Re: Sept 9 Amber Alert Meeting

["Aaron 'Bishop' Read" <aread@speakeasy.net>]

At 04:32 PM 9/8/2002, Dave Faneuf wrote:
>On Sat, 07 Sep 2002 20:48:50 -0400 "Aaron 'Bishop' Read"
><aread@speakeasy.net>  >
> > I'd like to see three things:
> >
> > 1: an EAS hardware system that actually works...perhaps off a
> > satellite system...paid for by the FCC.  All EAS encoders/decoders must be
> > built to a very strict hardware and user-interface standard.  i.e. 
> "Push Button
> > A to forward test.  Push Button B to forward real alert, etc)
> >
> > 2: requirement of all radio stations that all actual EAS alerts -
> > including weather - must be broadcast in their original form.  No more 
> of this
> > "We'll just read the alert on the air" crap.
> >
> > 3: finally, and no doubt most difficult, force all receiver
> > manufacturers to add the circuitry EAS was supposed to use to turn 
> radios on (that
> > are off) automatically in case of an alert.
>
>Those are items that would be well beyond the scope of setting up an EAS
>system for Amber Alerts in Massachusetts would they not?
>df


Yes, they're beyond the scope of the state plan.  The problem is that Amber 
Alerts cannot be effectively used unless the national plan is seriously 
revised.   Esp. point #2.   My point with #2 was not that we need 
additional alerts to be aired, my point is that if you don't air the alert 
as it is originally broadcast, with data tones and all, A: you don't get 
the listeners' attention like you need to with real emergencies...and B: 
without the data tones, point #3 will never work.

Without total 100% participation that is MANDATORY for all stations, the 
Amber Alert system will function poorly at best.   Amber Alerts require a 
rapid response time as it is designed to locate and stop the abducter 
before they get too far away from the initial abduction area.  Anything 
over an hour or two is useless, and in reality anything over 15 minutes is 
of questionable usefullness.   That means that if you're going to have 
Amber Alerts, you have to write it in the State EAS Plan that stations must 
air the Amber Alerts immediately upon reception and ALL stations must air 
them to help ensure that anyone near the vicinity might actually hear the 
Alert.   Point #3 above really should be forced so that EVERYONE who's 
within earshot of a radio will hear the Alert.  But obviously that's in a 
"perfect world".

Of course, there is the real problem of false alerts...and with such a 
short useful lifespan the Amber Alert system will demand a level of 
coordination, cooperation, and efficiency that Massachusetts sorely lacks 
at the moment.

I think as a "real solution" what they can do as a backdrop to help contain 
the potential fallout from false alerts is to insist people do not attempt 
to stop the abductor, and anyone who does will face criminal vigilante 
charges.  Instead, people are instructed to call a toll-free number that 
spells out an easy word to remember (like 1-800-KIDSAVE or something) and 
to report any sightings.  The call center that receives the calls must be 
able to handle at least 50 simultaneous callers and must be able to rapidly 
pinpoint sightings on a map so they can quickly determine the path the 
abductor is taking (and it helps screen out false leads...a "hit" in 
Jamaica Plain would be ignored if there's 20 "hits" coming from Medford at 
the same time).   And the operators would have to be trained to guide 
callers to refer to easily-recognized landmarks since the streets in 
Greater Boston are often poorly marked and house numbers are frequently 
invisible.

But that will not stop the problem of there not-infrequently being false 
Alerts to begin with.  I don't forsee an easy solution to that.

_________________________________________________________
Aaron "Bishop" Read       aread@speakeasy.net
Fried Bagels Consulting   www.friedbagels.com
AOL-IM: ReadAaron         Brighton, MA 02135
"I'm weird, but around here it's hardly noticeable."