-
ℹ️ Heads up...
This is a popular topic that is fast moving Guest - before posting, please ensure that you check out the first post in the topic for a quick reminder of guidelines, and importantly a summary of the known facts and information so far. Thanks.
New UK emergency alert system discussion
- Thread starter Skyscraper
- Start date
Skyscraper
TS Member
- Favourite Ride
- Nemesis
Again, as @Craig said it is not an app. It's enabled by default on phones and literally just requires a signal to work, although it does not use your phone number and no one can view it. Only the Government or the emergency services can send the alerts, and alerts are sent to a particular area.
Craig
TS Administrator
So what if there was a bombing in a high population place like London and you needed to let people know to avoid certain areas or direct them to specific locations in order to more easily evacuate? What if there was an active terrorist incident like London Bridge where assailants were still wandering around and you needed to be advised quickly to shelter in place?
Of course you're not going to be told before some events happen, but in the aftermath of large scale incidents (such as the London Bombings or Manchester Arena), getting one coherent message out to those in the affected areas could be incredibly useful. Especially when it can be impossible to make outbound calls due to the network or 999 service being overwhelmed.
Also if you were in the vicinity of a "terrorist attack" the whole phone system would be cut to preclude further detonation and communication.
What if all of these things had happened in the past and people knew to avoid it - oh just like forever - this is meaningless and no doubt you will find a tory or a tory funding consultancy profiting.
It's literal horseshit, meaningless, deflecting and if there is anything in it, it will be some overblown budget probably in the billions of our money yet again profligated.
What if all of these things had happened in the past and people knew to avoid it - oh just like forever - this is meaningless and no doubt you will find a tory or a tory funding consultancy profiting.
It's literal horseshit, meaningless, deflecting and if there is anything in it, it will be some overblown budget probably in the billions of our money yet again profligated.
Last edited:
Craig
TS Administrator
Oh of course, we should never evolve and improve how we look after ourselves as time goes on. While we're at it, let's just go back to driving cars without seatbelts, crumple zones and airbags too because they cost oh so much to develop.
The bottom line is, if you don't want to receive them just switch them off. I'm just perplexed by your view of the whole thing when it could have the potential to save lives and in the case of flood/weather warnings could give people some additional time to make preparations to save property.
Saving Property - I guess that is where we delineate on political thinking, my thoughts would be to save lives but this has no effect on that. Think everyone even the old and "computer illiterate" have access to weather forecasts.
The redundancy of this system to provide any effective cover is obvious. The potential for abuse of data going forwards is 1984 esque. It gives carte blanche for the people in control to text anything they like, support this or that,, Cambridge Analytica have literally openly subverted many votes in many countries.
Last edited:
Craig
TS Administrator
I mean if I was in a flood area, I'd be quite happy to receive as early a warning as possible that the proverbial was about to hit the fan to allow me as much time as possible to get things to higher ground and get myself out of there.
Weather forecasts can only give relatively general information, and often don't predict very severe flash events. The Boscastle flooding back in 2004 is one example I can think of. Heavy rain was expected, but nothing to the ridiculous extent that the village actually saw. The torrential rain was heavily localised around the village whereas other areas a couple of miles away received much less. If an alert could be sent out once they realised just how heavy the rain was, then the quicker the preparations and evacuations can be made.
But if you received an alert an hour or 30 minutes before - how would that have helped?
Craig
TS Administrator
I don't know why this is so difficult to understand? Minutes matter with the likes of flash flooding. Seven helicopters had to rescue 100 people at Boscastle, some of them clinging to trees. It's a miracle that no one was severely hurt or injured.
Of course no injuries/deaths in Boscastle doesn't mean people would be that lucky in future events. If an alert sent out 30-60 minutes before the severe flooding hit saved even a couple of people being put into that situation, then it's more than proved its worth in my opinion.
James
TS Founding Member
This is a system used by governments in countries around the world. The UK is simply catching up, and with things like extreme weather becoming more common, and in the wake of previous terrorist incidents and disasters such as Grenfell, this alert system has the potential to do more good than harm.
As far as factual evidence goes, there is no data collection, there is no database, and none of your information is taken for this system to operate. It's designed to send information, not collect it. Using the internet, going on social media, and even using these forums, is far more damaging to your personal data than the emergency alert system will ever be.
If you're not happy with the emergency alert system (can't say I understand why), you can opt-out, it's there in black and white on the UK Gov website:
...and if you're really paranoid about your personal data, then perhaps cease all ties with your electronic devices and the internet, maybe quit your job, don't speak to anyone, ditch your car, go live in the wilderness, find a cave, then all your personal information is safe and sound.
As far as factual evidence goes, there is no data collection, there is no database, and none of your information is taken for this system to operate. It's designed to send information, not collect it. Using the internet, going on social media, and even using these forums, is far more damaging to your personal data than the emergency alert system will ever be.
If you're not happy with the emergency alert system (can't say I understand why), you can opt-out, it's there in black and white on the UK Gov website:
...and if you're really paranoid about your personal data, then perhaps cease all ties with your electronic devices and the internet, maybe quit your job, don't speak to anyone, ditch your car, go live in the wilderness, find a cave, then all your personal information is safe and sound.
"there is no database" ?? Do you know how absurd that statement is? Do you even know how hierarchical IT systems work? I'll put you out of your misery - they interrogate data sets. Guess where historically those data sets are stored - ah you guessed it in databases!
Last edited:
Through the non existent data base of phones that were attached to masts at that time - but that has to have the supposition that those masts are still operational to send a signal. In a suspected terror attack all of the mast signals will be cut off. In a major catastrophe the mast infrastructure will be rendered powerless
Last edited:
Craig
TS Administrator
The messages are not directed at individual telephone numbers, but to specific cell sites (that's how the geographical area works @Tom). There's also device based geofencing (this is a US based document, but same premise) where a specific location area can be drawn by the sender and included within the cell broadcast message. The device (not the network) then decides whether to display the message or not. As far as I'm aware, that's not being utilised in the UK as of yet, although may be in future as more devices become compatible.
There is no database of telephone numbers for the alert system to work, the cell site is simply instructed to broadcast a push message with no acknowledgement of receipt from the mobile devices. The only statistics the sender can request to see is how many cells have broadcast the message.
Now of course there is a database with the mobile network of what device is connected where, essential for a mobile phone to work, but that is completely separate to the cell broadcast system. If you're bothered about that database, I'd probably suggest ditching a phone altogether.
And if you are not bothered about the collection of data then this is an interesting place to think https://www.theguardian.com/news/20...-how-turn-clicks-into-votes-christopher-wylie
Mobile Phone data iExtraction is already enshrined in law - it only needs bad faith to take this a step further
Mobile Phone data iExtraction is already enshrined in law - it only needs bad faith to take this a step further
Last edited:
pluk
TS Member
This couldn't have any less to do with the matter being discussed... it's about the corruption of the very thing you are suggesting is better to use as alternative to the alert system.
Dave
TS Founding Member
I think you are misunderstanding and conflating two very separate things.
Is there bad faith data harvesting of mobile phones… yes.
Does this emergency alert system do that, no as it doesn’t require any individual handset data to work. It’s the technological equivalent of shouting very loud and everyone hearing what you say in a defined area.
If you have a problem with mobile data harvesting stay off social media or better yet get rid of your mobile phone. The alert system is not the enemy, Elon Musk is.
This topic does show how taking an element of Truth then twisting it allows conspiracy theories to thrive.