Slashdot Mirror
New Yorkers Sue Trump and FEMA To Stop Presidential Alert (cnet.com)
Not everyone is pleased to hear that President Trump has the power to use communications systems in case of an emergency. According to CNET, three New York residents recently filed a lawsuit against President Trump and William Long, administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, to halt FEMA's new Presidential Alert messaging system.
The lawsuit reads in part: "Plaintiffs are American citizens who do not wish to receive text messages, or messages of any kind, on any topic or subject, from defendant Trump. [Trump's] rise to power was facilitated by weaponized disinformation that he broadcast into the public information sphere via Twitter in addition to traditional mass media." From the report: Presidential Alerts are similar to Amber or other emergency alerts on your phone -- you hear a loud noise comes along with vibration. The messages come from the Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS), which attempts to send the alert to every cell phone within the U.S. operating on a network run by a carrier opting into the Wireless Emergency Alert system. IPAWS is used in the event of natural disasters, acts of terrorism or other disasters or threats to public safety. The plaintiffs' main complaint is that Presidential Alerts are compulsory -- there's no way to opt-out of receiving them. They argue that under civil rights law, government cannot use cellular devices to compel listening, "trespass into and hijack" devices without a warrant or individual consent.
The plaintiffs are also concerned Trump might use the alerts to spread disinformation because IPAWS doesn't regulate the content of the messages. That means Trump may be free to define "act of terrorism" and "threat to public safety," and may broadcast "arbitrary, biased, irrational" messages to "hundreds of millions of people," the plaintiffs say in the lawsuit.
The lawsuit reads in part: "Plaintiffs are American citizens who do not wish to receive text messages, or messages of any kind, on any topic or subject, from defendant Trump. [Trump's] rise to power was facilitated by weaponized disinformation that he broadcast into the public information sphere via Twitter in addition to traditional mass media." From the report: Presidential Alerts are similar to Amber or other emergency alerts on your phone -- you hear a loud noise comes along with vibration. The messages come from the Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS), which attempts to send the alert to every cell phone within the U.S. operating on a network run by a carrier opting into the Wireless Emergency Alert system. IPAWS is used in the event of natural disasters, acts of terrorism or other disasters or threats to public safety. The plaintiffs' main complaint is that Presidential Alerts are compulsory -- there's no way to opt-out of receiving them. They argue that under civil rights law, government cannot use cellular devices to compel listening, "trespass into and hijack" devices without a warrant or individual consent.
The plaintiffs are also concerned Trump might use the alerts to spread disinformation because IPAWS doesn't regulate the content of the messages. That means Trump may be free to define "act of terrorism" and "threat to public safety," and may broadcast "arbitrary, biased, irrational" messages to "hundreds of millions of people," the plaintiffs say in the lawsuit.
I want to know why alerts don't go into a history like text messages. Personally I think they should just go into the normal SMS history.
When I clear an alert to make the phone be quiet I lose the ability to see the alert. That's some of the dumbest planning I've seen.
I refuse to sign
I am not a lawyer, but there is something called a "declaratory judgement". You could think of a declaratory judgement as being about something that could happen but hasn't yet.
Wikipedia:
A declaratory judgment, also called a declaration, is the legal determination of a court that resolves legal uncertainty for the litigants. It is a form of legally binding preventive adjudication by which a party involved in an actual or possible legal matter can ask a court to conclusively rule on and affirm the rights, duties, or obligations of one or more parties in a civil dispute...
I'm your neighbour, and for years I've been yelling at you about how your driveway goes over my land, and that I'm going to sue you one of these days sonny boy see if I don't. You think I'm full of crap and would have no case. Now you want to do an expensive paving job on your driveway. The scenario you fear is: you pay lots of money for the job, then I get annoyed and actually get around to suing, and to your surprise I win, and you have to tear up the expensive job and have it redone. If you could be guaranteed I'd sue you in the near future, it would be fine: you'd fight the case, and at the end you'd know exactly what you could or could not do. But I'll probably never sue, so you face the prospect of never paving your driveway.
The declaratory judgement allows you to force this case into court, even though you are not the putatively wronged party. You ask the court to make a declaratory judgement that your driveway is not on my land, and then the court finds either for you or for me, and either way you have clarity.
So rather than waiting for Trump to use the text alert and then sue him for inappropriate use, you might seek a declaratory judgement as to what an appropriate use is. As mentioned above, I am not a lawyer, so I don't know whether this falls within the stuff you can get a declaratory judgement over.
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
Steak should never be served raw. You are a deranged person.
Well done is the only way steak should be eaten, and that requires A-1 to be on top of it.
Wrong place to look, an AG choosing not to enforce certain laws he disagrees with is not the way to get those laws changed. Enforcing them vigorously is a good way to get things changed, because it makes the problem with those laws obvious.
What the President could do (and should do if he really supports medical marijuana) is direct the FDA to re-schedule it; this would pretty much solve the problem overnight. This goes for any President, whether it be Obama or Trump.
But really the law is ultimately in the hands of the Legislative branch.
Doesn't matter who signed it, I actually think it was a good bill, until the individual mandate entered into it. And I don't care which political party you say you are, no one gets to tell me I have to buy anyone's product by force. And I'm sorry, it's by force. If I don't I get fined. If I don't pay or agree to pay it, it's prison. If I resist prison, I get killed by police.