced that this piece of technology will somehow protect them from all the dangers lurking out there in the world.

And look, I’m not saying those fears are entirely baseless. Bad things happen. People get hurt. There are absolutely situations where having immediate access to emergency services could make a difference. But I also think there’s a market for products like this that thrives on fear—on the idea that the world is more dangerous than it actually is, and that you need this gadget to navigate it safely.

There’s a sucker born every minute, right?

The Pop Culture Angle (Because Of Course There Is One)

If you want a perfect example of where this whole “safety through surveillance” thing can go horribly wrong, look no further than the 1998 film Enemy of the State. Will Smith plays a lawyer who inadvertently comes into possession of evidence of a political murder, and suddenly finds himself being tracked by every piece of technology imaginable. Satellites. Traffic cameras. Credit card transactions. Phone records. Gene Hackman shows up as a paranoid former NSA agent who explains, in terrifying detail, just how little privacy any of us actually have.

The movie came out in 1998—more than a quarter-century ago—and it was already warning us about the dangers of a world where our every move could be monitored and recorded. And you know what? It was prescient. Everything that film predicted has largely come to pass. We live in that world now. The only difference is that most of us have gotten so used to it that we don’t even think about it anymore.

Stock’s watch is just one more data point in that system. One more way for someone, somewhere, to know where you are and what you’re doing. And sure, in this scenario, that “someone” is supposedly there to help you. But the infrastructure is the same. The capability is the same. And once that infrastructure exists, it doesn’t just get used for the purposes it was originally intended for.

That’s not paranoia. That’s just… reality.

The Honest Answer (Which You Probably Saw Coming)

So would I wear Stock’s voice-activated safety watch?

No. I wouldn’t.

Not because I don’t care about safety. Not because I’m reckless or think I’m invincible. But because I don’t think the watch actually solves the problem it claims to solve. It doesn’t make me safer in any meaningful way. It just gives me—and whoever’s tracking me—more data about where I am and what I’m doing.

And even if it did make me safer, I don’t think it would change my behavior. I’m already cautious. I already avoid situations that feel dangerous. I already carry a phone that can call 911 if I need it. The watch wouldn’t make me more likely to take risks or explore places I currently avoid. It would just be one more piece of technology I’m carrying around, adding one more layer of surveillance to a life that’s already pretty thoroughly monitored.

Would the watch lead me to do anything I wouldn’t do now?

Nope. I’d still be the same risk-averse, creature-of-habit, never-needed-stitches guy I’ve always been. The only difference is I’d have something uncomfortable strapped to my wrist that may or may not give me hives.

Hard pass.

Your Turn

Alright, now it’s your turn. And I’m genuinely curious about this one, because I suspect people’s answers are going to vary wildly depending on their lifestyle, their relationship to risk, and their comfort level with being tracked.

Would you wear the watch? Does the promise of immediate help outweigh the invasion of privacy? Or are you already so used to being monitored by your phone that one more device doesn’t really matter?

And here’s the bigger question: would it actually change your behavior? Would you take walks you wouldn’t take otherwise? Visit places you currently avoid? Or would your life look basically the same, just with more data being collected about it?

Drop your thoughts in the comments. I want to hear from the risk-takers and the cautious ones, the people who think this sounds like a great idea and the people who think it sounds like a dystopian nightmare. Let’s talk about it.

Until next week, when Gregory Stock will hopefully give us something lighter to chew on (though I’ve learned not to count on it), this is Aaron, still here at The Confusing Middle, still overthinking everything, and still pretty sure that the best safety device is just not doing dangerous things in the first place.