- Journal Archives
- Volume 19
- Volume 18
- Volume 17
- Volume 16
- Volume 15
- Volume 14
- Volume 13
- Volume 12
- Volume 11
- Volume 10
- Volume 9
- Volume 8
- Volume 7
- Volume 6
- Volume 5
- Volume 4
- Volume 3
- Volume 2
- Volume 1
- 2016-2017 Symposium
- 2015-2016 Symposium
- 2014-2015 Symposium
- 2013-2014 Symposium
- 2012-2013 Symposium
- 2011-2012 Symposium
- 2010-2011 Symposium
- 2009-2010 Symposium
- 2008-2009 Symposium
- 2007-2008 Symposium
On Monday, September 19, millions in the New York metropolitan area received the familiar emergency message most often used for inclement weather or abductions. However, this message neither warned of severe weather nor described an automobile—it instead identified Ahmad Khan Rahami, the man allegedly responsible for the recent explosions in Manhattan and New Jersey, as a wanted man.
The emergency message system, known as the Wireless Emergency Alert (WEA) system, has existed since 2012, but Monday marked the first time it had been used “as an electronic wanted poster.” WEA messages are authorized by FEMA and are transmitted via cellular towers in a form similar to text messages but on a completely separate system.
In a world where the ubiquity of cellphones has surpassed that of any preceding technology, the WEA system is a potentially powerful weapon in the hands of law enforcement, allowing them nearly instantaneous access to millions of potential informants. New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio acknowledged in a press conference that law enforcement planned to use the tool again in the future.
However, anyone who received the WEA message on Monday might have noticed something peculiar about what the message did not include: a photo. In fact, the message did not even include a URL to a photo of the wanted man, instead directing recipients to “See media for pic.”
As it turns out, there is a very good reason for the absence of a photograph or link. FCC regulations prohibit embedding photographs or URLs in such alerts. The same regulation also prohibits embedding phone numbers, which might be useful to set up a hotline of some kind.
While transmitting a suspect’s name and age to millions of citizens remains a powerful tool, the inability to include a photograph or links lessens its effectiveness and magnifies its risk. Many recipients are likely to ignore the direction to obtain a photograph of the suspect from the media, whereas they may have been more likely to access a provided link. Furthermore, by directing people to “the media” for a photograph, law enforcement relies on a third party to convey crucial information to citizens. This is not without risk.
The solution to the problem seems simple enough, and the FCC preliminarily voted to amend the WEA regulations and allow content such as photographs or links. However, this proposed solution is not without dissenters—namely, wireless providers such as AT&T and Verizon.
These companies warn that expanding the features of emergency alerts to include embedded URLs would leave less room for critical directions and would increase the risk of communication failure due to network congestion. While embedded links do use a portion of the allotted word count, so do directions like “See media for details.” Also, word count is similarly regulated and could be expanded to accommodate the addition of links. The network congestion concern is also curious, as it is unclear how alert recipients accessing information via embedded URL would congest cellular networks anymore than those recipients searching the internet for media portrayals of the suspect. As noted above, less people are likely to use the cellular network if no link is provided, so AT&T/Verizon may in fact be noting potential network congestion of such a readily accessible link.
The FCC will consider a proposed rule on September 29 to expand the capabilities of the WEA, which would represent a major step forward in empowering law enforcement to utilize the full facets of WEA technology. However, the debates surrounding the WEA system are unlikely to end any time soon. In fact, as the technology becomes more pervasive and useful, it may run into a whole new host of concerns about privacy, both of recipients and identified suspects. After all, these pictures would be transmitted not only to potential informants but also potential jurors.
Recent Blog Posts
- Police Body Cameras: Just Another Tool for Mass Surveillance?
- NY AG Warns Developers of Popular Health Apps Who Can’t Support Their Marketing Claims: “My Office Will Not Hesitate to Take Action.”
- Take After Will Smith by Keeping Your Driving Skills Polished (At Least for Now)
- Will Patent Litigation Still be Big in Texas? The Supreme Court Hears Arguments for TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods Group Brands
- Lyft, Drivers Settle; Punt Million Dollar Employee vs. Independent Contractor Classification Question Into the Future.
- Cybersecurity for Autonomous Vehicles
Tagsadvertising antitrust Apple books career celebrities contracts copyright copyright infringement courts creative content criminal law entertainment Facebook FCC film/television financial First Amendment games Google government intellectual property internet JETLaw journalism lawsuits legislation media medicine Monday Morning JETLawg music NFL patents privacy progress publicity rights radio social networking sports Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) technology telecommunications trademarks Twitter U.S. Constitution