32
votes
Presidential Alert Test, thoughts?
Link information
This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.
- Title
- Everybody will get a 'presidential alert' on their phones, and you can't turn it off
- Authors
- Todd Haselton
- Published
- Oct 3 2018
- Word count
- 192 words
Seems fine to me. There are cases where you might want to alert an entire nation about something. But it obviously has to be used in only legitimate circumstances.
Specific to those kinds of events, how much value is there in an alert? If the bombs drop we can kiss our civilization goodbye, and I'll personally be vaporized. You're really gonna give me unblockable anxiety about it beforehand? With a Carrington Event v2.0 I suppose it would let folks know that it wasn't a hostile attack or anything, but it doesn't really help people survive the aftermath.
In either case we'd have hours notice at most, and the instantaneous gridlock in cities wouldn't be beneficial.
Agreed, not to mention in much of rural America it would help everyone find their loved ones and get coordinated before things went down. Middle and rural America obviously would not be the direct target of a nuclear strike or invasion, but we would obviously be heavily affected by it. It would give us an extra few mins to gather loved ones, gather food and let's be honest gather guns before the grid goes down.
As long as it doesn't become the orange one's private twitter account I am all for this system if used properly.
Thank you, the fact that there is a certainly fatal zone and an unaffected zone should imply that there is a dangerous, possibly fatal zone. While hydrogen bombs and ICBMs in the number that they have been manufactured probably allow for a 100% coverage of the Earth, It's not like we know for sure how a nuclear war would play out. Maybe defense system take out a few launches, or some officers don't launch due to orders or just not wanting to kill people. Maybe there one or only a few warheads aimed at some sparsely populated areas. It's quite possible that someone will live if they are inside one building and die in another.
If Duck and Cover is actually a valid strategy that saves lives in a nuclear event, maybe it's worth it.
But that doesn't really get taught anymore. That nuclear false-alarm in Hawaii early this year was a mess. Nobody really knew what to do. People were hysterical, and reckless. We're not prepared as a nation to deal with a nuclear event, not intelligently. If we're concerned enough about a nuclear strike on American soil to justify this system, there ought to be national awareness campaigns on how to react to these alerts as well.
Fair enough, I suppose.
I stand by this though: If the threat is real enough, there needs to be education about it before a text get sent warning us of an inbound ICBM. Hawaii was more prepared than some other areas, due to their proximity to North Korea and their dealing with natural disasters in the past. Even they suffered 38 minutes of pandemonium before the All Clear, though some people did go to their nearest storm shelters.
Not everyone is so prepared.
If I received an alert on my phone,
BALLISTIC MISSILE THREAT INBOUND TO DC. SEEK IMMEDIATE SHELTER. THIS IS NOT A DRILL, I wouldn't know what the fuck to do. I know I've seen Fallout Shelter signs while walking around the area, but I couldn't tell you where my nearest one is or how many of those are maintained or still around. If I had time to get in my car I wouldn't know where to go. There would definitely be more than one nuke on it's way, there's so much critical infrastructure here. Lord knows I wouldn't be able to leave the immediate area in time to avoid the guaranteed 3rd degree burns, at best, during even normal traffic—let alone nuclear-panic traffic. I suppose I'd try to drive my car into the Potomac, the river would probably offer more protection than my shitty-ass apartment building.I suppose I can see the utility in such an alert, but it's not going to maximize its effectiveness without awareness campaigns.
Shouldn't discussing these events, seeing what happened in Hawaii, and getting test alerts inspire you to learn what you should do in a disaster? There's plenty of information online. As an example, the government published resources about nuclear war during the cold war.
The basics are having a plan to coordinate with your family, having a safe place, and having supplies. If something goes down you basically want to know what to do, take shelter, and figure out a long term solution.
For some people, sure.
For me personally, I'm not concerned about it. In the event of nuclear war, I'll probably never know about it. I'm within the instant kill radius of many critical governmental areas for most common warhead yields. I'd be hot vapor, most likely.
There are a number of anti ballistic missile defenses that the US has that could stop a significant percentage of incoming nuclear missiles in their midcourse phase. Even if you're in a probable target area, there's a decent chance those warheads could be intercepted before they hit. Still worth learning what to do.
I think it's also useful to point out that a warning could also point to a resource such as https://www.ready.gov/nuclear-explosion. Which would help quickly disseminate information people might not know. Like to not condition your hair if you've been in contact with radioactive material.
Maybe the subtext here is that they have in mind some sort of mind-boggling catastrophe scenarios in mind and they want to get out ahead of it. Or maybe this like the terrorism scale and they are just trying to drum up fear in support of another war. Maybe with Syria and Iran? They've wanted to invade those two forever
I fucking hate these alerts.
Cool some child got abducted and here's a license plate. What do you expect me to do? Read every license plate I see? Even if you do, how does making the alert blare really loudly in the middle of the day encourage me to do so? Why can't the alert be silent?
I'm just waiting for Donald Trump to send a presidential alert that's essentially a tweet about something stupid.
I need to find a custom ROM that disables this shit
Nobody expects you to do anything. They're sent out on the off chance that someone happens to be near said license plate when they receive the alert, not for people to go full Batman and deliver justice. AMBER alerts work. Also, they can be disabled on most phones.
I would love to know the numbers on that and how they are gathered.
Here's some data from 2016 -- https://www.amberalert.gov/pdfs/2016AMBERAlertReport.pdf
(page 23)
* Percentage excludes cases classified as hoaxes (n=8) and unfounded (n=13)
** Percentage excludes children classified as hoaxes (n=9) and unfounded (n=23)
This study(Preliminary Examination of AMBER Alert’s Effects) from 2007 claims that the system helped in about 30% of cases. It also says that most of the cases it helped with were not dangerous, but I'd imagine that no ones knows that when they send out the alert. It also acknowledges that it is difficult to compare results, as not all amber alerts are account for, some data is withheld for privacy, and it's not able to compare to not having AMBER alerts.
yeah, with the stats showing that its mostly mothers and fathers kidnapping their kids, I would assume that they are counting these as being 'not dangerous', where another good chunk are false alarms or pranks.
I think the Amber alerts fall under 'if it helps, it helps... if not, we're no worse off'
It would be interesting to test a system like this. Park a bright yellow van on the side of the highway and then post the Amber alerts on the signage -- count the calls over the course of an hour or two. Compare that against law enforcement being given set, limited information (e.g. location of abduction, description of automobile and driver), then using their resources to find the same van on another day without the Amber alert.
It'd be an expensive exercise to come to the same conclusion that even if the Amber alerts bring one kid home safe, its worth it.
I have them disabled and I still get them. Last time I had to disable it via cfw
This is exactly the concern that I have, and if the last two years have been any indication, he wouldn't suffer any consequences for it.
Every time I think "that can't be true, this story has to be made up" with regards to the antics of this administration, they continue to prove me wrong. It's just easier to assume that something like this is a realistic possibility.
I feel the same, but I also have similar feelings with regards to things people get outraged at. I find myself constantly amazed at the things that will get people vitriolic, while other things that are important to me are seemingly non-issues for the public.
I think it's precisely because of Kavanaugh they're publishing now. Kavanaugh could give any president complete immunity from, say, tax fraud. He seems picked as the candidate for the Supreme Court precisely because of his views on investigations regarding the president.
After he's seated at the court, it's too late.
I'd expect NYT wishes they'd gotten this at a different time, but feel obligated to publish now in case that's what'll flip a senator's vote. Even though they'd get way more out of it for the NYT by publishing at basically any other time.
I think it's justified. The seniormost people who, in a normal administration, would be the ones you'd expect to exercise some restraint demonstrably cannot stand up to him and have to resort to sitcomesque tactics like stealing papers off of his desk. I don't expect the mid-level public servants under them at FEMA or the FCC to put their careers on the line to prevent one act of buffoonery in an ongoing circus. So yes, I do not think it's out of the question that you'd get something like "PRESIDENTIAL ALERT: Many people, the best people really, are saying the president has very, very good penis. Believe me."
The President doesn't have any direct control over the content of the messages. This is entirely a FEMA thing. You have nothing to worry about.
at least to me, it seems like the sound aspect is for people away from phones/TVs who might be alerted to the warning. that said it really seems to only make sense in the context of a weather alert or something similar. it seems useless with tests like these.
I think a one time test is not a bad thing, at least with it being so big in the news right now, everyone will know if their phone works
FEMA controls the messages, in coordination with agencies and the White House.
No real risk of Trump tweeting out Presidential Messages, although something tells me he was either behind naming them that, or he's quite happy about it.
You should be able to disable the sound on it. I can disable the sound on mine. When I got the alerts they didn't make any noise at all.
I work in an open office with a large number of people all on one floor. The alert sounded like one continuous siren—no way you could miss it.
It also spawned a huge productivity loss, as people have now gotten up and started chatting (because how could you ignore that), so...presidentially invoked time-theft?
Tbf, this entire presidency has led to a huge productivity loss. I'm convinced that my work product would be higher quality and completed more efficiently if we had a sane president.
I can't imagine how my productivity or efficiency at work would be affected by politics. Do you work for the federal government where the executive branch has an impact on your job, or do you just find the media hubbub distracting?
I’m just really concerned with the present state of things and aim to stay informed. If nothing else, we’re watching history unfold live. I don’t want to miss seeing it firsthand. I’ve also been volunteering in electoral campaigns for the first time in my life, so it’s a bit of a vicious cycle. Researching news inspires me to contribute and contributing inspires me to research more.
Tbf, the presidency of the US has caused huge productivity loss for a long time.
What truly bothers me is that with the FCC being managed the way it is and with Trump being as crazy as he is, this system could potentially be abused. I could see a system like this being used for the purposes of propaganda, to instill fear to keep voters controlled. Given the general lack of punishment for bad behavior in the executive and legislative branches lately, I wouldn't see the "abuse will lead to punishment" argument holding much water, either.
A system like this has a lot of potential, but this is some seriously bad timing for rolling it out. My money is on seeing this system being abused by the end of the month.
This system needs strict controls on what's ok and not ok to use it for. It should be controlled in such a way that in an emergency, a message can quickly be sent out, but it must go through the mess of bureaucracy for any other use.
I really find all these notifications creepy and obtrusive. I just wish I could put into words why they make my skin crawl.
I think they're a pretty valuable tool if used correctly. A nationwide alert system could save lives one day, and if literally five seconds per year of annoyance is the price to pay for that, then by all means, go right ahead.
I don't really mind it right now. This might have a lot to do with the fact that it went out while I was outside and always keep my phone on vibrate. I just noticed a slight increase in people looking at their phones and a few people talking about it (along with briefly thinking I was getting a call). I'll probably be hearing about all the classes and libraries disturbed any moment now, which would have probably irked me as well if it happened 15 minutes earlier. I don't mind a test of this system too much, and I see the value of a federal alert system.
However, I do see how this can be abused, and I would no be surprised if it is. I also would not be surprised if it isn't. If it becomes an issue, maybe I will finally switch to Lineage or some other OS (where someone will have made a disable feature or at least be open source enough to let me do so). I don't think it will come to that, but I know what I will do if it does. I do think that devices should allow it to be disabled, but that's more because I think devices should allow their owner to use them as they wish, not as their manufacturer decides.
I think some people are overreacting to this a bit. Emergency Alerts are meant to interrupt and be disruptive. I acknowledge there is good chance this gets misused, but there hasn't been any sign of that yet. Some people are reacting to the very idea of disabling it as close minded. Plenty of people are not in the US, do not want alerts on certain devices, or want to preempt abuse. I don't see an issue with that either, but acting like a federal alert system is completely wrong also seems misguided.
The one thing that sticks out to me though is, the fact that it is called a "presidential" alert. Why not just "federal" or "executive"? If its part of the executive branch, then the president would have pretty solid control of it anyways (yes, some departments are more separate, but even they are run by presidential appointees). Is it just some Trump branding that marks it as his own and not a part of the federal government to sit better with his base? I'm sure that the name alone is part of the wide spread disdain for it, but not without reason, as it does seem to hint at being used for personal/political reasons.
I didn't think I had this much to rant, but you asked for thoughts, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
P.S.
I forgot while typing this the first time that I have been a little concerned about one scenario. If it becomes abused to the point that a lot people bother to disable it somehow, then things might get awkward when an alert is sent out and you can tell who looks at their phone and who doesn't. (Honestly, I'm a little afraid to even put this idea out there, because its the sort of thing that is more likely to happen the more that people are aware of it)
because I was curious who can authorize the use of the system
Here we have a once yearly siren test, it's just kind of a quirk you get used to and a bit of a reminder that their is a system in place to protect you in-case shit really hits the fan (landlocked country with no natural disaster risk at all). That said based of what happened with that false nuclear alert—idk if it's a good thing having the whole of the US one click always from thinking it's Armageddon—intentional abuse or not.
It just seems like over reach I can't really think of a legitimate situation where everyone in the US has to have the same information at exactly the same time. Even with a nuclear strike, you don't need alerts form the west coast clogging up what's relevant to the east, not to mention Hawaii, Alaska or anywhere in between. Disaster situations really need to be dealt with locally, so the correct relevant information can be passed along.
It sounds like a Hollywood trope—nation wide alert, we are at war–the president has died—it's just kind of silly. TV news should be enough to convey this kind of non time sensitive information – maybe they should be working on improving the quality and reliability of news networks.
Targeted alerts in the case of a nuclear strike isn't usually feasible. It takes 30 minutes or less for an ICBM to travel from anywhere in the world to anywhere in the world. By the time the launch is actually detected and confirmed, it's more like 20 minutes. You won't know where it's aimed until some time in the middle of the midflight phase, with around 10-15 minutes left. With modern warheads, they can be steered and change targets mid course quite effectively. Managing all of that data, making predictions, contacting the local EOCs and coordinating messages to make sure they go out is a tall order.
A nuclear strike on the mainland US would absolutely be worth a nationwide emergency text. It would likely save hundreds of thousands of lives.
You don't want to be panicked because panicking means you aren't making good decisions. If you are in a falling plane, for instance, the panicked people slow people down, meaning less evacuees and more deaths.
I thought it was an interesting case to examine how media engages with its audiences. I was one of the people that wrote one of those god-awful "the president is texting you" articles that local news outlets loved to run.
Usually, articles like that are just ignored. If this were any president, I guarantee you they would have been angled as FEMA sending out a test message. But this time, outlets turned the news into a joke and related it in ways it hasn't been related before. Just because the message included the word "presidential" everyone jumped on the political bandwagon, and so did audiences. The whole thing became a meme, and that was wonderful to see.
For once, people related to their local and mainstream media in a way that wasn't just for learning information. Journalists, media pros, and audiences laughed together at the absurdity of getting a 'presidential' message in 2018. And I didn't see too many people getting into arguments over the whole thing. It was nice to see.
I didn't get the alert. Not sure why but I'm not complaining.
Do you have a dumb phone? I didn't get one either, my phone is ~8 years old.
Nope. I have a OnePlus One. My phone's modem (or baseband? Not sure what that part is called) is kinda shit, and it goes in and out (10 seconds of connectivity followed by 10 without). I suppose if the alert doesn't ping phones for very long I could have just missed the window.
Supposedly, it was a 30 minutes period. But I heard that AT&T customers on the west coast had issues receiving the alert.
I personally didn't mind it, seems like I get amber alerts like that already. My coworkers on the other hand were genuinely freaked out.
I didn't get the alert until half an hour after everyone else did. Seems like that would limit its effectiveness as an early warning system quite a bit.
I do think the system itself is good - obviously that would change if it started to be abused for things that aren't important.
So coincidentally we also had a fire drill in my office building just before this so we were all outside at the same time. The alerts were actually spread out over several minutes. It might have to do with different carriers, cell towers, and signal strength.
I didn't vote in the last election, I also somehow did not receive an alert.
Maybe you are on to something....
Seriously though, I have cell service I wonder why I didn't get it.
I wasn't aware it was coming, so I was a little confused since I've never seen a presidential alert before.
Not a fan of these kinds of alerts, though. A month or two ago I was in the grocery store and it was raining pretty heavily, and everybody's phones began beeping at the same time due to a flash flood warning. It was obnoxious.
I think it's a waste of time and money. We already have a various emergency and alert system and, generally, emergencies are localized.
I don't understand what the point of this system is and what function it provides that others don't or can't. I feel like it is a waste of time and tax dollars.
I got the alert twice and it interrupted the music on the radio. Talk about overkill.
My question is why on earth is this needed
No thanks, I hated it.
So like everyone at my office just stood up and made the same joke about not wanting Trump tweets right to their phone now lol. Great solidarity.