While I agree with the thrust of what Sabri is saying, let's not delude ourselves - this is not a freedom of speech/"1st amdt." issue. The freedom of the press does not mean the government is obligated not to favour given presses (to include its own). That one's religion - freedom of religion means the government cannot (dis)favour any religion to be practiced by any given person (except, in many European countries, the King).
This is primarily a disability rights or equal protection issue (a disabled person should be able to choose some aspects of an emergency alert e.g. strobing their lights rather than firing a siren, or doing neither if their response to the startle response would train them to hit dismiss w/o reading, by which point the alert isn't saved as a notification). Disability rights frankly are not widely recognized by governments, even where laws exist. There's also the risk that this could create false alarm over non-alarming circumstances used spuriously by parties with alerting access. Le 5 octobre 2023 15:31:00 UTC, Grant Taylor via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> a écrit : >On 10/4/23 6:15 PM, Sabri Berisha wrote: >> If this is true, and I will take your word for it, that is outrageous. > >Why is this outrageous? > >> My wife is a teacher who works with special needs kids, and her phone went >> of twice (the second time 15 minutes after the first). This was very >> disruptive as you can imagine. > >I can understand and appreciate the situation. > >> Obviously, I made sure all of the emergency notifications were set to OFF on >> her phone. If setting this nonsense to OFF is not working, why even have the >> menu option? > >Because the menu options apply to -- let's go with -- lesser priority / lower >authority alerts. > >> The government has no right to disrupt the day of 350 million people, >> however much the self-appointed emergency communication "professionals" like >> to think so. > >I can't speak to the government's right to do something or not. > >But I can see why governments would want the ability for one person, or their >proxies, to have the technical capability to send an alert to all devices in >their territory. > >I think this is a case of where four nines of alerts can be suppressed in >software, but the fifth nine deliberately can't be suppressed. > >> Furthermore, it's simply unnecessary. It is incredibly easy to add a one-bit >> flag indicating whether or not it's a test to such alerts. > >There is a test flag. > >My phone shows an option to ignore tests. > >My phone does ignore weekly tests without any problem. > >It seems to be that the powers that be decided to send this test without the >test bit set. -- Or perhaps the presidential indicator is mutually exclusive >to the test bit. > >> This whole test was a display of poor engineering and disrespect for >> people's first amendment rights. > >I disagree. But I digress. > >> Thanks, > >:-) > > > >-- >Grant. . . . >unix || die > -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
