[EAS] BLU Alert Comments.

[Sean Donelan]

On Wed, 2 Aug 2017, Phil Johnson wrote:
> I believe the two sides to this discussion are (1) facts and (2) politics.

One of the annoying things the COPS Office keeps doing is referring to 
"guidance and recommendations" for law enforcement and "promulgation of 
specific rules" for everyone else. How people use words is important, but 
it can also be neglect and misundertanding rather than just "facts" or 
"politics." I've worked with DOJ on other issues, and that's just how it
always talks.

I start by assuming best intentions, but also recognize self-interests.

> FACTS:
>
> 1. LE agencies nationwide have quick and effective methods to inform each
> other of actual and potential attacks on officers.  All-points bulletins
> have been around since Dragnet and Teletype machines.  Technology and speed
> have improved dramatically since then, and EAS has nothing to offer in
> police interagency communication.

Yes and no. NLETS, NCIC and other systems exist; but inter-agency 
communications still trips over bureaucratic hurdles. While officials 
don't like to admit it, news reporters can often leap over those hurdles.
Public information officers are trained how to control information, not 
warn the public.

The delay passing threat information between Baltimore PD and New York 
City PD in the case named in the National Blue Alert law was an example of 
those interagency, bureaucratic hurdles. That case wasn't about the 
role of journalists or the news media, although some people are using it 
for that purpose.

> 2. The existing "LEW" Alert Code (Law Enforcement Warning) is well-suited to
> the proposed purpose and signals high urgency.  It can be used to warn the
> public about someone who has attacked or plans to attack police, and to
> advise citizens to "report sighting but do not approach" a subject
> individual, all at the LE agency's discretion.

Yes and no. The LEW alert code would be well-suited, except lack of 
training and guidance has led to law enforcement mis-using the LEW code. 
Adding new codes won't fix problems with training and lack of guidance. 
Poorly trained alert originators will just misuse the new code for other 
things -- who knows what a "Blue alert" means, but we have an alert for 
cold weather shelters opening or a medical emergency, so lets use it.

Those problems won't be fixed by a three-letter code.

> 3. Police departments also have the means to separately inform other
> agencies and the public -- short of EAS -- as they deem appropriate.

Yes and no. See bureaucratic hurdles for all sorts of stuff. Encouraging 
sharing between agencies can be very challenging. In the case of Amber 
Alerts, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children monitors 
NCIC when records about abducted children are entered. NCMEC sometimes 
needs to call and put the local police departments in contact with the 
Amber Alert coordinator because notifying the public or other agencies 
isn't always top-of-mind of local police departments during an incident.

However, it would be nice to better distinguish between the internal "Law 
Enforcement Sensitive" blue alerts and public blue alerts.

Both may be important, but I think the internal LES information sharing 
processes may be more important to making the process effective. The 
"guidelines and recommendations" should be different for internal LES 
information sharing and any public alerts.

> 4. Despite comments by the FCC Chairman, an EAS "BLU" Alert Code would not
> have saved the lives of police officers tragically killed during recent
> years in New York, Seattle, or elsewhere.  If an LE agency doesn't know
> about the danger of an attack, it can't decide to activate EAS.

Not knowable, but maybe not true either. Less than 25% of Amber Alerts 
directly contributed to the return of children, and even few EAS Amber 
Alerts, but a member of the public hearing or seeing an Amber Alert and 
then calling police after sighting the vehicle has happened more than 0%.

Of the 19 Blue Alert cases I found, in at least one case, a tip from the 
public did help in the apprehend the alleged assailant. So again, more 
than zero, but very infrequently.

You are correct, Blue Alerts are almost (one time) never issued before an 
attack or death of a law enforcement officer. So a Blue Alert would not 
have prevented the first officer being seriously injured, killed or 
missing.  The one case where a Blue Alert was issued solely based on 
"threats" was also had the least justifiable basis (using only the 
information available at the time). The Los Angeles Police Department Blue 
Alert based on information from Balitimore PD about "gangs threatening 
police officers" was extremely vague and uninformative for the public.

That Blue Alert may be the best example about the concern law enforcement 
could misuse the Blue Alert system. But I view it more as an example why 
different guidelines and recommendations are needed for internal LES 
alerts and public blue alerts. As an internal LES alert, or more likely 
watch commander notification and role call tip, it would have made 
sense.  As a public blue alert, it didn't make sense.

> POLITICS:
>
> 1. This proposal is simply an attempt by elected and appointed politicians
> to con the public into believing they're "doing something" about attacks on
> police officers.  It's a BS political feel-good measure that will do nothing
> to solve the problem.  More charitably, some of these officials may be
> unaware of the facts (or don't want to acknowledge them).

Politics exists, welcome to the real world.  The broadcast industry has 
been using EBS and EAS for decades to justify special treatment and 
changing rules for the benefit of broadcasters.

Are some police associations using Blue Alerts and this EAS event code for 
political purposes? Probably. But is there a case to be made for a public 
alert in some, very specific cases? Also probably.

Much like Amber Alerts, an EAS event code will likely have minimal 
(but more than zero) impact. It is all the behind the scene coordination, 
planning, training, etc. that makes the difference. Whether there is a 
special EAS event code or using LEW event code doesn't make a difference 
to the need for coordination, planning, training, etc.

> 2. The FCC will adopt this proposal -- but shouldn't.

And that's why none of the industry professional lobbyists are wasting 
their credibility and influence. The comments by professional associations 
are pretty much what I expected. We support law enforcement, but have a 
few suggestions.... Oh, and BTW, here is a list of stuff we wanted anyway.

I don't care if you do it, but if you are going to do it, do it well.