Slashdot Mirror


First California AMBER Alert Shows AT&T's Emergency Alerts Are a Mess

Mark Gibbs writes "AT&T's implementation of the FCC's Emergency Alerts System provides minimally useful information in an untimely fashion with little geolocational relevance. ... Yesterday California got its first AMBER alert and my notification arrived at 10:54pm. It came up as panel over my lock screen and here's what it looked like on my notifications screen: 'Boulevard, CA AMBER Alert UPDATE: LIC/6WCU986 (CA) Blue Nissan Versa 4 door.' The problem with this it that's all there is! You can stab away at the message as much as you like but that's all you get, there's no link to any detail and considering the event it related to occurred over 240 miles away from me near to the Mexican border, the WEA service seems to be poorly implemented. Indeed, many Californians were annoyed and confused by the alert and according to the LA Times 'Some cellphones received only a text message, others buzzed and beeped. Some people got more than one alert.' I got a second copy of the alert at 2:22am and other subscribers reported not receiving any alert until late this morning." It seems to have gone down about as well as New York's.

29 of 380 comments (clear)

  1. missing the main point by 0WaitState · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Earth to submitter: AT&T is a mess.

    --

    Remain calm! All is well!
  2. This is AT&T's fault how? by m1ss1ontomars2k4 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    People on Verizon and T-Mobile got the same message. But sure, just blame AT&T for it anyway.

    1. Re:This is AT&T's fault how? by Thanshin · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well, you have to admit most of the damage was done by AT&AT.

      The AT&ST could be beaten even by tiny bears with prehistoric technology.

  3. poor implementation has little to do with AT&T by Dahamma · · Score: 5, Insightful

    All services implemented the same feature and sent the EXACT same nearly useless message (which was written by a CA agency and approved by FEMA before being sent out).

    Makes no sense to single out "AT&T's implementation"... it's mostly the cell phone manufacturer's implementation, and the govt's decision to send it out to the entire state in the middle of the night...

  4. Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I live in Illinois and didn't watch the news tonight so I wasn't aware of the Amber alert in California. However, from the message you posted, here is what I got:

      AMBER ALERT
      Location: Boulevard, California
      California License Plate: 6WCU986
      Car Make: Nissan
      Car Model: Versa
      Car Color: Blue
      Other Attributes: 4 door, not 2 door.

    1. Re:Really? by Dahamma · · Score: 5, Informative

      Now go look up "Boulevard, CA" on a map and explain why 20+ million people in CA who have never heard of it or live within 300 miles of it should be woken up in the middle of the night about it.

    2. Re:Really? by Dahamma · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It wasn't the middle of the night, I got my message at 10:51 - a time when many people were still awake.

      And they resent it at 2:30am just in case it didn't piss off EVERYONE at 10:51.

      I'm not arguing the whole concept is bad, just the implementation. What the hell is wrong with a text message? Ok, if it's delayed by a few minutes big deal, the 99.9% of the people who are not on the road until the next morning will get it anyway (and technically it's actually *illegal* in CA - and possibly dangerous - for the 0.1% who are on the road - to check it while driving!) And in fact, they will possibly be MORE likely to get it since the first thing I did on my phone going bats hit crazy was unlock it, which cancelled the message window... I never even got to see what it actually said until I read a news article the next day. If it was just a text message I would have seen it on my phone when I woke up, read it and probably digested the contents a lot better (and not immediately opted out of it like many also did).

  5. Sprint sent out the same message by OffTheWallSoccer · · Score: 5, Informative

    I received the message via Sprint, despite being 400 miles from the affected area. I guess this is one way to make sure people start ignoring these messages.

  6. Re:Seriously? Yes! by dltaylor · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There WAS NO USEFUL geographic info'.

    I got the same message as the submission on Virgin (Sprint). Where the hell is "Boulevard, CA"? California is a big state; more than a day's drive NS for most people.

    If I'm driving, the alert is on the big orange-text signs every couple of miles, and I'm NOT supposed to be taking text messages while driving.

    If I'm home, in bed (or, in my case, watching a movie), how much good does it do to wake/text me?

    As to "what more do I (you) need?": tell me if it's a custody dispute or a "stranger" kidnapping. In the former case, I don't care, while in the latter, I do. The custodial parent isn't always the more fit, they might just have better lawyers, 'specially abusive, wealthy fathers/husbands.

  7. Terrible experience so far by thisisauniqueid · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I got the same alert four times in the last 24 hours, several hours apart. And I was just in a night class with 100 other people, and four separate times during the class somebody's phone (including mine, once) started blaring the alert at max volume. My phone was on vibrate. One person couldn't figure out how to silence their phone, and ended up running out of the room with phone still blaring. After 3 seconds, if you don't silence it, the phone starts reading the alert text at maximum volume too (using TTS). I have an HTC One, which has incredibly loud speakers, so this is not cool. Of course, Amber Alerts are now disabled on my phone, which reminds me of the stupidity of Windows User Account Control popups -- people click on them just to get them to go away, so they lose their value. Incidentally, Presidential Alerts may not be disabled on Android. I just hope the US President never has a good reason to ring every phone in the nation at full volume.

  8. Don't blame AT&T for terse message by hawguy · · Score: 5, Informative

    Don't blame (only) AT&T for the terse message. The WEA system limits messages to 90 characters:

    http://www.fema.gov/wireless-emergency-alerts

    WEA will look like a text message. The WEA message will show the type and time of the alert, any action you should take, and the agency issuing the alert. The message will be no more than 90 characters.

    I can't believe the government asked for such an arbitrary and small limit on message size, so I'm assuming that the carriers said that's all they could provide, probably because a 90 character message fit into some control message they were already sending to phones.

    1. Re:Don't blame AT&T for terse message by thisisauniqueid · · Score: 5, Funny

      90 bytes was the only unused space they had left in the wiretap-enable command packet.

  9. Re:Simple by hawguy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Alerts don't sell phones or services, so it's probably funded, staffed, and supported like anything else that doesn't contribute to profits: poorly.

    Expect it to either be pwned after a few times, or "This important message is brought to you by General Motors"

    I do wonder how long it will be until someone figures out how to hack the system and uses it to send out repeated "Presidential Alerts" in the middle of the night -- those alerts can't be blocked by any phone settings. Worse if the alert says "Incoming nuclear missiles. Evacuate your town immediately. Don't trust radio or TV."

  10. I don't see much of a problem by SuperKendall · · Score: 5, Informative

    The radius needs to be quite wide, because a person can travel a great distance in a car in a short period of time. 800 miles would not be unreasonable depending on when the missing child was reported.

    Abducted children are often taken quite far away.

    The fact it was an Amber alert tells you a child is involved, and the alert had all other information needed to report something, basically the plates and make/model of the car.

    I guess the different times of reception are an issue but something is better than nothing, and it takes time to work through a list of many cell phone numbers to send out an alert... obviously they do need to improve on the speed of that, and try to remove duplicates.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:I don't see much of a problem by EvanED · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The radius needs to be quite wide, because a person can travel a great distance in a car in a short period of time. 800 miles would not be unreasonable depending on when the missing child was reported.

      By that reasoning, at the time the AMBER alert was issued, it would have been justifiable to announce it to about 1/2 of the continental US.

      Reasoning:
      - The kidnapping occurred no later than ~8pm Sunday
      - The earliest AMBER alerts (according to the summary) started around ~11pm Monday; let's be kind and say that they started around 8pm
      - That gives 24 hours for the kidnapper to get somewhere
      - If the kidnapper drove at 60 mph for that time (that is... moderately realistic if he planned for it), he'd be able to clear 1,440 miles
      - The entire west coast up to Seattle would be in fairly easy range; Austin would be in range; Houston is barely out of range according to 1440 miles (though Google Maps estimates it at under 21 hours, and puts New Orleans at 25 hrs); Omaha is a bit out of range by 1440 miles (but in range per Google Maps's estimate of 22:40); Sheridan, WY and the Montana border are in range

      And that's just counting what he'd be able to do by the time the alert was issued. Want them to plan ahead for where he might be in another 12 hours? Chicago, Indianapolis, Atlanta, etc. are all in fairly easy range; Tampa, Pittsburgh, and Raleigh are maybe possible.

  11. anoying and useless... by greywire · · Score: 4, Insightful

    First, I was watching cable tv when the show was interrupted by the EBS (with a computer synthesized voice, no less, yet it still sounded like a bad CB radio). My cable box inexplicably returned to some random channel that I wasnt watching. Thanks Time Warner and Motorola, your cable box SUCKS in yet another aspect. Then, hours later (at like 10pm or so), all three t-mobile cell phones got the alert. We got the alert yet again the next day. For something that occurred at around 5PM? The suspect could have been out of state or in mexico by then. At the time I was thinking, what makes this kid so special, this sort of thing probably happens daily.. I didn't know the details on the story until the next day. This might be useful if it arrived within, say, an hour or less of the incident and was sent to phones geographically within the area the suspect could have traveled in that amount of time (80 miles?).

    --
    -- Senior Software Engineer, Attorney appearance services, locallawyerapp.com.
    1. Re:anoying and useless... by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The Amber alert is so-named because that's who it's for finding, little white girls who could be named Amber.

      Where in holy hell do you go to get a list of Amber alerts anyway? You sure can't go to Amberalert.gov, they don't have any useful information there. You can get press releases there, but not amber alerts. Your tax dollars at rest! Oh wait, on the site index, I found a link to missingkids.com. Wait, that's just another informational page on amber alerts! If this program's goal were to find missing kids then the whole front page of amberalert.gov would be [the] current amber alert[s]. It isn't. It's to give the appearance of giving a shit. (Holy shit, the front page of missingkids.com has no missing kids on it, either.)

      Amber alerts are bullshit from bullshit people.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:anoying and useless... by whoever57 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As a European in the USA, I have noticed that there is a stronger tendency to think that "something must be done" for every issue, even if that "something" makes no sense.

      Amber alters are one of those "somethings"

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
  12. Re:You really can't figure that out? by Dahamma · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Did you get the message on your phone? I did. It was just a plain bad experience for most people. Scared the crap out of me, it vibrated and made a crazy loud noise I'd never heard before even though my phone was in my pocket and supposedly on mute. The first thing I did was disable all future amber alerts (which was the only option in the iPhone's settings), as apparently did millions of other people who were woken up or otherwise freaked out by the way it was delivered. One of the main things they needed to avoid with this "opt out" system was the "car alarm syndrome", and they completely failed that.

  13. Re:Seriously? by TheGeneration · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The message was completely irrelevant for those of us 600+ miles away. I don't even own a car, I live in an urban area. I literally have NO idea what a Nissan Versa looks like. Literally NONE. I NEVER look at license plates on vehicles while I'm walking. NEVER.

    These messages have ZERO relevance. Send me a pic of the kids or the kidnapper. I don't give a shit about the fucking make/model of a car that is 600 miles away (the distance from Washington DC to Florida btw).

    I can only imagine what people in the far Northern side of the state in Shasta or Humboldt thought of it all. 900 miles away something happened and they are also getting this message.

    --


    The Generation
    I'd say something witty here, but I'm not that bright.
  14. Re:poor implementation has little to do with AT&am by Rockoon · · Score: 5, Insightful
    --
    "His name was James Damore."
  15. Re:Seriously? Yes! by venicebeach · · Score: 5, Funny

    You're right, the Amber Alert would be much more useful if they provided the exact location of the vehicle.

  16. Re:You really can't figure that out? by N1AK · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Disabling an important warning system that could save children seems kind of... selfish.

    Only to someone who jumps to quick, incorrect, conclusions. There are thousands of things everyone could do everyday that could could save or improve others lives. We don't do the vast majority of them because the chance they will help and the time required stops it being viable. The chances of a car happening to travel 300 miles to just where I am, for me to be in a position where I see it, remember (5+ hours after the event) and actually recognise it are tiny. There would be literally dozens of things happening near by that my time would be better spent, still wasted in most cases, doing to help others instead.

    If someone is going to broadcast messages to my phone that they want me to read, let alone treat as a priority, then I need to think they are. If I don't I'm going to avoid seeing as many of them as possible.

  17. Re:Not just AT&T by EvanED · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you find a noisy phone to be too distracting to drive and you don't want the messages anyway, why not just disable them?

    How many people knew that it would even have been an option? If it weren't for this and the previous NYC story, I wouldn't have known about it.

    (My phone doesn't support it I'm pretty sure.)

    Do you nearly get into accidents when a blaring fire truck goes by or is it only a loud cell phone that distracts you to the point where you nearly crash?

    If a firetruck suddenly appeared out of thin air, it may well do so.

    It's not just the loudness it sounds like (having never heard such an alert) but the suddenness and unfamiliarity.

  18. Re:You really can't figure that out? by EvanED · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Happily you can simply turn off the alert on your phone and remove any random chance you might save someones life, so can can avoid a slightly annoying buzzing that lasts for a few seconds.

    I feel that both positions are overstating things. Saying "a slightly annoying buzzing that lasts for a few seconds" is a dramatic understatement from what people saying it sounds like. (I can't find a sample of what it sounds like.) Being woken up is more than a "slight" annoyance, and there are plenty of situations where being suddenly startled by an unfamiliar loud noise can cause far more damage than "a slight annoyance."

    Those probably make sense for a tornado warning or something like that, but not an AMBER alert. Virtually no one is going to do anything other than roll over and go back to sleep. It sounds like phone manufacturers went too far towards making it obnoxious for that case -- it seems quite unlikely that there would be many cases where a massive alert would garner a response that wouldn't be achieved through a simple text message alert for example.

  19. Re:You really can't figure that out? by wgoodman · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I got the alert 6 times. By the time I got it the first time, I'd already seen the alert elsewhere. Every single time it went off, I was still not in a position to see *that* car much less any car. Had I received it once, cool, no issues whatsoever. When it blows up my phone every 5 minutes, I'm going to disable it. I think giving it 30 min of being obnoxious was plenty generous and I don't much care if you think that makes me a terrible person.

  20. Re:Seriously? Yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Go through the cases individually, and you'll find it's a lot more equal than you'd like to admit. When cops get called out, they're far more likely to assume the male is the aggressor - and in fact, they will most likely behave in a dominant fashion toward the male, and certainly behave in a sympathetic fashion toward a whimpering female in a given situation. That behaviour causes things to get worse. I've heard of a man being arrested after the female stabbed him in the arm. I've seen men arrested after women assaulted them. I've lived through it with an ex- who was both abusive and aggressive, and would go crying to any male around.

    Then there was my mother, who beat herself up and called the police. They prosecuted my father for it, too. That'll go in your statistics in spite of it being a complete lie.

    For the record, that didn't happen just the once, either. It happened at least twice, and probably a lot more often than that. Remember: I lived through it. This is first hand.

    (I also lived through it when my mother tried to stab me with a kitchen knife, after through dinner plates at me, then started screaming that I was going to assault her. She had a knife, I was barefoot, and surrounded by broken crockery and glass: she was simply putting on a scene for whoever was listening.)

    In much the same way that insurance companies ask if you've had any alcohol within the 24 hours preceding a car accident, the statistics you cite simply reflect social bias. Serial killers are usually intelligent white males, so when someone starts researching a serial killer the model begins with "Assuming a white male, intelligent..." If something doesn't fit that profile, it's far more likely to be dropped, and thus not represented in the statistics.

    Social bias has it that women are weaker, and need defended from the evil bad mean big bully males, who beat them up. (Social bias completely forgets that women have faster reflexes, and the strength difference between men and women isn't as great as most believe it is, making a fight more of an even match.) Women are dainty and girly and tiday, not aggressive and non-violent, while mean eat steak and drink beer, drive cars fast, pick fights, and shout a lot. Women don't go and get in fights, but guys do.

    This is all bullshit. Time to update your profile of humanity.

  21. Re:Are you KIDDING? (No pun intended... ok, a litt by camperdave · · Score: 4, Funny

    The parents of abducted children already know their kid is abducted. There's no point in alerting them.

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  22. Meh. Amber Alerts are largely useless anyway by swillden · · Score: 4, Informative

    Amber Alert seems like a really good idea, until you look at it closely. The root problem is false positives. Not false reports of sightings of abducted children, those can be weeded through pretty effectively. False Amber Alerts.

    The basic concept behind the system is that since many abducted children are killed in the first three hours, it's necessary to get the alert out there fast. But, it's also really important that there not be a flood of Amber alerts issued about kids who just wandered off to a friend's house or something, so the process of verifying that a particular case meets all of the criteria for issuing an alert pretty much guarantees that by the time the alert is issued it's too late for kids who were victims of the most frightening form of child abduction, the sort for which the alert system was created.

    Research backs this logic up. Multiple studies have been done, and none have demonstrated that Amber alerts do much at all that's useful. They're most effective at finding family abduction cases, but those almost never harm the kids and almost always get resolved anyway, without the alert.

    All of the actual research papers I can find are paywalled, but here's a Boston Globe article that discusses the results of one of the earliest studies. Several more have reaffirmed and even strengthened the findings of the first.

    So, it really doesn't matter much if the alert delivery system is broken. The alert issuance system is fundamentally and likely irreparably flawed.

    --
    Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.