Facebook
Google
GitHub
Linkedin
JoeJester I say it absolutely is except in case of religious zealots which is looking like being next problem in a few years
EAS Codes
- Thread starter JoeJester
- Start date
Amber alerts and EAS alerts are two different entities. People may think they are the same, but their failure to discriminate between them is a personal problem. Also the highway signs around here have silver alerts. I joke that I check to ensure I'm the subject of the silver alert. LOL
I've played pool in venues and every phone went off for an amber alert. Good thing they didn't use a GQ sound.
I've played pool in venues and every phone went off for an amber alert. Good thing they didn't use a GQ sound.
Raymond Genovese
- Joined Mar 5, 2016
- 1,653
Not sure if you are referring to my content as a personal problem: "We all see/hear tests of the EBS. Once in a while I see/hear EBS warnings for flash floods or Amber Alerts. I don't remember getting any false alarms ever. IOW they seem to work."
If you are, I hope that you realize I was citing what I consider to be successful use of a warning system.
As a result of your quoted post, I did a little reading on EAS to learn that it replaced the EBS. Amber alerts or local alerts of numerous kinds can be issued over EAS, which I incorrectly attributed to the EBS: Please add that to the list of my many personal deficiencies, but I will reiterate and sharpen my criticism of getting the criminal prosecution sorted out for the guy who made the mistake, as though that was the headline, instead of dealing with the underlying issue.
BTW: how many years should W. S. Eberhardt get for playing the wrong tape?
I must have been asleep at that time in 1971, but I think we were better served to have revised procedures to prevent more failures?
@Raymond Genovese No, wasn't referring to you. I know amber alert is a successful system. EAS allows access from multiple entities at the appropriate levels. I tend to think the Nuclear attack EAS should NOT be a function of the State or lower entities. Well, if California secession is successful, they can have their own EAS system to satisfy their needs.
EAS is distributed to the Public Broadcasting/Cable as well as Cell phones. That is a divergence distribution and broadcasting/cable may not receive them all. EAS certainly improved on the old EBS. I was working at a radio station with EBS in my youth, doing electronic maintenance and engineering talks shows and remote broadcasts.
If I were to call someone out, I would preface the comments with the name. I don't make lists of shortcomings because then I'd juxtapose them against mine and I know which list contains more entries.
I did see that there are more entries for EAS than were authorized by the CFR and US Code. Seems like some bureaucrats don't want to do the requisite paperwork, or the oft quoted law sites are getting laxed.
As I think about it, I wrote that response that you quoted after I read Aleph(0) comments.
Yes they can. EAS is flexible as designed to encompass Fed/State/Local alerts and warnings. I'm trying to recall if I've seen any Amber Alerts on TV about the same time my Phone gets the alert. I don't have a specific recollection of any, and there typically is a television nearby in pool halls when I receive the alerts.
EAS is distributed to the Public Broadcasting/Cable as well as Cell phones. That is a divergence distribution and broadcasting/cable may not receive them all. EAS certainly improved on the old EBS. I was working at a radio station with EBS in my youth, doing electronic maintenance and engineering talks shows and remote broadcasts.
If I were to call someone out, I would preface the comments with the name. I don't make lists of shortcomings because then I'd juxtapose them against mine and I know which list contains more entries.
I did see that there are more entries for EAS than were authorized by the CFR and US Code. Seems like some bureaucrats don't want to do the requisite paperwork, or the oft quoted law sites are getting laxed.
As I think about it, I wrote that response that you quoted after I read Aleph(0) comments.
Raymond Genovese
- Joined Mar 5, 2016
- 1,653
Yeah, I think I understand what you are saying.
I think the question of whether this particular system should have the capability to issue missile warnings is uhhh "under discussion".
The whole incident (including the sticky note password that was revealed) brings to mind the larger issue of managing safety and security.
I personally have had to take mandatory motorcycle safety training (except for a brief time in my youth, I have never owned a motorcycle and have never ridden one in modern history). I have also taken mandatory Jeep safety training (again, don't own, don't operate, don't ride in). I have been trained so many times on the use of a fire extinguisher that we used to joke that if I don't know how to use one by now, it will just have to be understood that I am going to burn up - I accept that.
The problem is, I understand why those training's were mandated and it was because something happened and there had to be a response. I don't mean a CYA response, I mean somebody was sincerely distraught over something very tragic that happened on "their" watch and they would do almost anything so that it would never happen again - that was much closer to what was going on.
It comes down to the old 2 X 2 below:
How do you assign the beta weights for the quadrants?
When it came to situations that were under MY watch, I can tell you that I was assigning weights that were sometimes very different than how I wanted those assignments made by people watching over me.
For example, when you operate that apparatus, you will wear sound dampening head gear...do not let me catch you operating it without those. That apparatus is loud. Sustained exposure to loud noise causes hearing impairments - don't argue, go look at the data - end of discussion. You want to solder that, wear eye protection and wear a mask (I read a recent thread on fume inhalation, I see both sides - but, to the point, it was not something I was going to mess with) - don't let me catch you doing so without them.
Clearly, I was assigning low values to false alarms and high values to misses. But what happens when you extend that strategy out too far? Well, the safest lab is the one that doesn't collect any data. Labeling every compound as poison makes it impossible to discriminate safety. The most secure server is the one that carries no information...and so on.
I see it on the Forums all the time: Case in point is the transformless power supply issue. I read all of that content and do so quietly because I don't have any real input to contribute. But the point is, the safest circuit (safe from electrocution) is the one that is not powered at all.
How do you assign the weights and how do you do when you are responsible for others (not just the "public" or people who work under you but even for your kids) versus how you do it for yourself?
@WBahn may have a point about the "emotion" component of the motivation behind deploying these systems. I have and will continue to scream for evidenced-based decisions. But, I do so knowing that this can be pretty complicated stuff and in many cases I am left to trusting others...and by that I mean trusting that they are making evidenced-based decisions.
In the present case, it looks to me like they did an awful job. I feel like that because even I can spot rookie mistakes that maybe could have been forgiven 50 years ago, but not today, not with what is known and what is already out there.
*stepping down off soapbox*
I think the question of whether this particular system should have the capability to issue missile warnings is uhhh "under discussion".
The whole incident (including the sticky note password that was revealed) brings to mind the larger issue of managing safety and security.
I personally have had to take mandatory motorcycle safety training (except for a brief time in my youth, I have never owned a motorcycle and have never ridden one in modern history). I have also taken mandatory Jeep safety training (again, don't own, don't operate, don't ride in). I have been trained so many times on the use of a fire extinguisher that we used to joke that if I don't know how to use one by now, it will just have to be understood that I am going to burn up - I accept that.
The problem is, I understand why those training's were mandated and it was because something happened and there had to be a response. I don't mean a CYA response, I mean somebody was sincerely distraught over something very tragic that happened on "their" watch and they would do almost anything so that it would never happen again - that was much closer to what was going on.
It comes down to the old 2 X 2 below:
How do you assign the beta weights for the quadrants?
When it came to situations that were under MY watch, I can tell you that I was assigning weights that were sometimes very different than how I wanted those assignments made by people watching over me.
For example, when you operate that apparatus, you will wear sound dampening head gear...do not let me catch you operating it without those. That apparatus is loud. Sustained exposure to loud noise causes hearing impairments - don't argue, go look at the data - end of discussion. You want to solder that, wear eye protection and wear a mask (I read a recent thread on fume inhalation, I see both sides - but, to the point, it was not something I was going to mess with) - don't let me catch you doing so without them.
Clearly, I was assigning low values to false alarms and high values to misses. But what happens when you extend that strategy out too far? Well, the safest lab is the one that doesn't collect any data. Labeling every compound as poison makes it impossible to discriminate safety. The most secure server is the one that carries no information...and so on.
I see it on the Forums all the time: Case in point is the transformless power supply issue. I read all of that content and do so quietly because I don't have any real input to contribute. But the point is, the safest circuit (safe from electrocution) is the one that is not powered at all.
How do you assign the weights and how do you do when you are responsible for others (not just the "public" or people who work under you but even for your kids) versus how you do it for yourself?
@WBahn may have a point about the "emotion" component of the motivation behind deploying these systems. I have and will continue to scream for evidenced-based decisions. But, I do so knowing that this can be pretty complicated stuff and in many cases I am left to trusting others...and by that I mean trusting that they are making evidenced-based decisions.
In the present case, it looks to me like they did an awful job. I feel like that because even I can spot rookie mistakes that maybe could have been forgiven 50 years ago, but not today, not with what is known and what is already out there.
*stepping down off soapbox*
I looked down the list of alerts at the fema website. My mind catagorized which entity (fed/state/local) is the source of the alert.
According to wiki ...
I guess I'll wait till the "investigation" is over.
I heard a story the other day, where a switch was added to a piece of equipment. The function of the switch was not labeled and there were no modifications to the technical manuals about it. One day, someone asked about it, so they selected the "on" position. The exercised it in a futile attempt to identify its function. This went one for a bit over the next two weeks. Finally, the unit received a call and the caller asked if anyone has activated the "emergency" switch on their equipment. Sirens were going off all over Southern Florida and odd times and the technicians could not find any failures and one of them thought to call the unit with the "emergency" switch.
Come to find out, there was a failure to communicate the purpose of the switch from one crew to the next. The details of that switch was marked "secret" and was in the appropriate location for "secret" material.
Yes, they "caused" the activation of the false alarms. Ignorance of the law has never been a good defense. I don't know what happened to them, other than the obvious embarrassment.
According to wiki ...
https://www.fema.gov/media-library-...t-a-Glance_Guide_WEA_CAP_Message_20150331.pdf guide illustrates the State/Local Codes, WEA (Wireless Energency Alert) are commonly cellphones. CAE (Child Abduction Emergency), aka Amber Alert, is a state/local function. Nuclear Attack isn't on the State/Local listing, but I agree with NSASPOOK, someone asked for and received the authority to have that function from someone higher in the food chain.
I guess I'll wait till the "investigation" is over.
I heard a story the other day, where a switch was added to a piece of equipment. The function of the switch was not labeled and there were no modifications to the technical manuals about it. One day, someone asked about it, so they selected the "on" position. The exercised it in a futile attempt to identify its function. This went one for a bit over the next two weeks. Finally, the unit received a call and the caller asked if anyone has activated the "emergency" switch on their equipment. Sirens were going off all over Southern Florida and odd times and the technicians could not find any failures and one of them thought to call the unit with the "emergency" switch.
Come to find out, there was a failure to communicate the purpose of the switch from one crew to the next. The details of that switch was marked "secret" and was in the appropriate location for "secret" material.
Yes, they "caused" the activation of the false alarms. Ignorance of the law has never been a good defense. I don't know what happened to them, other than the obvious embarrassment.
We used to call that a case of "switchitis". If there's a switch and you don't know what it does, flip it and see what happens. Or, if you don't know which switch to flip in order to do something, start flipping them arbitrarily trying to find the one you need.
It was an affliction we generally tried to beat out of people on the flight line -- not always successfully.
Unfortunately, failing to pass the word about that unmarked switch caused the problem. Even the Commanding Officers failed the unit as it is their responsibility for training. They did sign acknowledging everything was ok except as noted. Hell, I did that as officer in charge as a CPO.
I never researched the other services relief of commands but I assume they closely match.
I never researched the other services relief of commands but I assume they closely match.
JoeJester you are right but I say using EBS (now EAS) alert chord (853Hz + 960Hz) for law enforcement and other restricted scope issues is big part of problem! That sound needs to be reserved for regional disasters and full-blown catastrophes! So IOW saying to all ppl hearing it: _ Listen up! YOUR survival is in jeopardy! THIS MEANS YOU!_
So I was totally clueless abt former gravity of EAS alerts (cuz EBS and _cold war_was way before my time) but uncomfortably plausible depictions of worst case scenario from cold war era like Threads and The Day After (which I say Threads is totally the most realistic) made me understand what ppl from older generations were saying about stupidity of basically trivializing EBS tone for local and personal emergencies! Also sorry to disappoint cynics and misanthropes but it doesn't have to be ppl who cause problem cuz impact with object with nominal density with just 1km spherical equivalent diameter or eruption of caldera volcano could cause global devastation that would make all out nuclear exchange look like happy 4'th of July celebration!
Sorry to ramble on
! I'm just saying emergency tone should be reserved for catastrophes (like imminent enemy attack on large or unknown scale and natural disasters on regional or global scale) NOT tragedies and law enforcement issues like abductions, school shootings or prison breaks!So I'm not saying local and personal issues aren't important just that they can be handled through other system where distinction of alert type is totally obvious to ppl!
Threads is very realistic in the beginning about the Iran, the Soviets and America war trigger. We had tactical nukes deployed and targeting plans ready for NCA authorization (allegedly
) in amphibious ships to stop Russian movements to the Persian Gulf once they invaded Afghanistan. https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb390/docs/7-25-80 PD 59.pdf
Nsaspook my uncle who was like 10 YOA in 1980 during Iran hostage crisis says part of movie where news announcer said Russians sank US aircraft carrier Kittyhawk totally makes him cringe! Cuz it was pride of US fleet in gulf at time of crisis so that would totally have been point of no return just like in movieThreads is very realistic in the beginning about the Iran, the Soviets and America war trigger. We had tactical nukes deployed and targeting plans ready for NCA authorization (allegedly
https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb390/docs/7-25-80 PD 59.pdf
!Being totally honest I just have to say I'm glad cold war was before my time cuz now main threats are from terrorists and countries that could maybe take out one city which bad as it is, is nothing compared to having to worry about human made global disaster everyday!
Another thing about Threads that _brought it home_ was development of totally realistic likeable characters that viewers could totally relate to! So it was basically an East Enders episode gone terribly wrong
!I hate to disagree with your uncle but the Kittyhawk was pretty low on the list of top ships of the US fleet then.Nsaspook my uncle who was like 10 YOA in 1980 during Iran hostage crisis says part of movie where news announcer said Russians sank US aircraft carrier Kittyhawk totally makes him cringe! Cuz it was pride of US fleet in gulf at time of crisis so that would totally have been point of no return just like in movie
But the Kitty Hawk also has another nickname:
“Shitty Kitty,”
...
One former crewman even characterized the Kitty Hawk in 2017 as “a punishment ship” for less-than-orderly sailors, complete with “its own CDC disease in the form of ‘Kitty Hawk Gastro.’”
https://taskandpurpose.com/uss-kitty-hawk-navy-trump/
Nsaspook I say based on that, demands of _truth in advertising_ say it needs to be rechristened USS White Elephant
!Much too nice for a Navy nickname for that Honey-ko.Nsaspook I say based on that, demands of _truth in advertising_ say it needs to be rechristened USS White Elephant
Raymond Genovese
- Joined Mar 5, 2016
- 1,653
Not sure folks have read about this, but if true, it is news to me. It does not change my criticism of the poor system at all though - it actually reinforces it even stronger.
Basically, the fellow who initiated the false alarm did not do so accidentally in the sense that he believed that is was the real deal and not a test.
"I was 100 percent sure that it was the right decision, that it was real," he told NBC. "I was convinced that it was real."
"The worker says he heard, "this is not a drill" and didn't hear that it was an exercise."
Don't want to harp on this, but I suspect that some of you know about Signal Detection Theory (especially Navy folks since that is where it came from originally as I recall). It perfectly fits a situation where Beta (Bias) is so large that the value of d' doesn't have much effect on the decision. IOW: Five or more people are saying "this is am exercise" and one person hears "This is not a test".
That happens. When false alarms have dire consequences, systems need to be designed to account for it very intentionally.
The two person 'enable' has been mentioned, but also legitimately criticized as easily defeated by two ummm like-minded people.
Requiring someone to type in "I want to actually create a warning" , in contrast to simply clicking an option, has been mentioned (I'm paraphrasing) - but it would not have worked here.
Maybe a combination of the two?
This reminds me of an informal discussion with a friend who worked for the Railroads. The issue was whether the warning signs should be made even bigger at one intersection because there had been an accident (as I recall the warning signs there were as big as they get). The point discussed was that if someone is so predisposed to not see them, it would not make much difference how large they are. In SDT, predisposed means a very large value for Beta.
Interesting and challenging problem.
Basically, the fellow who initiated the false alarm did not do so accidentally in the sense that he believed that is was the real deal and not a test.
"I was 100 percent sure that it was the right decision, that it was real," he told NBC. "I was convinced that it was real."
"The worker says he heard, "this is not a drill" and didn't hear that it was an exercise."
Don't want to harp on this, but I suspect that some of you know about Signal Detection Theory (especially Navy folks since that is where it came from originally as I recall). It perfectly fits a situation where Beta (Bias) is so large that the value of d' doesn't have much effect on the decision. IOW: Five or more people are saying "this is am exercise" and one person hears "This is not a test".
That happens. When false alarms have dire consequences, systems need to be designed to account for it very intentionally.
The two person 'enable' has been mentioned, but also legitimately criticized as easily defeated by two ummm like-minded people.
Requiring someone to type in "I want to actually create a warning" , in contrast to simply clicking an option, has been mentioned (I'm paraphrasing) - but it would not have worked here.
Maybe a combination of the two?
This reminds me of an informal discussion with a friend who worked for the Railroads. The issue was whether the warning signs should be made even bigger at one intersection because there had been an accident (as I recall the warning signs there were as big as they get). The point discussed was that if someone is so predisposed to not see them, it would not make much difference how large they are. In SDT, predisposed means a very large value for Beta.
Interesting and challenging problem.
Interesting turn of events. I agree, this is much worse than the simple selection mistake reported originally (the incident report recommended menu redesign also). The way to reduce misinformed, garbled message or intentionally wrong interpretation at the distant end is to normally (with physically locked overrides) require authentication at the computer screen of actual missile alert action orders using a selected secret sent by the military originator of an actual alert. All internal drill messages would use locally generated codes that authenticate to drill or invalid messages so they could drill using the authentication system.
There's no need for the authentication system to be complicated or the communications channel to be secure for a one-time real message verification.
http://www.jproc.ca/crypto/kal55.html
http://www.jproc.ca/crypto/kal61.html
There's no need for the authentication system to be complicated or the communications channel to be secure for a one-time real message verification.
http://www.jproc.ca/crypto/kal55.html
http://www.jproc.ca/crypto/kal61.html
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...iians-getting-false-missile-alert/1079305001/
Last edited:
Raymond Genovese
- Joined Mar 5, 2016
- 1,653
This Thursday, we (USA) will have a test of the new wireless nationwide emergency broadcast system - IPAWS National Test of the Emergency Alert System (EAS) and Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEA).
If I have read correctly, this will be the first national test of the WEA.
Cell towers will broadcast the WEA test for approximately 30 minutes beginning at 2:18 p.m. EDT. During this time, WEA compatible cell phones that are switched on, within range of an active cell tower, and whose wireless provider participates in WEA should be capable of receiving the test message. Some cell phones will not receive the test message, and cell phones should only receive the message once. The WEA test message will have a header that reads "Presidential Alert" and text that says: “THIS IS A TEST of the National Wireless Emergency Alert System. No action is needed.”
It reminded me of this thread - man I hope that they pull this off without any embarrassment...
If I have read correctly, this will be the first national test of the WEA.
Cell towers will broadcast the WEA test for approximately 30 minutes beginning at 2:18 p.m. EDT. During this time, WEA compatible cell phones that are switched on, within range of an active cell tower, and whose wireless provider participates in WEA should be capable of receiving the test message. Some cell phones will not receive the test message, and cell phones should only receive the message once. The WEA test message will have a header that reads "Presidential Alert" and text that says: “THIS IS A TEST of the National Wireless Emergency Alert System. No action is needed.”
It reminded me of this thread - man I hope that they pull this off without any embarrassment...
Raymond Genovese so do I! But I say _tests_ (by which I mean drills) are bad idea cuz they're basically _crying wolf_ desensitizing ppl to real warnings all the same as EAS drills interrupting broadcast media and local public safety authority sounding weather siren every 1'st Wednesday of month
!Raymond Genovese
- Joined Mar 5, 2016
- 1,653
FYI and in case you noticed that you never received the test message...
The National EAS and WEA test has been postponed to the backup date of October 3, 2018, beginning at 2:18 p.m. EDT.
https://www.fema.gov/emergency-alert-test
The National EAS and WEA test has been postponed to the backup date of October 3, 2018, beginning at 2:18 p.m. EDT.
https://www.fema.gov/emergency-alert-test
