"Amber alerts on our smartphones are starting to become all too frequent, and like most things, they are burdened with a certain degree of Feature Creep. Not just for abducted children anymore, the Alert system in US carrier sold phones can carry Presidential Alerts, Imminent Threat Alerts (weather or forest fires mostly) and the original AMBER alert for missing children.
Its not clear the President is ever going to have a single message for the entire population, where that message will make any difference to the average citizen. But then, this category is seldom abused. Weather broadcasts are invariably too late, historically too widely distributed, and often simply redundant. And Amber Alerts are, in the majority of cases, custody disputes, where the child is never in any real danger.
Amber Alerts are quickly becoming viewed as security theater, and the most abused aspect of the entire system. This has increasing numbers of people opting out of the alerts on their phones as a result.
The Amber system is the "third rail" of child safety discussions, and few agencies are willing to address its failings. Do we need additional shades of Amber, or the ability to filter custody disputes from the system?"
"But it worked for finding the Boston marathon bombers"
You mean the reddit guys? That didn't turn out so well.
Indeed. Garlon seems to be very confused about what happened in Boston.
Even the guy who "found" the kid in his boat was not actively looking for him. He just saw that something was weird with the cover on his boat. That's luck, not design or even intention.
I think I have a different interpretation of events than you do, which is not the same as being confused. Notice how fast the suspect was caught after the lockdown was lifted. You call it luck. I say alerting the whole population of the metro area created approximately 2 million chances to get lucky. Both can be true.
In what way?