Slashdot Mirror
Using a Wireless Network for Personal Emergencies?
An anonymous reader asks: "A friend asked me this today and as I began to think about an answer I realized it made for a perfect Ask Slashdot question. His question was: 'Now that our illustrious Attorney General has gone as far as to suggest that families put in place an emergency communications system between themselves, I'm shopping for the right solution. I think RIM because it allows me to enter text and to rely on the pager network rather than the cell network. But the last that I looked, it was still impossible to do without my own server. Enlightened Ones: what suggestions might you have that would allow us to each have something in our pockets and is most likely to be fault tolerant to a messy event?' Having had the experience of using my Crackberry in NYC on 9/11 as the only stable means of contact, I too wonder whether this is the next big thing? So I turn the question over to you at Slashdot -- If you were in need of a hand-held, wireless data device and wanted to use a data network which was likely to survive, what would you use? Which arcane pager or emergency information networks were designed for survival? What if you wanted it to easily work with POP email? How about for reasonable data rates?" Assuming we are not quote to the point of a truly fault-tolerant network, what would need to happen for it to become reality? Which provider is close to putting something like this together?
You can't raelly go wrong with an amateur radio license. Not only does it give you a failsafe communications method (assuming your transceiver has batteries), it also gives you a new hobby. You get to tinker with electronics, broadcasting, and radio equipment. It is a great learning tool for understanding computers better.
For more information, I suggest you check out the American Radio Relay League website. You might want to check and see if your local area has any amateur radio clubs that you can go to and ask more detailed questions.
Beware, Nugget is watching... See?
Why would I try to overpopulate yet another medium to tell mom and dad I'm OK while there are emergency sevices that might have used the bandwidth to communicate something more meaningful? I mean: If I'm OK, I will be OK, so I might as well tell mom & dad tomorrow. If I'm not OK, or if I get killed before tomorrow, it might take a while longer for this news to reach them, but it won't change the fact that I'm not OK. OK?!? Either way it is less likely I will communicate something useful than it is for emergency services.
--
Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death -- G.W. Bush
The only really robust and emergency-proof wireless devices I know of are walkie-talkies and carrier pigeons. Let the pigeon carry an USB drive, then you also have reasonable data rates. And it's also kind of a Post Office Protocol implementation, not very RFC-conform though.
If there's really something going on, every system which relies on fixed nodes (such as WiFi, cellphones) are very likely to fail.
Probably a satellite based system will work, although presumably Uncle Sam shuts down the satellites if it gets serios.
Ham radio is exaclty what you are looking for
Google doesn't index user sigs, so stop trying to "Google Bomb" with them.
Personally I don't think it is the job of individuals to find a way to communicate post-tragedy
I really loathe all the people who live in NYC, do *not* work in the WTC, and then called home or got called to "make sure they were okay". Which makes things hell for the people who *do* need the lines to coordinate emergency work or who need emergency medical assistance.
Perhaps people are just less aware of it outside of CA -- after a major earthquake, *everyone* knows that the stupidest, most irresponsible thing you can do is to call all your relatives and tell 'em that you're all right. People *need* to call in for medical assistance, to report major problems (a bridge starting to collapse, etc). Chatting with your family when you aren't hurt is a big no-no.
USians sometimes frusterate me. No experience with disaster, most of us, except for maybe "stress" or "emotional damage", and so a total fucking inability to act responsibly in a real emergency.
May we never see th
HAM Radio is the only reliable alternative. As we know from 9/11 the phone circuits and the Internet were overwhelmed immediately. Land lines and Cell phones along with pagers and devices like Nextel/Blackberry will be just about useless until the traffic dies down.
HAM Radio however would work no matter what. Well, short of an EMP from a nuclear warhead detonation. Then most electronics will be toast including all the fancy computers in one's car. Some cars won't start without the computer. Of course you'll have bigger problems in the event of a nuclear attack than trying to contact your family members. Also if you are close enough for the EMP to destroy your electronics then you are probably not long for this world anyway.
HAM radio has been used to communicate in times of crisis since it's earliest days. Go get a study guide, join a club and take the exam.
You can get portable HAM radio's ranging in size from table top base stations to something the size of a CB radio to a handheld unit. Range is limited by the car and portable units due to the antenna.
Computer data can and does get transmitted over HAM channels but it's slower than normal.
A HAM operator has the responsibility of bridging communication gaps when a crisis occurs. You have no business using a HAM in a time of crisis if you don't help others to relay communications.
This also begs to question some of the information coming out to protect ones self and family in the event of an attack. So far most of it is really stupid. i.e. Duct Tape and sheet plastic will do absolutely dick for chemical, biological, or nuclear attack. Just about as useful as duck and cover in the 50's.
The only real way to survive a full out attack is to have a high quality bomb shelter buried rather deep in the earth. Isolated air and water systems with full filtration. Stockpile of food and supplies.
But IMHO you are only delaying the inevitable. Sure say we are nuked or say you are in NY and the reactor just outside of NYC is bombed. There would be numbers like 5-10 million dead and more over the next several years from radiation poisoning and cancer. Evacuation of NYC won't happen.
I would rather be killed in an initial attack of that magnitude than go on living. i.e. slowly dying...
Sure some would survive but you have to consider quality of life. Your only chance is to be away from the affected attack areas. BOKYAG - Bend Over Kiss You Ass Goodbye.
In the event of chemical of biological attack, the odds are much better than an actual nuclear detonation. Note a dirty bomb is not a nuclear detonation it's a conventional explosion with the after effect of spreading radiological particles. This poisons people with radiation. So it's much more like a chemical attack. Those at ground zero will surely die. Those in the path of the poison cloud will die. Those not in the path of the destruction will survive.