Critical Amber Alert

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Bet details

Reading over this site, https://www.alertready.ca/, it looks like you may have already lost your bet, as they seem to be pretty happy with the current system as-is.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by WhiteTiger

Reading over this site, https://www.alertready.ca/, it looks like you may have already lost your bet, as they seem to be pretty happy with the current system as-is.

lol, I've worked in public communications. Everything is always perfect until the update is released.

[Acey]

You have to find a way to distinguish between a child being abducted 10 hours away and the literal end of the world, because currently there's no distinction. I don't care how they go about figuring that out, but they have to do it.

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by Acey

You have to find a way to distinguish between a child being abducted 10 hours away and the literal end of the world, because currently there's no distinction. I don't care how they go about figuring that out, but they have to do it.

That is one of the suggestions I've put forward (with many others, I am sure) but the impression I am getting is that currently, all they are worried about is "Life in danger". Could be one life. Could be a whole bunch. They don't currently seem to want to distinguish. And given how glacial government moves, I have to wonder if they will, seeing as that would require changing CTRC mandates...and the telecomms dragged their heels 10 ways to Sunday to implement it in the first place. I doubt they are in any hurry to refine/tweak it at all, since they can point at it and say "We gave you a system. It works. It interfaces with USA. Leave us alone."

[8 Ball]

Originally Posted by WhiteTiger

That is one of the suggestions I've put forward (with many others, I am sure) but the impression I am getting is that currently, all they are worried about is "Life in danger". Could be one life. Could be a whole bunch. They don't currently seem to want to distinguish. And given how glacial government moves, I have to wonder if they will, seeing as that would require changing CTRC mandates...and the telecomms dragged their heels 10 ways to Sunday to implement it in the first place. I doubt they are in any hurry to refine/tweak it at all, since they can point at it and say "We gave you a system. It works. It interfaces with USA. Leave us alone."

Don’t they start with an immediate zone then expand? Are there zones?

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by 8 Ball

Don’t they start with an immediate zone then expand? Are there zones?

Yes, but it's a flexible zone. The AA that Edmonton sent off, for instance, was based on what distance could reasonably be driven in the time since the boy was first abducted to the time of the alert.

For something like a tornado, it'd be an alert across the projected path, with a reasonable allowance for drift, etc.

Further alerts can be expanded or reduced as needed.

Folks main gripe has been that they felt it wasn't an emergency enough for them to be bothered with it, and want the alerts custom tailored to their criteria (no one under 18, no one over 65, phone has been dormant for an hour, etc). I don't see that happening at all.

[Acey]

Originally Posted by WhiteTiger

Folks main gripe has been that they felt it wasn't an emergency enough for them to be bothered with it.

I want to be bothered with it. I just want it to be a different bother than nuclear war.

[8 Ball]

Originally Posted by WhiteTiger

Yes, but it's a flexible zone. The AA that Edmonton sent off, for instance, was based on what distance could reasonably be driven in the time since the boy was first abducted to the time of the alert.

For something like a tornado, it'd be an alert across the projected path, with a reasonable allowance for drift, etc.

Further alerts can be expanded or reduced as needed.

Folks main gripe has been that they felt it wasn't an emergency enough for them to be bothered with it, and want the alerts custom tailored to their criteria (no one under 18, no one over 65, phone has been dormant for an hour, etc). I don't see that happening at all.

That’s what I figured. So there really is no further tweaking as some have suggested.

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by Acey

You have to find a way to distinguish between a child being abducted 10 hours away and the literal end of the world, because currently there's no distinction. I don't care how they go about figuring that out, but they have to do it.

That's a good way to put it.

I also think that when there is imminent danger to all lives in the area (disaster) you actually want to alert and awake every human being possible, so I understand the nature of the system design. But an amber alert, I don't need every resident at a long term care or hospice facility being jarred and potentially causing harm/death as a result. In a true disaster-type emergency that risk is necessary.

[bob-loblaw]

According to the https://alertready.ca...

Will I receive emergency alerts on my wireless device if I’m travelling to another province or territory within Canada?

Yes. Emergency alerts are issued to a defined geographic area, such that only people in the defined area will receive the emergency alerts. If you are travelling and happen to be in another province when an emergency alert is issued, your compatible wireless device will receive the emergency alert within seconds of being issued, provided your phone is powered on and connected to the LTE cellular network. There is no need to enable the location services on your wireless device to receive alerts.

Will I receive emergency alerts on my wireless device relevant to where I live while I am travelling away from home?

No. If you are travelling, you will only receive emergency alerts that occur where you are.
You can keep track of emergency alerts occurring in specific areas (e.g. where they or other family members live) through a number of available apps and online services.

It appears that because there was a possibility she would be travelling south Calgary got the initial and secondary alert.

Has anyone heard if people in Fort MacMurray, Lloydminster, Medicine Hat, Lethbridge etc. also received the alert?

[John Doe]

Originally Posted by bob-loblaw

According to the https://alertready.ca...



It appears that because there was a possibility she would be travelling south Calgary got the initial and secondary alert.

Has anyone heard if people in Fort MacMurray, Lloydminster, Medicine Hat, Lethbridge etc. also received the alert?

I got it in Whitecourt.

[ben voyonsdonc]

I don’t understand why you would restrict the Amber Alert to a specific region. Child abductors often flee with the child as quickly as possible and its good to have as many people notified as possible.

[Acey]

It was a province-wide alert. They said she got him at 2:50 pm, by our quick math she could have reached the Coutts-Sweetgrass crossing within minutes of the time we got the alert, assuming she was doing a solid ~130 down highway 2. So in this case, anything other than a province-wide alert would have been dumb.

But in the Ontario cases I guess they were also going provincewide, within only a couple hours, and it's like 14 hours from Thunder Bay to Toronto. So... I dunno.

Edit: For what it's worth, 6 hrs, 52 minutes from abduction time to the amber alert at 21:42. Google Maps says ~6 hours, 15 minutes from Edmonton to the Coutts crossing. Presumably they'd have been made aware well prior to the alert.

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by 8 Ball

That’s what I figured. So there really is no further tweaking as some have suggested.

There certainly is "tweaking" that can be done, but the CRTC doesn't want to and the police are 100% fine keeping it as it is. All that needs to be done is follow the ranking that the system allows and not send absolutely every single message as presidential level. The US seems to be able to use the system correctly, why can't we?

The other part that can be done is actually vetting Amber Alerts before they blast them out. The last one issued in Ontario turned out to be a false claim by the mother that the police apparently didn't bother to spend a few minutes investigating before issuing an alert saying the father had abducted the child and providing the worst picture they could probably find.

[Lubicon]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

There certainly is "tweaking" that can be done, but the CRTC doesn't want to and the police are 100% fine keeping it as it is. All that needs to be done is follow the ranking that the system allows and not send absolutely every single message as presidential level. The US seems to be able to use the system correctly, why can't we?

The other part that can be done is actually vetting Amber Alerts before they blast them out. The last one issued in Ontario turned out to be a false claim by the mother that the police apparently didn't bother to spend a few minutes investigating before issuing an alert saying the father had abducted the child and providing the worst picture they could probably find.

Not picking on you Whiteout but there are two points in here I will respond to. Both are in reference to the most recent Amber Alert:

1. I've seen a few posts regarding ranking the severity of the alerts and why we cannot do it. Correct me if I am wrong but we already do. Alerts can go out to select geographic areas based on the severity of the alert. If the authorities deem it urgent enough to broadcast a message it needs to go to everyone IMHO, but we do have the ability now to send to everyone but only in targeted areas. That's good enough for me.

2. the point about better vetting. There were also posters here commenting on how long it too EPS to send out the amber alert which therefore meant it went out province wide due to the large distance the child could have been moved in that time. So police are being faulted for taking too long (and thus increasing the geographic area of the alert) or rushing the alert out and risking a false alarm. Not sure how we expect to have it both ways.

Overall I'm satisfied with the current set up. We can alert to as big an area as we want to. If the alert warrants sending out an alert to the public it needs to go to every phone, no picking and choosing if you want to receive them or when. But that's just my opinion.

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by Lubicon

Not picking on you Whiteout but there are two points in here I will respond to. Both are in reference to the most recent Amber Alert:

1. I've seen a few posts regarding ranking the severity of the alerts and why we cannot do it. Correct me if I am wrong but we already do. Alerts can go out to select geographic areas based on the severity of the alert. If the authorities deem it urgent enough to broadcast a message it needs to go to everyone IMHO, but we do have the ability now to send to everyone but only in targeted areas. That's good enough for me.

2. the point about better vetting. There were also posters here commenting on how long it too EPS to send out the amber alert which therefore meant it went out province wide due to the large distance the child could have been moved in that time. So police are being faulted for taking too long (and thus increasing the geographic area of the alert) or rushing the alert out and risking a false alarm. Not sure how we expect to have it both ways.

Overall I'm satisfied with the current set up. We can alert to as big an area as we want to. If the alert warrants sending out an alert to the public it needs to go to every phone, no picking and choosing if you want to receive them or when. But that's just my opinion.

Amber alerts don't need the ability to bypass do not disturb though. That functionality was meant to be used when everyone needed the alert, no matter what they were doing, no matter the time of day. If sent with the proper priority, everyone would receive the amber alert, but it wouldn't blare through DND settings. All they are going to wind up accomplishing is pissing people off and having more and more people ignore alerts.

[EldrickOnIce]

Can toggle 'public safety messages' in android 9 from always, daytime, nighttime and off.
I do not know if this applies to amber alerts, as I have always on

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by ben voyonsdonc

I don’t understand why you would restrict the Amber Alert to a specific region. Child abductors often flee with the child as quickly as possible and its good to have as many people notified as possible.

Originally Posted by Acey

It was a province-wide alert. They said she got him at 2:50 pm, by our quick math she could have reached the Coutts-Sweetgrass crossing within minutes of the time we got the alert, assuming she was doing a solid ~130 down highway 2. So in this case, anything other than a province-wide alert would have been dumb.

But in the Ontario cases I guess they were also going provincewide, within only a couple hours, and it's like 14 hours from Thunder Bay to Toronto. So... I dunno.

Edit: For what it's worth, 6 hrs, 52 minutes from abduction time to the amber alert at 21:42. Google Maps says ~6 hours, 15 minutes from Edmonton to the Coutts crossing. Presumably they'd have been made aware well prior to the alert.

Originally Posted by ben voyonsdonc

I don’t understand why you would restrict the Amber Alert to a specific region. Child abductors often flee with the child as quickly as possible and its good to have as many people notified as possible.

Why do we restrict it to Alberta only? She could have driven to Sask or BC much quicker than Coutts.

[Buff]

Originally Posted by bob-loblaw

According to the https://alertready.ca...



It appears that because there was a possibility she would be travelling south Calgary got the initial and secondary alert.

Has anyone heard if people in Fort MacMurray, Lloydminster, Medicine Hat, Lethbridge etc. also received the alert?

Lethbridge received both alerts. Also went out over the radio too but the radio was a couple minutes behind the alerts going to phones.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by Ducay

Why do we restrict it to Alberta only? She could have driven to Sask or BC much quicker than Coutts.

They would have to coordinate with the agencies in those provinces. The Amber Alert system is provincial.