Do you get these obnoxious "AMBER, Silver, & Blue Alerts" in other states?

[arlen holder]

Do you get these obnoxious "AMBER, Silver, & Blue Alerts" in other states?
<http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=1994159alert01.jpg>

EMERGENCY ALERT
Immiment extreme alert
Dec 26, 2018 7:35 AM
Blue Alert, SIL DODGE RAM 1500
Dealer Plates AR AUTO. Details
at http://chp.click/alerts
[Confirm]

[nospam]

In article <q00nqb$le1$1...@news.mixmin.net>, arlen holder

<ar...@arlen.com> wrote:

> Do you get these obnoxious "AMBER, Silver, & Blue Alerts" in other states?

no.

[sms]

All my devices have been getting that alert today. It keeps repeating it
until you confirm.

But this system is also used for things like alerts for approaching
fires, tsunamis, etc.

We were just talking about this system a couple of weeks ago at my
city's Emergency Response Center. Access to the system for issuing
alerts is highly controlled.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[arlen holder]

On Wed, 26 Dec 2018 12:38:14 -0800, sms wrote:

> All my devices have been getting that alert today. It keeps repeating it
> until you confirm.

I never confirm them - where - they - eventually - go away.

> But this system is also used for things like alerts for approaching
> fires, tsunamis, etc.

Those would need to be "regional" alerts, since, at a few thousand feet, I
doubt a tsunami is going to reach people like me high on the mountains.

> We were just talking about this system a couple of weeks ago at my
> city's Emergency Response Center. Access to the system for issuing
> alerts is highly controlled.

I was just wondering if California is the only kooky state that does this?
But, your definition of "highly controlled" might not be the government's.

For example, as you're well aware sms, those idiotic Amber Alert billboards
along the highway tell is the most idiotic things, constantly.

For example, "Don't water your lawn" was one of those "emergency alerts".
Now c'mon ... I'm driving a car ... those alerts EMERGENCY ALERTS for
Cghrists' sake. They are SUPPOSED to have something to do with something I
can do while driving a car ... which not watering my lawn isn't one of.

The people who put these messages out act like we are all little children.

I complained like hell when I saw that one, and they told me the same thing
you said, which is a committee decides on this shit. But it's a committee
of utter idiots because they fill those signs with total crap.

Last week, it was raining, and they use the EMERGENCY ALERT system to tell
us the road is wet.

Jesus Christ. There's absolutely zero oversight on these things.

Other times those idiotic EMERGENCY ALERT signs tell us to pull over to the
side of the road if we have a minor accident. WTF?

Why don't they just take the entire driving manual, every single damn
sentence, and feed THAT into those "EMERGENCY ALERT" billboards?

Same thing with these idiotic Amber, Silver, and Blue alerts.
I was just wondering if California is the only kooky state that does this?

[sms]

On 12/26/2018 1:12 PM, arlen holder wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Dec 2018 12:38:14 -0800, sms wrote:
>
>> All my devices have been getting that alert today. It keeps repeating it
>> until you confirm.
>
> I never confirm them - where - they - eventually - go away.
>
>> But this system is also used for things like alerts for approaching
>> fires, tsunamis, etc.
>
> Those would need to be "regional" alerts, since, at a few thousand feet, I
> doubt a tsunami is going to reach people like me high on the mountains.

We recently had a long discussion about various types of alerts, their
limitations, and future improvements. Local officials, of which I am
one, think a lot about these issues and how to do the alerts in a way
that don't annoy people that don't need the alerts, but that don't miss
people that should be getting the alerts.

Some considerations:

1. Do you issue the alerts based on the GPS coordinates of where the
phone is located (or which tower it is connected to)?

2. Do you issue alerts based on the address registered to the phone, if any?

3. Do you issue alerts only to those users that opt-in, or to everyone?

4. Do you issue the alerts long before the situation becomes critical,
especially because a disaster may wipe out the ability to send alerts at
all (i.e. a wildfire)?

5. Do you issue the text alerts in multiple languages?

There are pros and cons to each of these. If I'm not at home I still may
want the alerts that affect my home, but I will also want the alerts
based on my current location. If it's only based on opt-in then many
people will not receive vital warnings (like wildfire alerts).

There are also issues with who is allowed to issue these alerts. If the
chain of command is too long then some alerts may not be issued until
it's too late like what happened in Paradise earlier this year
<https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/11/13/camp-fire-paradise-residents-say-they-received-no-mass-cellphone-alerts-to-evacuate-or-to-warn-of-fires/>
or the floods in San Jose
<https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/03/06/san-jose-flood-silicon-valley-behind-the-curve-in-implementing-alert-system/>.
Do you give that authority to local emergency service providers, mayors,
and city managers?

I agree with you that those electronic signboards on the freeway are
often being abused (though some of the messages may have some positive
effects).

Speaking only for myself.

[nospam]

In article <q015nd$nm6$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> >> But this system is also used for things like alerts for approaching
> >> fires, tsunamis, etc.
> >
> > Those would need to be "regional" alerts, since, at a few thousand feet, I
> > doubt a tsunami is going to reach people like me high on the mountains.
>
> We recently had a long discussion about various types of alerts, their
> limitations, and future improvements. Local officials, of which I am
> one, think a lot about these issues and how to do the alerts in a way
> that don't annoy people that don't need the alerts, but that don't miss
> people that should be getting the alerts.
>
> Some considerations:
>
> 1. Do you issue the alerts based on the GPS coordinates of where the
> phone is located (or which tower it is connected to)?

of course it should be local. alerts for other areas are noise, causing
people to ignore all alerts, regardless of area. do that enough and
they'll disable them entirely.

> 2. Do you issue alerts based on the address registered to the phone, if any?

no. people aren't necessarily in the same area as where the phone is
registered, which isn't guaranteed to be accurate anyway.

do a reverse 911 to landlines in the affected area, if necessary.

> 3. Do you issue alerts only to those users that opt-in, or to everyone?

anything that endangers life or property goes to everyone, with
everything else being opt-in.

> 4. Do you issue the alerts long before the situation becomes critical,
> especially because a disaster may wipe out the ability to send alerts at
> all (i.e. a wildfire)?

that depends on what is considered critical. if the event is not life
or death, then people will start to ignore them.

> 5. Do you issue the text alerts in multiple languages?

send it in whatever language the phone is set to.

> There are pros and cons to each of these.

nope. the answers are common sense and quite clear.

> If I'm not at home I still may
> want the alerts that affect my home, but I will also want the alerts
> based on my current location.

if you're not at home, there's not much you can do, and if it's
something like a wildfire, you won't be able to drive back there
anyway.

> If it's only based on opt-in then many
> people will not receive vital warnings (like wildfire alerts).

have two levels, ones that affect life & property (e.g., wildfire),
which are sent to everyone in the affected area, and the rest optional.

> There are also issues with who is allowed to issue these alerts. If the
> chain of command is too long then some alerts may not be issued until
> it's too late like what happened in Paradise earlier this year

yep, but that's a separate problem.

[arlen holder]

On Wed, 26 Dec 2018 16:17:47 -0800, sms wrote:
> We recently had a long discussion about various types of alerts,
> their limitations, and future improvements. Local officials,
> of which I am one, think a lot about these issues and how to
> do the alerts in a way that don't annoy people that don't
> need the alerts, but that don't miss people

It's simple.
God put five fingers on your hands, not six.

If your hand has five fingers, then use the five-finger rule.
o Opt in

If they're worried nobody is going to opt into their stupid alerts, that
should tell them something about their stupid alerts, now shouldn't it?

Besides, we already have mandatory PRESIDENTIAL ALERTS.
Have you been getting an "Emergency Alert" from the "Presidential alert" system repeatedly today?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/comp.mobile.android/lCIiXQUa2OE/-rspuYhQAgAJ>

> 4. Do you issue the alerts long before the situation becomes critical,
> especially because a disaster may wipe out the ability to send alerts at
> all (i.e. a wildfire)?

There are very few disasters that provide warning that an alert can resolve.
Fire is one of them, but not earthquake, for example.

If there is a fire, trust me, we smell smoke.
Our noses are the best alert there is.
Plus our eyes, at least here in the upper mountains (lower is different).

We smell every fire that is within a hundred miles, of any import.
Sure, the wind can be off, but the point is that fire news travels fast
already.

The ONLY alert you need for fire is the evacuation levels, whatever they may
be, and the evacuation routes. Generally that's better done with traveling
loudspeakers and emergency vehicles, since a fire is, by nature, extremely
local and, within bounds, predictable.

If people are worried about fire, they should OPT IN to a fire alert.
Notice that you have five fingers.
That means you opt in on all alerts.

There is no other method.

If you REALLY REALLY REALLY need an alert that isn't opt in, you can ALWAYS
do that anyway since there's no defense on a phone against that.

Extraordinary measures require extraordinary danger.
There's almost no extraordinary danger that an alert will resolve.

Can you name any?

I can't - and I live almost on the fault line for Christs' sake, in the
highest fire danger in the state.

If they want to alert me of a gunman in my neighborhood, then I can opt in
if I really want that kind of crap incessantly popping up on my phone.

> 5. Do you issue the text alerts in multiple languages?

Oh Jesus.
Don't these council people have better things to worry about?

> There are pros and cons to each of these. If I'm not at home I still may

> want the alerts that affect my home, but I will also want the alerts
> based on my current location.

HINT: That's called news.
o They have entire TV stations for that stuff.
o And papers too.
o Oh, and radio stations.
o And web pages.
etc.

If I want news to be SMS'd to me in loud alerts, I'd set that up.
HINT: I haven't set that up.

> If it's only based on opt-in then many
> people will not receive vital warnings (like wildfire alerts).

Yup. Thank God.
Nobody would opt in on your stupid alerts if you let them.
It's why I hate the _optout that I have to name all my WiFi APs.

Google _knew_ nobody would opt in.

> There are also issues with who is allowed to issue these alerts.

Yeah. Like some disgruntled unsound government employee in Hawaii.

> If the
> chain of command is too long then some alerts may not be issued until
> it's too late like what happened in Paradise earlier this year

They needed a DIFFERENT system as they didn't even have good cellphone
service. And, the fire department didn't want to risk going down their roads
for fear of being trapped by falling trees. And their choppers couldn't fly
in the early wind vortexes.

Sometimes a disaster is just going to happen.

An alert wouldn't have cleared those roads, and, in fact, would have made it
worse because of timing - but it wouldn't have made any difference on their
traffic jams (a lot of people were found dead in their vehicles).

> Do you give that authority to local emergency service providers, mayors,
> and city managers?

To the politicians?
Are you crazy?

No elected official should EVER be given a public megaphone.
Never.

It's a cardinal rule.

> I agree with you that those electronic signboards on the freeway are
> often being abused (though some of the messages may have some positive
> effects).

The abuse of those signs is classic.
Do you read them? I'm sick of them. I tell my grandkids to read them to me
as we drive by, and then I explain that it's a PERFECT example of what
stupid people do when you give them too much money to do more stupid things.

They may as well tell you that the sun rises every day and sets every night
when they tell you that the road is wet during a pouring rainstorm.

> Speaking only for myself.

Here's the problem, as I see it, using that last example of the
o EMERGENCY! SLOW DOWN! THE ROAD IS WET!
(when it's pouring rain outside).

I think what government morons "see" is that there are increased accidents
when the road is wet. OK. I agree with them.

Then, I think what the government morons "think" is that by telling people
to slow down when the road is wet, people "will" slow down when the road is
wet. Right?

If that's not the logic, then why put that idiotic crap on the sign, right?

OK. So that's the logic.
But guess what?
o Intelligent people will slow down when the road is wet.
o They don't have to read the sign to know that.

Yet...
o There are always going to be morons who won't slow down when it's wet
o Do you REALLY think a stupid sign telling them to slow down - will work?

It's the wrong solution to the problem.
Just like Prohibition was the wrong solution to the problem.
The government doesn't take the right solution - it takes an EASY solution.
One that they can tout on their election flyers.

No amount of signs in the rain will make people slow down when the road is
wet if they don't already slow down when the road is wet. It's just not
gonna happen.

Why not?
I don't know why not.

But an alert during a rainstorm that the road is wet isn't the solution.
And that same alert when it's dry is even worse of a solution.

Which is what we get from our own government.

[arlen holder]

> Do you get these obnoxious "AMBER, Silver, & Blue Alerts" in other states?
> <http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=1994159alert01.jpg>

*The government who abuses their power, has no concept of restraint.*

Jesus Christ, they alerted everyone in a state of over 60 million people
(which is larger than most countries), because some guy more than five
hundred miles away (who killed a cop) got into a car.

I get it he killed a cop for Christs' sake.
I get that they want the entire state to know it.
(HINT: It's News, not an alert, for Christs' sake.)

That was the reason for that stupid silly alert.
Someone, hundreds, and hundreds, and hundreds and hundreds of miles away,
who killed someone, got into a car.

Jesus Christ.

It would have been more than three or four countries away if this was
Europe, for Christs' sake, and they arrested him only a short distance away
besides.

*The government who abuses their power, has no concept of restraint.*

[arlen holder]

On Thu, 27 Dec 2018 04:25:43 -0000 (UTC), arlen holder wrote:

> Jesus Christ, they alerted everyone in a state of over 60 million people
> (which is larger than most countries), because some guy more than five
> hundred miles away (who killed a cop) got into a car.

UPDATE:
I called the CHP to complain at 800-835-5247
<https://www.chp.ca.gov/home/contact-us>

The CHP officers who answered my call didn't even understand why it's
simply idiotic for this blue alert to go to 66 million people, where
65,999,800 of them can't do anything about it. (They're that stupid.)

They told me to call the CHP in Sacramento at 916-843-3000 who told me to
shove it, effectively, since they said you can "turn it off".

They said we could write a letter of complaint to:
California Highway
601 N. 7th. St.
Sacramento, CA 95811

Well, if we can turn the idiotic blue alert off, then that's fine (as long
as it works to turn off just those idiotic blue alerts, which are, in
reality, an advertisement that the police don't like it when you kill one
of them).

I get why the police love the advertisement, since that's why Hitler
massacred people when Heydrich was murdered - it's common for thugs to
overreact when one of the armed gang is shot - by decimating Prague in the
case of Heydrich, but it's the same principle - only on a smaller scale -
given these idiotic blue alerts affect 66 million people.

The question now, is HOW to eliminate those idiotic blue alerts while
keeping any local fire alerts (since that's a _real_ threat).

Before I turn it off, I called CalFire to make sure it wouldn't turn off
THEIR alerts (those I'd care about if they're local!), at 916-653-5123
<http://calfire.ca.gov/contacts/search>

CalFire told me that they don't send alerts, because they leave it to the
Sheriff to evacuate people 800-211-2220 [408-808-4400].
<https://www.sccgov.org/sites/sheriff/Pages/sheriff.aspx>

The local Sheriff passed me about to three successive people, where I found
that they're only now testing an emergency alert system, where my main
concern is to turn off the idiotic 66-million-people blue alerts but to
leave running any local fire alerts.

Apparently this is the currently being developed opt-in LOCAL alert system
<https://www.sccgov.org/sites/alertscc/Pages/home.aspx>
<AlertSCC.Admin at oes.sccgov.org>

In short, the goal is simple, and logical (as always), based on threat:
o Turn off the idiotic blue-alert system (which is statewide), and,
o Opt into the far more sensible local alert system (which is county wide).
o Since I straddle a border, I probably need to do so for two counties

[The Real Bev]

On 12/27/2018 10:45 AM, arlen holder wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Dec 2018 04:25:43 -0000 (UTC), arlen holder wrote:
>
>> Jesus Christ, they alerted everyone in a state of over 60 million people
>> (which is larger than most countries), because some guy more than five
>> hundred miles away (who killed a cop) got into a car.

I don't get any alerts, which is just fine with me. Did you sign up for
these?


--
Cheers, Bev
======================================================================
Eat this, NSA: bomb assassinate Washington North Korea Iraq spy poison
ISIS AlQaeda Bush Clinton Pelosi Reid Obama Muslim Crusader explosion
Anthrax plutonium das bi Dania JD Salinger genius obama shithead akbar
72 revolution antifa Dave Foreman a god meet me in Berlin binary Iran
shoe underwear breakfast bitcoin dirty underground launch NSA soft kitty

[David Oseas]

On 12/26/2018 1:12 PM, arlen holder wrote:

>

> I was just wondering if California is the only kooky state that does this?
> But, your definition of "highly controlled" might not be the government's.
>

I'm in Southern California & initially received Amber alerts on my phone
by default, until I disabled them in the Messages app.

I've never heard of, nor received any Silver or Blue alerts.

I did go online to request additional Emergency alerts from the local
Sheriff & Fire Departments, both of which proved invaluable during the
Woolsey fire, since I received those alerts a while before the official
evacuation notices and was able to pack up & take important belongings &
my pets before evacuating the area.

-David

[B...@onramp.net]

On Sun, 30 Dec 2018 00:48:58 -0000 (UTC), Cuppy
<nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>arlen holder <ar...@arlen.com> wrote in news:q036jr$52k$1...@news.mixmin.net:

>Where do you get 66 million? California plus what else? s

That wouldn't matter to this POS. If he had a brain he would realize
that they send these millions of people the alerts because they don't
know the one, or two, that could be of help. If they did they would
call them first.

[Your Name]

On 2018-12-27 19:17:06 +0000, The Real Bev said:
> On 12/27/2018 10:45 AM, arlen holder wrote:
>> On Thu, 27 Dec 2018 04:25:43 -0000 (UTC), arlen holder wrote:
>>>
>>> Jesus Christ, they alerted everyone in a state of over 60 million people
>>> (which is larger than most countries), because some guy more than five
>>> hundred miles away (who killed a cop) got into a car.
>
> I don't get any alerts, which is just fine with me. Did you sign up for these?

The emergency alert signal in New Zealand gets sent to every compatible
cellular mobile device (not sure if they receive it without a SIM
installed), but it's an idiotic system that you cannot opt-out of,
although they say on the website that you can turn your phone off /
flight mode during the pre-notified signal test times.
<https://www.civildefence.govt.nz/get-ready/civil-defence-emergency-management-alerts-and-warnings/emergency-mobile-alert/>


In terms of Apple iPhones, compatible ones are the iPhone 5S or newer,
running iOS 11 or newer.

They ran a test recently and what you get is the mobile phone suddenly
starts a short high pitched screaming sound (depending on your phone's
volume), which will no doubt be "great" for those driving their car at
the time. :-\

[arlen holder]

On Sat, 29 Dec 2018 20:22:12 -0600, B...@Onramp.net wrote:

> That wouldn't matter to this POS. If he had a brain he would realize
> that they send these millions of people the alerts because they don't
> know the one, or two, that could be of help. If they did they would
> call them first.

I realize anything said on the adult level is too complex for you, BK, but
there's this concept of a "threshold" for a threat, that needs to be met.

Otherwise, the respect for the threshold is lowered.

As an example that you won't get, BK, but that others might, take the case
of STOP signs. They're on "important" intersections, right? That's because
you don't know if a vehicle will be approaching, right?

But then take that "threat level" and apply it to _every_ intersection BK.
Do you see what would happen?

Probably not.
But most adults would.

You can't "cry wolf" at every intersection.
People become inured to the "threat" level.

It's just not reasonable.
I realize you, BK, will _never_ comprehend _any_ of that.
But others might.