Should Netflix and Hulu give you emergency alerts?
https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/08/tech/emergency-alert-netflix-hulu-streaming/i... New York (CNN Business) The federal emergency alert program was designed decades ago to interrupt your TV show or radio station and warn about impending danger — from severe weather events to acts of war. But people watch TV and listen to radio differently today. If a person is watching Netflix, listening to Spotify or playing a video game, for example, they might miss a critical emergency alert altogether. "More and more people are opting out of the traditional television services," said Gregory Touhill, a cybersecurity expert who served at the Department of Homeland security and was the first-ever Federal Chief Information Security Officer. "There's a huge population out there that needs to help us rethink how we do this." [...]
Sean I think the cellular emergency alert systems already in place have satisfied this need or should be implemented before forcing streaming services to alter their platforms. Plus they allow the user the ability to disable them if they so choose. If they have the alerts disabled and miss something important, that's on them. The world is evolving and I don't think interrupting streaming is necessary given all the other ways there are to alert a population. -Matt On Fri, Mar 8, 2019, 16:23 Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com> wrote:
https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/08/tech/emergency-alert-netflix-hulu-streaming/i...
New York (CNN Business) The federal emergency alert program was designed decades ago to interrupt your TV show or radio station and warn about impending danger — from severe weather events to acts of war.
But people watch TV and listen to radio differently today. If a person is watching Netflix, listening to Spotify or playing a video game, for example, they might miss a critical emergency alert altogether.
"More and more people are opting out of the traditional television services," said Gregory Touhill, a cybersecurity expert who served at the Department of Homeland security and was the first-ever Federal Chief Information Security Officer. "There's a huge population out there that needs to help us rethink how we do this."
[...]
Streaming is probably the least important thing someone could be doing. A lot of places don't have adequate cell service. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matt Erculiani" <merculiani@gmail.com> To: "Sean Donelan" <sean@donelan.com> Cc: "nanog@nanog.org list" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Friday, March 8, 2019 4:31:37 PM Subject: Re: Should Netflix and Hulu give you emergency alerts? Sean I think the cellular emergency alert systems already in place have satisfied this need or should be implemented before forcing streaming services to alter their platforms. Plus they allow the user the ability to disable them if they so choose. If they have the alerts disabled and miss something important, that's on them. The world is evolving and I don't think interrupting streaming is necessary given all the other ways there are to alert a population. -Matt On Fri, Mar 8, 2019, 16:23 Sean Donelan < sean@donelan.com > wrote: https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/08/tech/emergency-alert-netflix-hulu-streaming/i... New York (CNN Business) The federal emergency alert program was designed decades ago to interrupt your TV show or radio station and warn about impending danger — from severe weather events to acts of war. But people watch TV and listen to radio differently today. If a person is watching Netflix, listening to Spotify or playing a video game, for example, they might miss a critical emergency alert altogether. "More and more people are opting out of the traditional television services," said Gregory Touhill, a cybersecurity expert who served at the Department of Homeland security and was the first-ever Federal Chief Information Security Officer. "There's a huge population out there that needs to help us rethink how we do this." [...]
On Fri, 8 Mar 2019, Matt Erculiani wrote:
The world is evolving and I don't think interrupting streaming is necessary given all the other ways there are to alert a population.
The headline: TLDR; Technology changes, so should emergency alerts. Think ahead to 2029. The long story: Technology changes over the decades. Emergency alerts have changed over the decades. If you think all the other ways are sufficient, remember how long it took to create all those other ways. And how much industry fought all those other ways at every step. The U.S. timeline (other countries have state-owned broadcasters, and different timelines): 1950s - AM radio and civil defense sirens 1960s - FM radio and TV broadcasts were included in EBS 1970s - Weather alerts and NOAA weather radio 1990s - Cable TV (not satellite) was included in EAS. 2000s - Satellite TV was added to national EAS alerts, i.e. there has never been a national EAS alert. But Satellite TV do not get state or local weather alerts on most channels. 2012 - Mobile phones were included with WEA expansion If streaming is how the public gets their information and entertainment now, that should also be how they can get emergency alerts. Almost no one under the age of 30 has a working AM radio in their homes or apartments anymore. Few people listen to FM radio outside of their cars, and "cord-cutting" means fewer people get local and weather alerts watching entertainment programs on cable TV. Cities have been eliminating outdoor warning sirens due to budget cuts since the 1990s (i.e. end of the Cold War, and no more FEMA funds for sirens). Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEA), i.e., mobile phone alerts, are less than 10 years old. And mostly on the high-end expensive cell phones and the most expensive carriers. People on NANOG may use mostly expensive smartphones, but not everyone can afford smartphones. Only about 100 carriers, including AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile and Verizon, carrier have WEA working. In some U.S. territories and rural areas, no cellular providers have WEA working. The largest cellular carrier in Alaska only activated WEA in the last 6 months. Puerto Rico's largest cellular carrier activated WEA just last month. The mobile cell phone industry fought Wireless Emergency Alerts for over a decade, from the 1990s until 2012 when it was implemented. Of course, now the wireless industry claims it was all their idea. Both are true. The cellular industry engineers made it happen, at the same time the cellular industry lobbyists were fighting it. If emergency alerts didn't change with the technology, it would still be only AM radios. It usually takes at least a decade after technology changes to make changes to the emergency alert parts of those systems. It took more than 10 years after the 9/11/2001 attacks and Hurricane Katrina, which were the motivating factors for government, to get WEA working. If you think WEA is sufficient, just remember how long it takes to change. In 2029, what communication technology will be the dominant way people get entertainment and information? As I've said before, I think emergency alerts should be part of the platform, not the add on service. Netflix and Hulu are the wrong layer for emergency alerts. Emergency alerts should be part of the Smart TV and Smart Speaker operating system platforms, i.e., at the Amazon Alexa, Google Assistant, Apple Siri, etc. level. If you are streaming Netflix or Hulu on your mobile cell phone, the cell phone OS should be responsible for handling local emergency alerts. If you are streaming Netflix or Hulu on your Smart TV, the Smart TV OS should be responsible for handling local emergency alerts. If you are streaming Netflix or Hulu on your Smart Speakers (ok, you can't but lets say streaming an Audible book), your Smart Speaker OS should be responsible for local emergency alerts. Your alerting opt-outs, geo-targeting, and other preferences shouldn't need to change depending on which App you are using on the platform. NOAA Weather Wire and FEMA IPAWS emergency alerts, which are the alert aggregation points for most U.S. alerting systems, include geographic alert polygons within 0.1 mile. Emergency alerts can be very localized. Although training for local government officials is skimped, underfunded, ignored, etc.; so many still send alerts for entire jurisdictions, such as statewide in the U.S. or province-wide in Canada instead of geo-targeting specific areas. Cell phones have ATIS and 3GPP standard for emergency alerts. Cable set-top boxes have SCTE standards for emergency alerts. TVs with antennas have ATSC standards for emergency alerts. Analog radio still relies on broadcasters transmitting emergency alerts, i.e. that triple burst of modem noise. ISPs are also part of that, since ISPs know where their subscribers are geographically located. And yes, I'm a big believer in personal choice. Individual alert opt-outs and geo-targeting is critical. I think Canada (and New Zealand, and some other countries) are making a mistake by using the "mandatory" alert setting for all alerts. I also believe emergency alerts should be accessible to everyone, not just rich people with the most expensive smart phones and carriers.
On 3/9/19 2:04 PM, Sean Donelan wrote:
Cell phones have ATIS and 3GPP standard for emergency alerts. Cable set-top boxes have SCTE standards for emergency alerts. TVs with antennas have ATSC standards for emergency alerts. Analog radio still relies on broadcasters transmitting emergency alerts, i.e. that triple burst of modem noise.
Any reason the ISP has to be directly involved in this? The relevant government organization originating the alert could easily have a service to make that information available to the public via some standard API (maybe they do)? Does it have to be push and application-agnostic? Maybe that's (gasp) a reasonable application for Internet multicast. Operators could help, here, by making sure that particular application of Internet multicast actually works even if other applications don't, and governments originating alerts could help by making that straightforward. Is it sufficient for the streaming services to simply include this information in their streams? Heck, they could just include all of them and let the device that's accessing the stream figure out which ones are relevant. After all, it's the streaming service that knows the user is consuming content suitable for inclusion of emergency alerts. The network operator rarely knows this directly (though we're pretty good at inferring it).
ISPs are also part of that, since ISPs know where their subscribers are geographically located.
Do they? They know where the account is geographically located, but they don't necessarily know that the device consuming the media is located at the account address. Again, operators could help here by providing some sort of service to say "Where is my account located?", but many consumers of streaming media have far more accurate information based on mobile network geolocation information, Wi-Fi mapping, or outright GPS. I think the solution to this is perhaps maybe that network operators could "help" by building in some useful features to their network without explicitly supporting EAS or otherwise. After all, we (or at least most of us) already run pretty content- and application-neutral (and even -unaware) networks. Whether it's a good idea or even necessary to make those "helpful" features mandatory is perhaps a good question. At this stage, I'd probably lean toward no and see whether things resolve themselves on their own. The Internet, et. al., is pretty good at adapting to use cases like this without heavy-handed intervention it seems. -- Brandon Martin
On Sat, 09 Mar 2019 14:14:27 -0500, Brandon Martin said:
I think the solution to this is perhaps maybe that network operators could "help" by building in some useful features to their network without explicitly supporting EAS or otherwise. After all, we (or at least most of us) already run pretty content- and application-neutral (and even -unaware) networks.
Didn't we just have a discussion about brain-dead firewalls that block any protocols/ports they don't know about? How does that play into the equation?
On Sat, 9 Mar 2019, Brandon Martin wrote:
Any reason the ISP has to be directly involved in this? The relevant government organization originating the alert could easily have a service to make that information available to the public via some standard API (maybe they do)?
ISPs with Akamai servers on their network already have this. Akamai supplies FEMA IPAWS messages anywhere on its CDN. Smart Speakers, Smart TVs, streaming devices could query the nearest Akamai CDN server on the ISP network.
Does it have to be push and application-agnostic? Maybe that's (gasp) a reasonable application for Internet multicast. Operators could help, here, by making sure that particular application of Internet multicast actually works even if other applications don't, and governments originating alerts could help by making that straightforward.
I've proposed using multicast in the past. Canada uses IP Multicast over satellite for its system. Emergency alerts are usually supplied at no-cost to subscribers by the supplier. That is, cellular carriers do not charge for SMS fees, cable TV companies do not charge for the emergency alert channel, etc. It may be part of the overhead cost, but not a separate subscriber charge. Although FEMA IPAWS alerts are digitally signed, ISPs have never figure out a good way to secure IP multicast and prevent IP multicast DDOS. ISPs also haven't figured otu a good way to charge money for IP multicast. But since emergency alerts would be a non-chargable service, that's less of an issue for emergency alerts. But if ISPs did, they could transmit the FEMA IPAWS alert stream via multicast. Managed IPTV suppliers, i.e. AT&T U-Verse, use IP multicast for their emergency alert service.
Is it sufficient for the streaming services to simply include this information in their streams? Heck, they could just include all of them and let the device that's accessing the stream figure out which ones are relevant. After all, it's the streaming service that knows the user is consuming content suitable for inclusion of emergency alerts. The network operator rarely knows this directly (though we're pretty good at inferring it).
Requiring each streaming service to duplicate the emergency alert stream seems to be a lot more overhead than ISPs supplying one stream with only emergency alerts. This seems more like ISPs trying to cost shift to streaming suppliers, or vice versa, streaming services trying to cost shift to ISPs. ISPs already supply a DNS lookup service as part of their Internet service. ISPs could supply an Emergency Alert service as part of their basic Internet service. Of course, some ISPs suck at even DNS, so there are third-part DNS services. Unlike analog channels, Internet Protocol is multiplexed. IP can handle data from different sources over the same interfaces.
Do they? They know where the account is geographically located, but they don't necessarily know that the device consuming the media is located at the account address.
This was the huge debate with 9-1-1 VOIP emergency phone service. Rather than repeating the geolocation arguments, just incorporate the 9-1-1 VOIP geolocation debates by reference.
Again, operators could help here by providing some sort of service to say "Where is my account located?", but many consumers of streaming media have far more accurate information based on mobile network geolocation information, Wi-Fi mapping, or outright GPS.
I agree, when available. If a streaming device can figure out how to black-out sports events or geo-target advertising in specific geographic areas, it should be able to figure out which emergency alerts are relevant to specific geographic areas. Once again, the cellular industry is an example of fighting something. Although most smart phones have built in mapping services and cellular advertisers can track your geographic location within 10 meters; cellular providers have been dragging their feet in geo-locating emergency alerts. Automatically geo-locating indoor smart speakers and smart TVs is more difficult, but if advertisers can get geolocation information from AT&T, Amazon, Apple, Google, Sprint, T-Mobile, Verizon, etc; why can't emergency alerts?
Whether it's a good idea or even necessary to make those "helpful" features mandatory is perhaps a good question. At this stage, I'd probably lean toward no and see whether things resolve themselves on their own. The Internet, et. al., is pretty good at adapting to use cases like this without heavy-handed intervention it seems.
Sitting on the sidelines means you won't get to provide input on how it works. If you want to it to happen a specific way, then you need to contribute that way early in the process. The myth of the Internet figuring everything out isn't really true. Many of the things people take for granted, are the result of some intervention and even government requirements. Government requirements are often just public intervention when industry fails to act on its own.
On 3/9/19 12:03 PM, Sean Donelan wrote:
Automatically geo-locating indoor smart speakers and smart TVs is more difficult, but if advertisers can get geolocation information from AT&T, Amazon, Apple, Google, Sprint, T-Mobile, Verizon, etc; why can't emergency alerts?
There's no technical reason emergency alerts can't be geo located. But advertisers pay for it; emergency alerts aren't revenue generating.
I personally believe apps should not be emitting generic emergency alerts. Devices should - ex TV, mobile phone, etc. if one is watching Hulu, MLB, NFL, or any other app it should not matter as long as device is notifying the user. /Shivaram ::Sent from my mobile device::
On Mar 9, 2019, at 12:27 PM, Seth Mattinen <sethm@rollernet.us> wrote:
On 3/9/19 12:03 PM, Sean Donelan wrote: Automatically geo-locating indoor smart speakers and smart TVs is more difficult, but if advertisers can get geolocation information from AT&T, Amazon, Apple, Google, Sprint, T-Mobile, Verizon, etc; why can't emergency alerts?
There's no technical reason emergency alerts can't be geo located. But advertisers pay for it; emergency alerts aren't revenue generating.
On Sat, 9 Mar 2019, Seth Mattinen wrote:
On 3/9/19 12:03 PM, Sean Donelan wrote:
Automatically geo-locating indoor smart speakers and smart TVs is more difficult, but if advertisers can get geolocation information from AT&T, Amazon, Apple, Google, Sprint, T-Mobile, Verizon, etc; why can't emergency alerts?
There's no technical reason emergency alerts can't be geo located. But advertisers pay for it; emergency alerts aren't revenue generating.
In other words, only rich people deserve to be warned. Poor people.... Well, I guess they are poor and don't buy enough stuff from advertisers to be considered "revenue generating." Is that why Amazon, Apple and Google don't have emergency alerts as part of their "smart devices?" Good PR move. Amazon Alexa will alert me as it tracks my package of stuff, but won't warn me about the tornado about to destroy my neighborhood.
Business ask to create near real time, location aware notification system to increase user engagement and refine ad tracking : "That's a a great idea, we can do that!" Government ask to create near real time, location aware notification system for public safety warnings : "THAT IS A BRIDGE TOO FAR, THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS GOVERNMENT OVERREACH!" On Sat, Mar 9, 2019 at 4:10 PM Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com> wrote:
On Sat, 9 Mar 2019, Seth Mattinen wrote:
On 3/9/19 12:03 PM, Sean Donelan wrote:
Automatically geo-locating indoor smart speakers and smart TVs is more difficult, but if advertisers can get geolocation information from AT&T, Amazon, Apple, Google, Sprint, T-Mobile, Verizon, etc; why can't emergency alerts?
There's no technical reason emergency alerts can't be geo located. But advertisers pay for it; emergency alerts aren't revenue generating.
In other words, only rich people deserve to be warned.
Poor people.... Well, I guess they are poor and don't buy enough stuff from advertisers to be considered "revenue generating."
Is that why Amazon, Apple and Google don't have emergency alerts as part of their "smart devices?" Good PR move.
Amazon Alexa will alert me as it tracks my package of stuff, but won't warn me about the tornado about to destroy my neighborhood.
There is the other legal issues. Adv geolocation isnt always correct and in some cases way off. If it is wrong no big deal. If emerg alert geolocation is wrong you can open yourself up to huge legal action. On March 9, 2019 3:27:18 PM EST, Seth Mattinen <sethm@rollernet.us> wrote:
On 3/9/19 12:03 PM, Sean Donelan wrote:
Automatically geo-locating indoor smart speakers and smart TVs is more difficult, but if advertisers can get geolocation information from AT&T, Amazon, Apple, Google, Sprint, T-Mobile, Verizon, etc; why can't emergency alerts?
There's no technical reason emergency alerts can't be geo located. But advertisers pay for it; emergency alerts aren't revenue generating.
A side point: On Sat, Mar 09, 2019 at 02:04:33PM -0500, Sean Donelan wrote:
Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEA), i.e., mobile phone alerts, are less than 10 years old. And mostly on the high-end expensive cell phones and the most expensive carriers. People on NANOG may use mostly expensive smartphones, but not everyone can afford smartphones.
That's an excellent point that's often lost among people who work in our industry. Not everyone is so wealthy as to afford the luxury of a smartphone. And not everyone can use one. And not everyone wants one. The first two items also happen to describe the people who are most vulnerable to disasters and have the most difficulty getting assistance recovering from them: the poor and the elderly. ---rsk
+1 to Rich's note: I agree we need to be careful not to extrapolate our experiences/devices/preferences to the average person. Emergency alerts serve a valuable purpose, especially when something like a wild fire or tornado or whatever is approaching and an extra few seconds or a minute of advance warning is the difference between life or death. There are many situations where a smartphone may not be present and/or where the person for example is too young to own one. So yeah, to answer the original question, I think a lot of platforms probably will need to support emergency alerts over the next 10 years. As the reach of traditional broadcast channels for those alerts declines, it seems natural and good for society to shift to the channels that have attention. Of course, the devil is in the details but I'm sure thoughtful engineering, UX design, and administrative rules can be devised to make it effective and not annoying. ;-) Jason On 3/10/19, 10:23 AM, "NANOG on behalf of Rich Kulawiec" <nanog-bounces@nanog.org on behalf of rsk@gsp.org> wrote: A side point: On Sat, Mar 09, 2019 at 02:04:33PM -0500, Sean Donelan wrote: > Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEA), i.e., mobile phone alerts, are less than 10 > years old. And mostly on the high-end expensive cell phones and the most > expensive carriers. People on NANOG may use mostly expensive smartphones, > but not everyone can afford smartphones. That's an excellent point that's often lost among people who work in our industry. Not everyone is so wealthy as to afford the luxury of a smartphone. And not everyone can use one. And not everyone wants one. The first two items also happen to describe the people who are most vulnerable to disasters and have the most difficulty getting assistance recovering from them: the poor and the elderly. ---rsk
On 3/11/19 7:02 AM, Livingood, Jason wrote:
+1 to Rich's note: I agree we need to be careful not to extrapolate our experiences/devices/preferences to the average person. Emergency alerts serve a valuable purpose, especially when something like a wild fire or tornado or whatever is approaching and an extra few seconds or a minute of advance warning is the difference between life or death. There are many situations where a smartphone may not be present and/or where the person for example is too young to own one.
So yeah, to answer the original question, I think a lot of platforms probably will need to support emergency alerts over the next 10 years. As the reach of traditional broadcast channels for those alerts declines, it seems natural and good for society to shift to the channels that have attention. Of course, the devil is in the details but I'm sure thoughtful engineering, UX design, and administrative rules can be devised to make it effective and not annoying. ;-)
This entire thing strikes me as a horrible layering violation. Why on earth should alerts be required to dogleg through content providers? And what is a "content provider" anyway? My pizza delivery app? It looks like it sets up a lot of single points of failure. You can understand why it's that way for tv and radio -- there was only one way to deliver the side channel -- but that's completely untrue in this day and age. And while the point about not everyone having access to smartphones is valid, we need to keep in mind that any attempt to shoehorn this into content is going to take a decade of bickering and pushback. Does anybody think that in the US every phone, tv, etc, will not be internet enabled in 10 years? It seems to me that it would be much better to use the standards we already have to deliver text, voice and video, and just make it a requirement that some list of devices must be able to listen for these announcements and act accordingly. It's not like compositing video or muting one audio stream in favor of the other is rocket science. Mike
On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 6:25 PM Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> wrote:
This entire thing strikes me as a horrible layering violation. Why on earth should alerts be required to dogleg through content providers?
It seems to me that it would be much better to use the standards we already have to deliver text, voice and video, and just make it a requirement that some list of devices must be able to listen for these announcements and act accordingly.
Hi Mike, What;'s the plan then? Establish a multicast path throughout my backbone for the emergency alert messages and pray none of them loop back in to my system to create a storm? If my $30 home firewall receives a multicast message on the proper port it should rebroadcast it inside? What could go wrong! Wide area multicast sucks dude. That's why we have video dogleg its way through content delivery networks in the first place. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
On 3/11/19 6:57 PM, William Herrin wrote:
On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 6:25 PM Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com <mailto:mike@mtcc.com>> wrote:
This entire thing strikes me as a horrible layering violation. Why on earth should alerts be required to dogleg through content providers?
It seems to me that it would be much better to use the standards we already have to deliver text, voice and video, and just make it a requirement that some list of devices must be able to listen for these announcements and act accordingly.
Hi Mike,
What;'s the plan then? Establish a multicast path throughout my backbone for the emergency alert messages and pray none of them loop back in to my system to create a storm? If my $30 home firewall receives a multicast message on the proper port it should rebroadcast it inside? What could go wrong!
Wide area multicast sucks dude. That's why we have video dogleg its way through content delivery networks in the first place.
While multicast would be advantageous, it's hardly required. Brute force and ignorance (= unicast) would work too. And yeah, maybe you need to alert all of the "viewable" devices unless you have some way of detecting what I'm paying attention to. Mike
On Mon, 11 Mar 2019, Michael Thomas wrote:
It seems to me that it would be much better to use the standards we already have to deliver text, voice and video, and just make it a requirement that some list of devices must be able to listen for these announcements and act accordingly. It's not like compositing video or muting one audio stream in favor of the other is rocket science.
Ecosystem owners control what their smart devices do (and won't do). The major smart device ecosystem owners don't allow other parties to control their devices without going through ecosystem owner controlled APIs. Amazon controls what echo speakers and fire tv do with alexa. Apple controls what apple tv and apple homepod speakers do with siri. Google controls what google home speakers do with google assistant. I think you are correct, Netflix and Hulu are at the wrong layer. Netflix and Hulu don't control the smart TVs and smart speakers ecosystems used to present their content. Amazon Alexa, Apple Siri and Google Assistant do. Yes, there are add-on apps for weather and news, but without support by the ecosystem owner in the base operating system, add-on apps can't interrupt other Apps. I understand why ecosystem owners wouldn't want to give third-party Apps an API to interrupt other Apps. Ecosystem owners could include emergency alert functionality controlled as part of the base operating system/intelligent assistant, preserving whatever UX it wants without allowing other third-parties to interrupt. Apple has announced its going to announce something on March 26. I wonder if any reporters will ask if the new Apple TV supports emergency alerts?
On Mon, 11 Mar 2019, Sean Donelan wrote:
Apple has announced its going to announce something on March 26.
I wonder if any reporters will ask if the new Apple TV supports emergency alerts?
Ugh, typo. March 25 at 10 a.m. PDT Hopefully, Tim Apple will forgive me :-) I still want a reporter to ask Apple about emergency alerts though.
On 3/11/19, 11:26 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Sean Donelan" <nanog-bounces+jason_livingood=cable.comcast.com@nanog.org on behalf of sean@donelan.com> wrote: I think you are correct, Netflix and Hulu are at the wrong layer. Netflix and Hulu don't control the smart TVs and smart speakers ecosystems used to present their content. Amazon Alexa, Apple Siri and Google Assistant do. [JL] Going onto to hardware like a smart TV will still result in lower penetration that if you went to the app layer that is where attention time is spent (which may be on a laptop or non-cellular-connected tablet or a game console).
On Tue, 12 Mar 2019, Livingood, Jason wrote:
[JL] Going onto to hardware like a smart TV will still result in lower penetration that if you went to the app layer that is where attention time is spent (which may be on a laptop or non-cellular-connected tablet or a game console).
That's the problem with rules of thumb. You have eight other fingers. Recognizing how long it takes to change things, I'm prognosticating what things might be like 5+ years in the future, i.e., CES 2024. I'm focused on devices with mediation layers, i.e. the intelligent assistants, for a reason. Alert localization and user opt-outs should be as close to the end-user as technology allows. You need the mediation layer to do that per user/per household. Emergency alerts localized at the cable head-end or cell tower are too overbroad, but maybe as specific as old technology can support for backward compatibility. Having mediation layer is also important for multi-tasking. I often have Netflix, a web browser and email open at the same time on my computer. You don't want to interrupt the local news stream, CNN or the Weather Channel already covering a disaster with a non-local alert. If the alert is always embedded in the content, that's difficult to do. For example, AT&T U-Verse doesn't record emergency on the DVR. When you play back DVR recorded programming, you don't get old recorded emergency alerts. If new alerts happen while watching the U-Verse DVR, then you would get those new alerts. Analog content and dumb devices may not be able to support that. So there will always be some exceptions. See rule of thumbs :-) Likewise, I'm not suggesting every possible electronic device needs emergency alerts. I'm focused on things that people typically interact with for entertainment and information, such as smart TVs and smart speakers. Not light bulbs, thermostats or smoke detectors.
[JL] Going onto to hardware like a smart TV will still result in lower penetration that if you went to the app layer that is where attention time is spent (which may be on a laptop or non-cellular-connected tablet or a game console).
I should also mention the desktop Windows and Linux operating systems don't lock down their APIs like the smart device ecosystem owners. That makes it easier to create an emergency alert app on Windows or Linux, which can interrupt foreground programs and use sound/video drivers. There is also the downside that ill-behaved applications can be very disruptive on Windows and Linux. As a midnight/skunkworks project a wrote a proof-of-concept emergency alert app on Windows. Partly to learn Windows 10 Apps, Visual Studio and C-sharp; but also to try out NOAA's and FEMA's alert feeds. As a proof-of-concept the app worked, but not ready for commercial use. But using a desktop PC is not the same as a smart TV or smart speaker to anyone, other than a nerd. Not spouse-approved for use in any other room in the house :-) I spent about a year (skunkworks time, so not full-time) trying to figure out how to make emergency alerts work on Amazon Alexa and maybe 6-months on Google Assistant. Never could get past the virtual front-door at Apple. There doesn't seem to be a supported way to do it, and the smart device ecosystem owners seemed to oppose any attempt to bypass their control.
On 3/11/19 8:24 PM, Sean Donelan wrote:
On Mon, 11 Mar 2019, Michael Thomas wrote:
It seems to me that it would be much better to use the standards we already have to deliver text, voice and video, and just make it a requirement that some list of devices must be able to listen for these announcements and act accordingly. It's not like compositing video or muting one audio stream in favor of the other is rocket science.
Ecosystem owners control what their smart devices do (and won't do). The major smart device ecosystem owners don't allow other parties to control their devices without going through ecosystem owner controlled APIs.
Amazon controls what echo speakers and fire tv do with alexa.
Apple controls what apple tv and apple homepod speakers do with siri.
Google controls what google home speakers do with google assistant.
I think you are correct, Netflix and Hulu are at the wrong layer. Netflix and Hulu don't control the smart TVs and smart speakers ecosystems used to present their content. Amazon Alexa, Apple Siri and Google Assistant do.
Yes, there are add-on apps for weather and news, but without support by the ecosystem owner in the base operating system, add-on apps can't interrupt other Apps. I understand why ecosystem owners wouldn't want to give third-party Apps an API to interrupt other Apps. Ecosystem owners could include emergency alert functionality controlled as part of the base operating system/intelligent assistant, preserving whatever UX it wants without allowing other third-parties to interrupt.
Yes, that's exactly my point: it should just be a requirement of the hardware platform to implement this. Just like e911. Enumerating the types of devices that are required to implement this is way easier than enumerating the types of apps/sites that need to implement it. All the government needs to do is set up the server infrastructure to source the alerts. Mike
On Tue, 12 Mar 2019, Michael Thomas wrote:
All the government needs to do is set up the server infrastructure to source the alerts.
In the U.S., the IPAWS server infrastructure was set up in 2012. Akamai servers on many ISP networks carry emergency alert CAP messages. However, the smart device ecosystem owners have so far refused to participate. Amazon and Google have explicitly told me no. They have no plans to add support for emergency alerts to Amazon Alexa or Google Assistant. Apple won't comment, but so far doesn't appear to have any plans for emergency alerts on Apple TV or Homepod. Microsoft Cortana is pretty much irrelevant now. There were a few other intelligent assistants at CES 2019, but I don't know of others with significant marketshare. Android and iOS on cell phones added emergency alerts only after laws and regulations required cellular carriers to support emergency alerts. Yes, there are third-part Apps with emergency alerts. They typically have less than 15% subscription rates. And require the end-user to explicitly check/ask the smart device about the weather or news or alerts. Without support from the smart device ecosystem owners (Amazon, Apple, Google), even third-part apps can't proactively alert people. Reporters (and legislators) shouldn't be asking Netflix and Hulu about emergency alerts. They should be asking the smart device ecosystem controllers: Amazon, Apple and Google.
On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 11:57 AM Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> wrote:
Yes, that's exactly my point: it should just be a requirement of the hardware platform to implement this. Just like e911. Enumerating the types of devices that are required to implement this is way easier than enumerating the types of apps/sites that need to implement it. All the government needs to do is set up the server infrastructure to source the alerts.
Hi Mike, In many cases, only the foreground app has a clear understanding of the state of the screen. Not the OS and definitely not the hardware platform. I'd be super pissed if I died in Overwatch because the BIOS tried to take over the screen to display an amber alert. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
On 3/12/19 1:45 PM, William Herrin wrote:
On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 11:57 AM Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com <mailto:mike@mtcc.com>> wrote:
Yes, that's exactly my point: it should just be a requirement of the hardware platform to implement this. Just like e911. Enumerating the types of devices that are required to implement this is way easier than enumerating the types of apps/sites that need to implement it. All the government needs to do is set up the server infrastructure to source the alerts.
Hi Mike,
In many cases, only the foreground app has a clear understanding of the state of the screen. Not the OS and definitely not the hardware platform. I'd be super pissed if I died in Overwatch because the BIOS tried to take over the screen to display an amber alert.
But if you're about to be incinerated in real life -- Paradise -- you want the alert. We're not talking BIOS here, we're just talking a normal IP client program that has elevated privileges to take over the outputs as necessary. And, of course, we want to be able to prioritize things like Amber alerts to zero when we're sitting at home watching tv. Really, this is nothing more than Biff over IP. Mike
On Tue, 12 Mar 2019 13:45:23 -0700, William Herrin said:
In many cases, only the foreground app has a clear understanding of the state of the screen. Not the OS and definitely not the hardware platform. I'd be super pissed if I died in Overwatch because the BIOS tried to take over the screen to display an amber alert.
Would you be super pissed if you died for real because Overwatch suppressed a tornado or other severe weather alert relevant to your location? Serious question here. Seems like the amber alert problem is a configuration issue - just tell your device's system configuration manager to not interrupt with amber alerts, just post a small "there is an alert" status of some sort. My Android-based phone tells me in a little thing in the top bar that I have 2 Google News items, a missed phone call, and some Skype activity - it shouldn't be difficult to add "3 weather alerts, 2 Amber alerts and a partridge in a pear tree" to it. And doing a similar thing for any device smart enough to play Overwatch shouldn't be a big technical hurdle in 2019.
On Tue, 12 Mar 2019 13:45:23 -0700, William Herrin said:
In many cases, only the foreground app has a clear understanding of the state of the screen. Not the OS and definitely not the hardware
On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 2:50 PM <valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu> wrote: platform.
I'd be super pissed if I died in Overwatch because the BIOS tried to take over the screen to display an amber alert.
Would you be super pissed if you died for real because Overwatch suppressed a tornado or other severe weather alert relevant to your location? Serious question here.
I'd prefer if my computer's BIOS didn't talk to the network at all, that being far more likely to open a path for malware than to save me from a tornado. Some things just have "bad idea" written all over them. Serious answer. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
On 3/12/19 3:39 PM, William Herrin wrote:
On Tue, 12 Mar 2019 13:45:23 -0700, William Herrin said:
In many cases, only the foreground app has a clear understanding of the state of the screen. Not the OS and definitely not the hardware
On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 2:50 PM <valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu <mailto:valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu>> wrote: platform.
I'd be super pissed if I died in Overwatch because the BIOS tried to take over the screen to display an amber alert.
Would you be super pissed if you died for real because Overwatch suppressed a tornado or other severe weather alert relevant to your location? Serious question here.
I'd prefer if my computer's BIOS didn't talk to the network at all, that being far more likely to open a path for malware than to save me from a tornado. Some things just have "bad idea" written all over them. Serious answer.
What's with perpetuating the thought that it needs to be in the bios? It's just a normal app on a normal computer like Biff. Mike
On Tue, 12 Mar 2019, Michael Thomas wrote:
What's with perpetuating the thought that it needs to be in the bios? It's just a normal app on a normal computer like Biff.
I know, after working with network engineers in too many meetings. As I keep repeating, for smart devices (Smart TVs, Smart Speakers) emergency alerts should be part of the intelligent assistant mediation layer (Alexa, Siri, Google Assistant). The specifics vary depending on the smart device ecosystem. Its not part of the hardware bios. Its not part of a third-party app. Its not part of the content stream. Most of the intelligent assistant "smarts" live in a "cloud" in a bunch of data centers. On classic desktop computers, i.e. linux and windows, an emergency alert handler is usually implemented as a daemon or background process. Desktop computers would likely use a thick-client implementation. There are several vendors that sell classic desktop emergency alerting products. If you've ever been inside a Department of Defense facility during one of their active shooter drills, its a bit insane when all the alerting systems go off. I would suggest a different UX for home users.
On 3/12/19 4:52 PM, Sean Donelan wrote:
On Tue, 12 Mar 2019, Michael Thomas wrote:
What's with perpetuating the thought that it needs to be in the bios? It's just a normal app on a normal computer like Biff.
I know, after working with network engineers in too many meetings.
As I keep repeating, for smart devices (Smart TVs, Smart Speakers) emergency alerts should be part of the intelligent assistant mediation layer (Alexa, Siri, Google Assistant). The specifics vary depending on the smart device ecosystem. Its not part of the hardware bios. Its not part of a third-party app. Its not part of the content stream. Most of the intelligent assistant "smarts" live in a "cloud" in a bunch of data centers.
On classic desktop computers, i.e. linux and windows, an emergency alert handler is usually implemented as a daemon or background process. Desktop computers would likely use a thick-client implementation. There are several vendors that sell classic desktop emergency alerting products. If you've ever been inside a Department of Defense facility during one of their active shooter drills, its a bit insane when all the alerting systems go off.
I would suggest a different UX for home users.
This seriously seems like something that needs formal standardization. Not the exact UI of course, but how it's transported, what the nature of the alert is (= prioritization), the security profile, location information. Jason Livingood chimed in so maybe there's something up that I'm just not aware of, but this strikes me as a pretty ietf-y kind of thing since we already had to deal with e911, calea and all of that for telephony... so there's some clue there. One thing that does bug me a little are the privacy implications (ie, it needs to know approximately where you are). But maybe with everything else we do it's... yet another part of our brave new world. Mike
On Tue, 12 Mar 2019, Michael Thomas wrote:
This seriously seems like something that needs formal standardization.
No one is paying me to work on this, so I don't plan to spend time doing free tutorials for Amazon, Apple and Google program managers; or money flying to standards meetings around the world. I think, within 5 years or so, its inevitable that smart TVs and smart speakers will support emergency alerts. The only questions is whether the ecosystem owners do it voluntarily or it becomes mandatory. Standards and APIs for emergency alert messages have existed for 5, 10, 15 years. Depending on which standard. Google's non-profit arm created a global alert map using those standards several years ago. Note the .org versus .com. https://www.google.org/publicalerts NOAA National Weather Service updated its API for weather alerts a couple of years ago, making it easier to get active alerts for a specific geographic coordinate, i.e. your house, school, etc. You no longer need to download all the alerts in a state. Documentation on the NOAA API is on the web site. https://alerts-v2.weather.gov/ The FEMA API requires signing a MOU with Homeland Security to retrieve non-weather alerts directly from IPAWS. The IPAWS API isn't intended for end-users. However there is no limitation on companies redidstributing those alerts. That's one source of Google.ORG's public alerts for its map. https://www.fema.gov/integrated-public-alert-warning-system-private-sector Intelligent assistants already know where your smart device is located. People even inform the intelligent assistant which room those devices are in. There is no requirement for intelligent assistants to report that information back to government alert originators. Its more or less a one-way feed of alerts. The formal standards are published by OASIS. The great thing about standards bodies is there are so many to choose from. https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=emergency Emergency alerts use the Common Alerting Protocol (CAP) specification.
You might check this alertmap: http://hisz.rsoe.hu/alertmap/index2.php They got some API: https://hisz.rsoe.hu/ https://hisz.rsoe.hu/ws/ Common Alerting Protocol Version 1.2 http://docs.oasis-open.org/emergency/cap/v1.2/CAP-v1.2-os.html -- Rafał Fitt
On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 4:04 PM Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> wrote:
On 3/12/19 3:39 PM, William Herrin wrote:
I'd prefer if my computer's BIOS didn't talk to the network at all, that being far more likely to open a path for malware than to save me from a tornado. Some things just have "bad idea" written all over them. Serious answer.
What's with perpetuating the thought that it needs to be in the bios? It's just a normal app on a normal computer like Biff.
Answer: On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 11:57 AM Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> wrote:
it should just be a requirement of the hardware platform to implement this.
Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
On 3/12/19 5:34 PM, William Herrin wrote:
On 3/12/19 3:39 PM, William Herrin wrote:
I'd prefer if my computer's BIOS didn't talk to the network at all,
On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 4:04 PM Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com <mailto:mike@mtcc.com>> wrote: that being
far more likely to open a path for malware than to save me from a tornado. Some things just have "bad idea" written all over them. Serious answer.
What's with perpetuating the thought that it needs to be in the bios? It's just a normal app on a normal computer like Biff.
Answer:
On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 11:57 AM Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com <mailto:mike@mtcc.com>> wrote:
it should just be a requirement of the hardware platform to implement this.
Oh, I meant like Android or IOS. or Ubuntu disto or... And that it's only required on certain hardware platforms, ie your toaster doesn't need to start popping up and down in morse code. Mike
On Tuesday, 12 March, 2019 15:51, valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
Would you be super pissed if you died for real because Overwatch suppressed a tornado or other severe weather alert relevant to your location? Serious question here.
Seeing as you are dead, I doubt that you could be super pissed off. --- The fact that there's a Highway to Hell but only a Stairway to Heaven says a lot about anticipated traffic volume.
To be fair, I've used the rogue BIOS excuse in quite a few Overwatch matches, and nobody buys it. So even if it did happen at this point, nobody would believe you. On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 4:47 PM William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 11:57 AM Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> wrote:
Yes, that's exactly my point: it should just be a requirement of the hardware platform to implement this. Just like e911. Enumerating the types of devices that are required to implement this is way easier than enumerating the types of apps/sites that need to implement it. All the government needs to do is set up the server infrastructure to source the alerts.
Hi Mike,
In many cases, only the foreground app has a clear understanding of the state of the screen. Not the OS and definitely not the hardware platform. I'd be super pissed if I died in Overwatch because the BIOS tried to take over the screen to display an amber alert.
Regards, Bill Herrin
-- William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
No. Please no. We need less regulation. Not more. VoIP started out the same way. Very simple to start offering voip. Worked well. Then the government got involved. Now it’s a mess of requirements, warnings and reporting.
On Mar 8, 2019, at 5:22 PM, Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com> wrote:
https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/08/tech/emergency-alert-netflix-hulu-streaming/i...
New York (CNN Business) The federal emergency alert program was designed decades ago to interrupt your TV show or radio station and warn about impending danger — from severe weather events to acts of war.
But people watch TV and listen to radio differently today. If a person is watching Netflix, listening to Spotify or playing a video game, for example, they might miss a critical emergency alert altogether.
"More and more people are opting out of the traditional television services," said Gregory Touhill, a cybersecurity expert who served at the Department of Homeland security and was the first-ever Federal Chief Information Security Officer. "There's a huge population out there that needs to help us rethink how we do this."
[...]
On 3/8/19 2:32 PM, Matt Hoppes wrote:
No. Please no. We need less regulation. Not more.
VoIP started out the same way. Very simple to start offering voip. Worked well. Then the government got involved. Now it’s a mess of requirements, warnings and reporting.
I was there developing service provider voip from the beginning and I can tell you that we were never unaware that we needed to deal with regulatory requirements from the pstn. e911, calia and all the rest. It was never simple. Mike
On Mar 8, 2019, at 5:22 PM, Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com> wrote:
https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/08/tech/emergency-alert-netflix-hulu-streaming/i...
New York (CNN Business) The federal emergency alert program was designed decades ago to interrupt your TV show or radio station and warn about impending danger — from severe weather events to acts of war.
But people watch TV and listen to radio differently today. If a person is watching Netflix, listening to Spotify or playing a video game, for example, they might miss a critical emergency alert altogether.
"More and more people are opting out of the traditional television services," said Gregory Touhill, a cybersecurity expert who served at the Department of Homeland security and was the first-ever Federal Chief Information Security Officer. "There's a huge population out there that needs to help us rethink how we do this."
[...]
What specific regulations do you feel were onerous and unnecessary with respect to VOIP? (This is a legitimate question, not a trolling attempt. ) On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 5:36 PM Matt Hoppes < mattlists@rivervalleyinternet.net> wrote:
No. Please no. We need less regulation. Not more.
VoIP started out the same way. Very simple to start offering voip. Worked well. Then the government got involved. Now it’s a mess of requirements, warnings and reporting.
On Mar 8, 2019, at 5:22 PM, Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com> wrote:
https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/08/tech/emergency-alert-netflix-hulu-streaming/i...
New York (CNN Business) The federal emergency alert program was designed
decades ago to interrupt your TV show or radio station and warn about impending danger — from severe weather events to acts of war.
But people watch TV and listen to radio differently today. If a person
is watching Netflix, listening to Spotify or playing a video game, for example, they might miss a critical emergency alert altogether.
"More and more people are opting out of the traditional television
services," said Gregory Touhill, a cybersecurity expert who served at the Department of Homeland security and was the first-ever Federal Chief Information Security Officer. "There's a huge population out there that needs to help us rethink how we do this."
[...]
On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 2:36 PM Matt Hoppes < mattlists@rivervalleyinternet.net> wrote:
No. Please no. We need less regulation. Not more.
VoIP started out the same way. Very simple to start offering voip. Worked well. Then the government got involved. Now it’s a mess of requirements, warnings and reporting.
Come on now...what we really need to get everyone attention is air raid sirens coupled with streaming interruptions via a simultaneous reboot of all 'core routers' on the internet so people stop surfing facebook and start wondering "what's up", followed by the public utilities cycling the nations power grid to the morse code 'SOS'. Oh, and this all occurs during the monthly test too. -A
I don’t care if Aliens are invading or a blackhole is swallowing our sun, do not... I repeat, do not interrupt me watching GoT’s on HBOGo! -John
On Mar 8, 2019, at 6:08 PM, Aaron C. de Bruyn via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> wrote:
On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 2:36 PM Matt Hoppes <mattlists@rivervalleyinternet.net> wrote: No. Please no. We need less regulation. Not more.
VoIP started out the same way. Very simple to start offering voip. Worked well. Then the government got involved. Now it’s a mess of requirements, warnings and reporting.
Come on now...what we really need to get everyone attention is air raid sirens coupled with streaming interruptions via a simultaneous reboot of all 'core routers' on the internet so people stop surfing facebook and start wondering "what's up", followed by the public utilities cycling the nations power grid to the morse code 'SOS'. Oh, and this all occurs during the monthly test too.
-A
Just wait until your connected home speakers, smart smoke detector, smart refrigerator, smart tv, cell phone, IP streaming box, satellite receiver, cable box, home security panel and your Fitbit all go off warning you of the cancellation of an Amber alert at 1:30am, because the good folks at AlertReady.Ca and Pelmorex think that everything needs to go out at highest precedence, because, well, think of the children! At 05:22 PM 08/03/2019, Sean Donelan wrote:
https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/08/tech/emergency-alert-netflix-hulu-streaming/i...
New York (CNN Business) The federal emergency alert program was designed decades ago to interrupt your TV show or radio station and warn about impending danger from severe weather events to acts of war. But people watch TV and listen to radio differently today. If a person is watching Netflix, listening to Spotify or playing a video game, for example, they might miss a critical emergency alert altogether.
"More and more people are opting out of the traditional television services," said Gregory Touhill, a cybersecurity expert who served at the Department of Homeland security and was the first-ever Federal Chief Information Security Officer. "There's a huge population out there that needs to help us rethink how we do this."
[...]
-- Clayton Zekelman Managed Network Systems Inc. (MNSi) 3363 Tecumseh Rd. E Windsor, Ontario N8W 1H4 tel. 519-985-8410 fax. 519-985-8409
Canada made a lot of improvements with its alert implementation. It got to see all the things the U.S. did wrong. Unfortuantely, Canada also copied some wrong lessons from the the U.S. version. South Korea probably has the most ludicrous emergency alerts in the world. While improvements are needed, the various alert systems have saved people's lives. On Fri, 8 Mar 2019, Clayton Zekelman wrote:
Just wait until your connected home speakers, smart smoke detector, smart refrigerator, smart tv, cell phone, IP streaming box, satellite receiver, cable box, home security panel and your Fitbit all go off warning you of the cancellation of an Amber alert at 1:30am, because the good folks at AlertReady.Ca and Pelmorex think that everything needs to go out at highest precedence, because, well, think of the children!
Absolutely, we need public emergency alerting. What we don't need is every alert to go out mandatory highest level sound the klaxon, can't be blocked, even when it's an "all clear" cancelling a previous alert, and is being sent in the middle of the night. That's the system that has been foisted upon us here. I'm all for emergency alerting, but please make sure it's a real emergency. At least in the US version, they target the region affected, and code it with the appropriate alert level instead of sending alerts to people 1400 km away. https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2018/05/14/first-emergency-alert-sets-off-p... At 07:43 PM 08/03/2019, Sean Donelan wrote:
Canada made a lot of improvements with its alert implementation. It got to see all the things the U.S. did wrong. Unfortuantely, Canada also copied some wrong lessons from the the U.S. version.
South Korea probably has the most ludicrous emergency alerts in the world.
While improvements are needed, the various alert systems have saved people's lives.
On Fri, 8 Mar 2019, Clayton Zekelman wrote:
Just wait until your connected home speakers, smart smoke detector, smart refrigerator, smart tv, cell phone, IP streaming box, satellite receiver, cable box, home security panel and your Fitbit all go off warning you of the cancellation of an Amber alert at 1:30am, because the good folks at AlertReady.Ca and Pelmorex think that everything needs to go out at highest precedence, because, well, think of the children!
-- Clayton Zekelman Managed Network Systems Inc. (MNSi) 3363 Tecumseh Rd. E Windsor, Ontario N8W 1H4 tel. 519-985-8410 fax. 519-985-8409
I’ve had issues with the amber alerts repeating or coming in from adjacent states because “reasons”. When they repeat for days/hours ugh. I do agree most people have devices. If there is a reasonable API method to fetch them then great. Sent from my iCar
On Mar 8, 2019, at 7:51 PM, Clayton Zekelman <clayton@mnsi.net> wrote:
Absolutely, we need public emergency alerting. What we don't need is every alert to go out mandatory highest level sound the klaxon, can't be blocked, even when it's an "all clear" cancelling a previous alert, and is being sent in the middle of the night.
That's the system that has been foisted upon us here. I'm all for emergency alerting, but please make sure it's a real emergency.
At least in the US version, they target the region affected, and code it with the appropriate alert level instead of sending alerts to people 1400 km away.
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2018/05/14/first-emergency-alert-sets-off-p...
At 07:43 PM 08/03/2019, Sean Donelan wrote:
Canada made a lot of improvements with its alert implementation. It got to see all the things the U.S. did wrong. Unfortuantely, Canada also copied some wrong lessons from the the U.S. version.
South Korea probably has the most ludicrous emergency alerts in the world.
While improvements are needed, the various alert systems have saved people's lives.
On Fri, 8 Mar 2019, Clayton Zekelman wrote: Just wait until your connected home speakers, smart smoke detector, smart refrigerator, smart tv, cell phone, IP streaming box, satellite receiver, cable box, home security panel and your Fitbit all go off warning you of the cancellation of an Amber alert at 1:30am, because the good folks at AlertReady.Ca and Pelmorex think that everything needs to go out at highest precedence, because, well, think of the children!
--
Clayton Zekelman Managed Network Systems Inc. (MNSi) 3363 Tecumseh Rd. E Windsor, Ontario N8W 1H4
tel. 519-985-8410 fax. 519-985-8409
Software has bugs. If this happens to you (or anyone else), a hard power reset of your mobile phone will clear up the problem. I have not figured out what causes the repeating duplicate alerts. I've asked FEMA and some engineers at a cellular carrier. It seems to be a "known problem." But I haven't been able to get a technical explanation for the cause. The duplication happens randomly on both android and iOS phones, and on multiple carriers. So I'm a bit mystified about the root cause. On Fri, 8 Mar 2019, Jared Mauch wrote:
I’ve had issues with the amber alerts repeating or coming in from adjacent states because “reasons”. When they repeat for days/hours ugh.
I do agree most people have devices. If there is a reasonable API method to fetch them then great.
It can be blocked, FYI. Just... not as easily as it should be. On Android, if you remove the CellBroadcastReceiver service, the phone no longer listens for the alerts. I rooted my phone specifically to be able to do this after the alerting system rolled out in Canada. The test was bad enough, then within the first week we had several alerts for a single event that happened literally an entire day's drive away from me. And thus, in the first week the system was alive, alarm fatigue set in, the government confirmed that it cannot be trusted, and I revoked their privilege to use my personal devices for stuff I don't want. On 2019-03-08 7:51 p.m., Clayton Zekelman wrote:
Absolutely, we need public emergency alerting. What we don't need is every alert to go out mandatory highest level sound the klaxon, can't be blocked, even when it's an "all clear" cancelling a previous alert, and is being sent in the middle of the night.
That's the system that has been foisted upon us here. I'm all for emergency alerting, but please make sure it's a real emergency.
At least in the US version, they target the region affected, and code it with the appropriate alert level instead of sending alerts to people 1400 km away.
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2018/05/14/first-emergency-alert-sets-off-p...
At 07:43 PM 08/03/2019, Sean Donelan wrote:
Canada made a lot of improvements with its alert implementation. It got to see all the things the U.S. did wrong. Unfortuantely, Canada also copied some wrong lessons from the the U.S. version.
South Korea probably has the most ludicrous emergency alerts in the world.
While improvements are needed, the various alert systems have saved people's lives.
On Fri, 8 Mar 2019, Clayton Zekelman wrote:
Just wait until your connected home speakers, smart smoke detector, smart refrigerator, smart tv, cell phone, IP streaming box, satellite receiver, cable box, home security panel and your Fitbit all go off warning you of the cancellation of an Amber alert at 1:30am, because the good folks at AlertReady.Ca and Pelmorex think that everything needs to go out at highest precedence, because, well, think of the children!
Seems a bit extreme... ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Kristolaitis" <alter3d@alter3d.ca> To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Friday, March 8, 2019 10:32:18 PM Subject: Re: Should Netflix and Hulu give you emergency alerts? It can be blocked, FYI. Just... not as easily as it should be. On Android, if you remove the CellBroadcastReceiver service, the phone no longer listens for the alerts. I rooted my phone specifically to be able to do this after the alerting system rolled out in Canada. The test was bad enough, then within the first week we had several alerts for a single event that happened literally an entire day's drive away from me. And thus, in the first week the system was alive, alarm fatigue set in, the government confirmed that it cannot be trusted, and I revoked their privilege to use my personal devices for stuff I don't want. On 2019-03-08 7:51 p.m., Clayton Zekelman wrote:
Absolutely, we need public emergency alerting. What we don't need is every alert to go out mandatory highest level sound the klaxon, can't be blocked, even when it's an "all clear" cancelling a previous alert, and is being sent in the middle of the night.
That's the system that has been foisted upon us here. I'm all for emergency alerting, but please make sure it's a real emergency.
At least in the US version, they target the region affected, and code it with the appropriate alert level instead of sending alerts to people 1400 km away.
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2018/05/14/first-emergency-alert-sets-off-p...
At 07:43 PM 08/03/2019, Sean Donelan wrote:
Canada made a lot of improvements with its alert implementation. It got to see all the things the U.S. did wrong. Unfortuantely, Canada also copied some wrong lessons from the the U.S. version.
South Korea probably has the most ludicrous emergency alerts in the world.
While improvements are needed, the various alert systems have saved people's lives.
On Fri, 8 Mar 2019, Clayton Zekelman wrote:
Just wait until your connected home speakers, smart smoke detector, smart refrigerator, smart tv, cell phone, IP streaming box, satellite receiver, cable box, home security panel and your Fitbit all go off warning you of the cancellation of an Amber alert at 1:30am, because the good folks at AlertReady.Ca and Pelmorex think that everything needs to go out at highest precedence, because, well, think of the children!
I think the point is they should have built a system that doesn't need to be blocked - it should always effectively and appropriately deliver timely and relevant alert messages. As taxpayers and citizens, we deserve better. At 11:32 PM 08/03/2019, Peter Kristolaitis wrote:
It can be blocked, FYI. Just... not as easily as it should be. On Android, if you remove the CellBroadcastReceiver service, the phone no longer listens for the alerts.
I rooted my phone specifically to be able to do this after the alerting system rolled out in Canada. The test was bad enough, then within the first week we had several alerts for a single event that happened literally an entire day's drive away from me.
And thus, in the first week the system was alive, alarm fatigue set in, the government confirmed that it cannot be trusted, and I revoked their privilege to use my personal devices for stuff I don't want.
--
Clayton Zekelman Managed Network Systems Inc. (MNSi) 3363 Tecumseh Rd. E Windsor, Ontario N8W 1H4
tel. 519-985-8410 fax. 519-985-8409
Just wait until your connected home speakers, smart smoke detector, smart refrigerator, smart tv, cell phone, IP streaming box, satellite receiver, cable box, home security panel and your Fitbit all go off warning you of the cancellation of an Amber alert at 1:30am, because the good folks at AlertReady.Ca and Pelmorex think that everything needs to go out at highest precedence, because, well, think of the children!
and
And thus, in the first week the system was alive, alarm fatigue set in, the government confirmed that it cannot be trusted, and I revoked their privilege to use my personal devices for stuff I don't want.
This is why the service(s) should use confirmed opt-in on a per-device basis and offer sufficient granularity that alerts are only sent to the people who need/want them on the devices they need/want them on. To fabricate some examples: Tornado alert: why, yes, I live in southwestern Kansas so definitely send those to my home device. Silver alert: nope. I live in Queens and don't go out much and don't drive, so I won't be on the road to see the license plate you're trying to tell me about. Never send me these. Coastal flooding alert: maybe. I live 130 miles from the coast and at 550 feet, so any coastal flooding even that would affect me will be beyond catastrophic. So don't send that to my home device. However, I'm vacationing at the beach right now so send it to my mobile. This will eliminate some of the alarm fatigue as well as reducing the transmission requirements. It's just a rather straightforward exercise in database management. ---rsk
On Mon, 11 Mar 2019, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
This is why the service(s) should use confirmed opt-in on a per-device basis and offer sufficient granularity that alerts are only sent to the people who need/want them on the devices they need/want them on.
Other than nerds, which means people on the NANOG list :=), few people like configuring lots of individual devices. They usually don't. Its like blaming people for choosing bad passwords and not configuring devices securely. Defaults matter. That's why I keep emphasizing the role of "Intelligent Assistants" in these smart device ecosystems. Apple Siri, Amazon Alexa, Google Assistent have positioned themselves as the entertainment and information device content management systems in the smart device world. When you connect a new smart device into you choice of intelligent assistant, all your emergency alert preferences should carry-over to the new device. If you turned-off emergency alerts in your intelligent assistant in the past, alerts would be off on new devices. If you want alerts on in one room, and off in a different room, talk to your intelligent assistant. You shouldn't need to remember to do that each time you buy a new smart TV or smart speaker. 10 years ago, I might have said AT&T or Comcast instead of Amazon and Google, because Cable and Telco ISPs were trying to be the home network managers. But CableLabs and ATIS have failed in that regard. Facebook is still a potential powerplayer, but seems to have missed the smart device/intelligent assistant boat.
This will eliminate some of the alarm fatigue as well as reducing the transmission requirements. It's just a rather straightforward exercise in database management.
The opt-in versus opt-out decision is a huge debate in the emergency management world. Less than 15% of people actively opt into emergency alerts on any system, but they complain loudly after disasters. Its a bit like asking people to remember to turn on airbags or anti-lock brakes in their cars. Normal humans don't think about safety systems until after its too late. A plan to have a security guard unlock the fire exits in case of fire is a bad plan. That inevitable human failure is why cable TV was forced to add emergency alerts in the 1990s, after a series of tornado outbreaks across the midwest, and cell phones were forced to add emergency alerts in the 2000s after a different set of disasters. Generally, I think imminent danger warnings should be enabled by default, with easy opt-out available. Advisories and Informational alerts, such as Be On The Lookout (i.e. amber, blue, silver, etc) advisories should be opt-in, with do-not-disturb by default. Informational alerts should not alert by default, unless the user actively opts-in; and should just appear in my daily headlines, timelines, guide, whatever your smart information content manager uses. However, just like advertisers and social media company privacy policies -- I wouldn't trust Facebook to honor emergency alert settings, emergency managers tend to ignore their promises and user preferences. Strong emergency management guidance and training of emergency alert originators is also needed to avoid alert fatigue. Its not strictly a technical problem, the people problems are harder to solve.
NO!! But, I would not be opposed to some type of app on the boxes that support it, one that can be dismissed or controlled by the user. -----Original message----- From:Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com> Sent:Fri 03-08-2019 04:22 pm Subject:Should Netflix and Hulu give you emergency alerts? To:nanog@nanog.org; https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/08/tech/emergency-alert-netflix-hulu-streaming/i... New York (CNN Business) The federal emergency alert program was designed decades ago to interrupt your TV show or radio station and warn about impending danger — from severe weather events to acts of war. But people watch TV and listen to radio differently today. If a person is watching Netflix, listening to Spotify or playing a video game, for example, they might miss a critical emergency alert altogether. "More and more people are opting out of the traditional television services," said Gregory Touhill, a cybersecurity expert who served at the Department of Homeland security and was the first-ever Federal Chief Information Security Officer. "There's a huge population out there that needs to help us rethink how we do this." [...]
On 3/8/19 2:22 PM, Sean Donelan wrote:
https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/08/tech/emergency-alert-netflix-hulu-streaming/i...
New York (CNN Business) The federal emergency alert program was designed decades ago to interrupt your TV show or radio station and warn about impending danger — from severe weather events to acts of war.
But people watch TV and listen to radio differently today. If a person is watching Netflix, listening to Spotify or playing a video game, for example, they might miss a critical emergency alert altogether.
"More and more people are opting out of the traditional television services," said Gregory Touhill, a cybersecurity expert who served at the Department of Homeland security and was the first-ever Federal Chief Information Security Officer. "There's a huge population out there that needs to help us rethink how we do this."
[...]
Has the IETF, etc looked into this? This looks like a good thing that could use a good dose of standardization to avoid a complete clusterf*ck. Mike
I'm old. I was online @MIT-AI the night the pentagon (probably DISA?) started broadcasting messages that basically the ARPAnet was going down for "emergency testing" blah blah. I thought it was a prank so just kept working. Another message or two and it all went dead, CONNECTION LOST Couldn't dial back in. Idjits, oh well. The next morning I found out some students (not MIT students) had taken over the US embassy in Tehran so that would have been 1979-11-04 more or less. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*
On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 2:22 PM Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com> wrote:
"More and more people are opting out of the traditional television services," said Gregory Touhill, a cybersecurity expert who served at the Department of Homeland security and was the first-ever Federal Chief Information Security Officer. "There's a huge population out there that needs to help us rethink how we do this."
Hi Sean, Here's my take: If it has a screen or speaker and it connects to a network, it should be capable of providing emergency alerts. Every device capable of providing emergency alerts should allow them to be easily and fully disabled. Even if there is a missile inbound, I don't need 20 devices trying to tell me all at once. In fact, the cacophony would almost certainly make the alert hard to understand. My cell phone woke me up in the middle of the night during a recent landline outage because the county felt the need to let me know that I wouldn't be able to call 911 if, you know, I happened to need to call 911. Thanks guys. Thanks a lot. And I can't block their messages. That's a problem. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
On Mon, 11 Mar 2019, William Herrin wrote:
My cell phone woke me up in the middle of the night during a recent landline outage because the county felt the need to let me know that I wouldn't be able to call 911 if, you know, I happened to need to call 911. Thanks guys. Thanks a lot. And I can't block their messages. That's a problem.
1. VOIP, telcos and network operators have recurring 9-1-1 issues. There has been multiple, multi-state 9-1-1 outages in the last few years. VOIP, telcos and network operators don't seem to have coherent plans how to handle multi-state 9-1-1 outages. Don't worry, the FCC has their "best people" looking into it, again. 2. Because that was something "that will never happen," there was no plan how to alert cellular subscribers. In fact, the "TOE," Telephone Outage Emergency code for 9-1-1 outages is blocked from WEA cell phones. 3. Since there is no multi-state plan and the official emergency alert code, TOE, is blocked from WEA; county emergency managers overrode the emergency alert system and used the "extreme alert" message instead. Can you spot the multiple planning and operating flaws? ======================= In the U.S., you can always block all state/local emergency alerts, including "extreme alerts," on your cell phone. The downside is that opts-out of *ALL* state, local, weather, etc. emergency alerts, except national/presidential emergencies. Canada doesn't allow opting out of emergency alerts by cellular subscribers. I proposed to the FCC a less severe alert settings for informational advisories, which wouldn't set off the WEA alarm on your cell phone. But the message would appear, semi-unobtrusively. BTW, it would make more sense for VOIP and Telco 9-1-1 operators to have a plan to notify people at the time they dial 9-1-1 it isn't working. But since 9-1-1 "never fails," they don't seem to want to have a plan.
It would be nice if someone from the E911 space could add their 2cents on this. Anyone from Intrado/West-Corp on the list? Thanks, Scott On 3/11/19 1:53 PM, Sean Donelan wrote:
On Mon, 11 Mar 2019, William Herrin wrote:
My cell phone woke me up in the middle of the night during a recent landline outage because the county felt the need to let me know that I wouldn't be able to call 911 if, you know, I happened to need to call 911. Thanks guys. Thanks a lot. And I can't block their messages. That's a problem.
1. VOIP, telcos and network operators have recurring 9-1-1 issues. There has been multiple, multi-state 9-1-1 outages in the last few years. VOIP, telcos and network operators don't seem to have coherent plans how to handle multi-state 9-1-1 outages. Don't worry, the FCC has their "best people" looking into it, again.
2. Because that was something "that will never happen," there was no plan how to alert cellular subscribers. In fact, the "TOE," Telephone Outage Emergency code for 9-1-1 outages is blocked from WEA cell phones.
3. Since there is no multi-state plan and the official emergency alert code, TOE, is blocked from WEA; county emergency managers overrode the emergency alert system and used the "extreme alert" message instead.
Can you spot the multiple planning and operating flaws?
=======================
In the U.S., you can always block all state/local emergency alerts, including "extreme alerts," on your cell phone. The downside is that opts-out of *ALL* state, local, weather, etc. emergency alerts, except national/presidential emergencies.
Canada doesn't allow opting out of emergency alerts by cellular subscribers.
I proposed to the FCC a less severe alert settings for informational advisories, which wouldn't set off the WEA alarm on your cell phone. But the message would appear, semi-unobtrusively.
BTW, it would make more sense for VOIP and Telco 9-1-1 operators to have a plan to notify people at the time they dial 9-1-1 it isn't working. But since 9-1-1 "never fails," they don't seem to want to have a plan.
On Mon, 11 Mar 2019, Scott Fisher wrote:
It would be nice if someone from the E911 space could add their 2cents on this. Anyone from Intrado/West-Corp on the list?
See the FCC Electronic Comment Filing System for 911 Governance and Accountability (PS Docket No. 14-193) and Improving 911 Reliability (PS Docket No. 13-75). https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/
On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 10:53 AM Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com> wrote:
On Mon, 11 Mar 2019, William Herrin wrote:
My cell phone woke me up in the middle of the night during a recent landline outage because the county felt the need to let me know that I wouldn't be able to call 911 if, you know, I happened to need to call 911. Thanks guys. Thanks a lot. And I can't block their messages. That's a problem.
Can you spot the multiple planning and operating flaws?
I would have to say the most glaring flaw was that the message was not actionable. No instructions for what to do instead. Just, "Hey, wake up! You can't call 911 right now. Bye!" Regards, Bill Herrin
participants (24)
-
Aaron C. de Bruyn -
Brandon Martin -
bzs＠theworld.com -
Clayton Zekelman -
Jared Mauch -
Jerry Cloe -
John Von Essen -
Joseph J. Jsnyder III -
Keith Medcalf -
Livingood, Jason -
Matt Erculiani -
Matt Hoppes -
Michael Thomas -
Mike Hammett -
Peter Kristolaitis -
Rafał Fitt -
Rich Kulawiec -
Scott Fisher -
Sean Donelan -
Seth Mattinen -
Shivaram Mysore -
Tom Beecher -
valdis.kletnieks＠vt.edu -
William Herrin