[EAS] "improving" EAS?

[Dave Kline]

You raise some good points Ed.
Defining fake or erroneous vs a missed outcome would make a lot of sense.
Even lumping fake and erroneous into the same group may be going to far.
But it would be a step in the right direction.

Evil intent and mistakes are two entirely different matters.
Obviously generating a Zombie Apocalypse has an ill-intentioned component that is not present when sending a missile alert that was thought to be real at the time it was issued. True, a missile alert may have much more of an impact, but if it was well-intended it should stand separately from an something designed to generate wide-spread panic or garner attention.

It seems though, that there should already something in place to deal with those who intentionally issue fake alerts.
I have no problem with reporting an erroneous alert that was sent by mistake, but I think fake and erroneous should be considered separately from each other in that reporting process.

----------------------------------------
Dave Kline 
----------------------------------------

On Jul 13, 2018, at 12:21 PM, Ed Czarnecki wrote:

>OK, I think that's stretching it a bit, but do I see your point.  The
>proposed rulemaking asks for additional comment on whether there should be a
>reporting process on false EAS alerts.  The context in this R&O, and the
>preceding Notice is for a fake or erroneous alert - like Bobby Bones,
>zombies, and that sort of thing.  This wouldn't seem to cover a bona fide
>alert for circumstances that don't materialize.  Hawaii is a new scenario
>though - it was bona fide when issued (i.e. the originating gov't employee
>thought it was real when issued), but shown to be in error some time after
>issuance.

>So, yeah, this request for Comment deserves a good deal of input from all of
>is.  And perhaps part of the Comments to the FCC is that they should define
>terms explicitly.  What is a "false alert" that would trigger a reporting
>requirement.  And reporting after 24 hours of discovery - that's 24 hours
>from the station's discovery, not the audience or any other entity?  And is
>24 hours reasonable (that could cut both ways)?

>-----Original Message-----
>From: EAS [mailto:eas-bounces at radiolists.net] On Behalf Of Steve Schoon

>Furthermore, if the NWS issues a SVR claiming 60+ MPH winds and damaging
>hail for your community and it doesn't come to pass, it can effectively be
>called a FALSE ALERT!  Every attorney in every courtroom in the country will
>argue it as such.
>What about a radar indicated TOR that remained only radar indicated, no
>evidence of a touchdown?  By definition, it's a funnel cloud until or unless

>__________________________________________________________
>The EAS Forum Discussion List is hosted by the BWWG (Broadcast Warning Working Group). The Core members of the BWWG are Adrienne Abbott, Clay Freinwald, Suzanne Goucher, Barry Mishkind, David Ostmo, Darryl Parker, Richard Rudman, Gary Timm, and Sharon Tinsley. http://eas.radiolists.net
>Please invite your friends to join our Forum! The sign up is at: https://lists.radiolists.net/mailman/listinfo/eas
>___________________________________________________________