Comment on Wildfire phone alert was 'entirely appropriate', government says
DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world 4 hours ago
The damn things should be opt in. It’s my choice to take the risk of not getting an alert.
Considering most of us are surrounded by people with phones, many of them will go off, and we’ll learn about it that way, anyway.
Zombie@feddit.uk 2 hours ago
Agreed. Unfortunately it isn’t, so instead opt out
www.gov.uk/alerts/opting-out
tal@lemmy.today 1 hour ago
The problem I have is that I think that the alerting feature has cases where it’s really important.
I remember a story a while back about a German town that flooded after severe, unexpected rains meant that an upstream dam was at risk of failure and had to release large amounts of water.
The authorities knew that the flood was coming and had a small amount of time to warn people, but didn’t reach many people. As I recall, they didn’t the “alert everyone in an area system” thing, but used mass-sending SMSes and similar, whuch take time to go out and don’t have the same audible alarm. Many people did not get the alert.
searches
theguardian.com/…/german-villages-could-be-left-w…
Now, that is a legitimate example of where I very much want to have the government have the ability to reach me via pretty much any way possible. This is the sort of thing that such an alerting system exists for. The alert has immediacy, and must be dealt with now. It is important to the individual recieving it, provides new information that they will very probably want to have, and could not act in the absence of. Alternatives are not nearly as good.
The problem is that for this sort of system to work, it requires that the authorities exhibit great restraint in use of their power to interrupt everything, everywhere in an area, immediately, and seize phone owners attention.