Is everybody leaving their ringer on while they sleep? I have never had an Amber Alert force an audible ringtone while in vibrate mode. I always end up waking up in the morning to find messages from Emergency Alert or WHY having been aware of nothing during the night. Heck, I may have even made this comment before.
Yes, I am on call 24/7 so it needs to be on. That said I don't mind these very infrequent Amber Alerts being pushed through. They happen so infrequently they really are not a nuisance. That said I would hope the authorities will conduct a review of the system and fine tune it if necessary. There is always room to improve.
I also don't want my daughter to receive them at all since the probability of them freaking her out is 100% while the probability of her being able to help is almost nil. This is a kid that will have a tough time sleeping if she hears a ghost story at Girl Guides. The last thing she needs to be reading at any time of the day or night is abduction warnings. If you tell her some kid was abducted in Vancouver, she'll be looking over her shoulder the whole way home from school in Calgary.
I hear you, man. My daughter is trending in the same direction. Totally brave kid in many ways, but certain things get in her head and seriously freak her out.
This is something I really had not considered, and I totally understand why you'd want to shelter her from Amber Alerts. It's like putting missing children on milk cartons. Way to scare kids.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to 4X4 For This Useful Post:
I'm sympathetic to many of the arguments that this system could be improved, because I think it's incredibly obvious that this is not the best possible system that could be envisioned. However, the argument that this is some encroachment by the state on your private life or your freedoms is asinine. You don't have a right to own a cell phone, much less own one without regulation about how it works. Do you object to the government imposing limits and regulations on how you drive your car, too? Are seatbelt laws an unconscionable affront to your dignity? Give me a break.
No, but the new impaired driving rules are. Have you missed that entire conversation? There should always be a line that says what the government can/can’t enforce.
Right to own a cell phone??? We don’t really have “rights” to anything! We make them up as we go along.
Is that a joke? Are you unaware of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
The problem with the impaired driving rules has nothing to do with interfering with your ability to operate your vehicle. The problem is that they force you to provide evidence against yourself to support potential criminal charges when the state has no reason to believe you've committed a crime. There is nothing remotely similar about the two cases.
If you wanted a car analogy, this would be like the government requiring all cars to have the radio on at all times and tuned so that they can interrupt whatever you may be listening to for a government alert message. Which might be annoying, but is not a violation of any legal right you have.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
And? The fact that there is a long history of jurisprudence about how to interpret the various provisions in the Charter means... what? What are you trying to say?
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
And? The fact that there is a long history of jurisprudence about how to interpret the various provisions in the Charter means... what? What are you trying to say?
Times have changed. Cell phones have become engrained in modern society. We are all basically bionic. There is a place for an argument to be made that this is the beginning of encroachment by the state. As technology advances it will (in all likelihood) become more and more integrated in our lives. And so will messages such as these (not just talking Amber Alerts, as it’s just the beginning).
I’m trying to say the argument is valid. That’s all.
I was asking what you meant by "We don’t really have “rights” to anything! We make them up as we go along". Because that was a fairly insane statement.
But okay, let's say that we're bionic and the government should presume that everyone has a cell phone and must have one, such that the argument "you're perfectly free to not own a phone and this will not affect you" doesn't hold water. Even in that case, what right would pushing a notification on you violate? If they were able to go into your phone and look at your personal information, conversation history, etc, it would violate your right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure, for example. Forcing an alert onto your phone, though? I don't see where you have a leg to stand on.
So even accepting your premise, which I think is flawed, no, the argument is still not valid at all.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Times have changed. Cell phones have become engrained in modern society. We are all basically bionic. There is a place for an argument to be made that this is the beginning of encroachment by the state. As technology advances it will (in all likelihood) become more and more integrated in our lives. And so will messages such as these (not just talking Amber Alerts, as it’s just the beginning).
I’m trying to say the argument is valid. That’s all.
Is there a meaningful difference between the government sending you an amber alert notification on your phone and, for example, the government mailing you a tax notice? Or erecting signs (for various legitimate reasons)? Or installing (and activating) emergency lights on emergency vehicles? They are all (potentially unwanted) communications from government.
I can't imagine which section of the Charter is being violated (and even if it was, would not be saved by s. 1)?
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
I was asking what you meant by "We don’t really have “rights” to anything! We make them up as we go along". Because that was a fairly insane statement.
Well, not really. Ignoring the fact I was exaggerating for effect, the charter has an implementation date...and revision dates.
Well, not really. Ignoring the fact I was exaggerating for effect, the charter has an implementation date...and revision dates.
It does?
I'm not sure what you are suggesting exactly but regular or frequent constitutional amendment is not (thankfully) a thing.
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
The Following User Says Thank You to Makarov For This Useful Post:
If you wanted a car analogy, this would be like the government requiring all cars to have the radio on at all times and tuned so that they can interrupt whatever you may be listening to for a government alert message. Which might be annoying, but is not a violation of any legal right you have.
No it's not. The government isn't mandating that people have their phones on all the time, or that you even have a phone at all, or give one to your kids or whatever.
And radios and TVs DO have emergency broadcast systems that interrupt programming.
No it's not. The government isn't mandating that people have their phones on all the time, or that you even have a phone at all, or give one to your kids or whatever.
And radios and TVs DO have emergency broadcast systems that interrupt programming.
I totally agree that my analogy was still not perfect, but it's the best I could do using cars as a basis of comparison. It's certainly a hell of a lot closer than a law that requires you to provide a breath sample at a road stop when there's no cause to think you've been drinking. That's not even apples to oranges, it's... I don't know, apples to staplers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers
Either way, I think there is an argument to be had as this sets precedence to unforeseeable situations.
I don't know what this means either... the government could, in the future, push other notifications onto our phones that we may or may not want to see? I'm still not exactly shaking in my boots at the thought of that dystopic society.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
I don't know what this means either... the government could, in the future, push other notifications onto our phones that we may or may not want to see? I'm still not exactly shaking in my boots at the thought of that dystopic society.
I look forward to the day soon when TOS contracts and these alerts will require eye motion tracking verification built into smart phones to legal confirm that you were awake and read through the entire alert before being allowed to turn off the blaring alarm or proceed with any app.
How have I not owned my opinion? I don't want the government to be able to disturb my sleep and circumvent my DND settings. I value my sleep more than being awoken in the middle of the night because I think the probability that I will be able help for an Amber Alert is so low - and the probability that my sleep will be fataed up is 100% - that I want to opt out of having these messages blare an audible sound when DND is on. I'm more than willing to help and read the alerts 16 hours per day, every day of the year.
I also don't want my daughter to receive them at all since the probability of them freaking her out is 100% while the probability of her being able to help is almost nil. This is a kid that will have a tough time sleeping if she hears a ghost story at Girl Guides. The last thing she needs to be reading at any time of the day or night is abduction warnings. If you tell her some kid was abducted in Vancouver, she'll be looking over her shoulder the whole way home from school in Calgary.
You can disagree with my opinion, but it is reasonable.
I get that people wouldn't want their kids to get them, but I thought it took a village to raise kids and you can't opt out of that village. This is you doing your part.
Quote:
Like it or not, it does take a village to raise a child and we are all part of that village. You picking up a coworker's slack is part of your responsibility in raising the next generation so the coworker is free to do the more important job of raising their kids.
So it's fine if people pick up your slack at work but you can't be available for an amber alert every few months?
In your own words
Quote:
Sorry guy, you can't opt out of this village. You're born into it. Entitled is shirking your responsibility to the next generation out of selfishness
No it's not. The government isn't mandating that people have their phones on all the time, or that you even have a phone at all, or give one to your kids or whatever.
And radios and TVs DO have emergency broadcast systems that interrupt programming.
Aren't we supposed to be getting more knowledgeable and sympathetic to mental health concerns, or is that just on Bell's Let's Talk Day? I'm telling you, startling me awake in the middle of the night with a siren beside my head to tell me anything is not healthy for me. Scaring my daughter about abductions in a way that suggests she has a role to play or action to take is not healthy for her. Why can't we be good citizens in other ways, but opt out of Amber Alerts (completely for her; at night time for me)?
I know the government isn't mandating that I have a phone. As a parent and business owner, though, I can't operate my life without one, so if your solution is that I don't carry a phone versus being able to opt out of messaging I don't want, I don't think you're offering practical/realistic/empathetic advice. Having a phone makes my nervous kid much braver knowing she can call me at any time. I don't want to take that lifeline away from her - I just want to disable incoming messages that she finds scary.
