# pissed about missing child alert



## c-surfer (Jul 25, 2001)

So I'm watching my favorite recorded program on Tivo, and it spontaneously switches to the Travel Channel with some banner announcement about a missing child.

I'm so pissed. Why is this my problem? Who do I complain to? Who can I sue?

I feel that my privacy rights have been violated; like the government barged into my living room asking stupid questions. 

It feels like the scene in Fahrenheit 451 where the loudspeakers tell everyone to come out of their houses and look for Montag.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Is it a *live* alert?

I presume it's a live alert, right?

If so, and you're not recording right now, you're lucky. It your Tivo is _on_ (not in standby), and has cablecards in it, apparently it will switch to the Amber Alert *when recording*. They supposedly fixed a bug where it will go BACK to the original recording when the Alert is over.

BTW, a workaround (at least for recording purposes, not for your exact problem) is to put the system in standby. Then it won't switch to the Alerts and wreck your recording.

You can complain to the FCC and the Cable Card consortium.


----------



## MirclMax (Jul 12, 2000)

Having just experienced the same alert you were talking about.. I had a slightly different annoyance about it .. (Please note .. ultimately I think its a valuable function ..but....)

There was no way to "clear" the alert .. or change channels.. or go to the TiVo menu .. basically.. the only way to not see it.. would have been to turn off the TV .. why would I want to turn it off? Well.. with young kids who were around.. I didn't really want to have to explain the exact details of what it meant for a child to be kidnapped and so forth.

Obviously at some point a child needs to know about this sort of thing .. (to be safe themselves) .. but there are also children who would unnecessarily worry ... or even obsess about the well being of the child in the Amber Alert .. 

Fortunately .. in this case .. no one was really paying attention .. but I would have rather had the ability to make the conscious choice to hit "clear" and have the alert go away. (I had actually already heard the alert on a different channel a few minutes earlier.. but that was just an audio-overlay .. not part of the TiVo-alert-system)

Just my thoughts.. 

-MirclMax


----------



## c-surfer (Jul 25, 2001)

It was a live alert on the Travel Channel which interrupted playback of a recorded program.

That's pretty creepy that the government is able to reach into a private living room, interrupt a recorded program and force you to watch an Amber Alert. Does the government force Tivo to provide them with a back door? There are compelling reasons to provide Emergency Alerts in the case of a true emergency but invade everyone's home with an allegedly lost child announcement? Ridiculous.

My privacy has been violated. I need a constitutional lawyer, NRA membership, ACLU card and tinfoil hat.


----------



## timr_42 (Oct 14, 2001)

my cable co will do that sometimes during an EMS test. My cable box will switch to channel 13 for a couple of minutes and then back. If I'm tivoing something at that time, it always pees me off


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

MirclMax said:


> not part of the TiVo-alert-system)


just to be clear this is no TiVo alert system but TiVo having to react in a legally prescribed way to these alerts when broadcast on the cable system.


----------



## MirclMax (Jul 12, 2000)

Hopefully you were just clarifying for other people reading so that I did not confuse anyone .. of course I'm aware of what you are saying .. I was just trying to quickly.. and simply differentiate between what I had before.. which was an "Emergency Broadcast System" tone and just an audio message on top of a program .. and the one that triggered the tivo-feature that displayed the alert. 

It was perhaps a very lax way of stating it .. but it *is* a system.... code.. built in functionality in the TiVo to display an emergency broadcast message. So, I wasn't trying to say that my poorly named "TiVo-alert-system" was TiVo creating the alert message out of thin air .. or even sent by TiVo Inc. to my system on purpose.. it was meant to describe the SYSTEM by which TIVO displayed the ALERT to me. 

Alright, I admit it.. I should have said function. 

-MirclMax


----------



## TriBruin (Dec 10, 2003)

c-surfer said:


> It was a live alert on the Travel Channel which interrupted playback of a recorded program.
> 
> That's pretty creepy that the government is able to reach into a private living room, interrupt a recorded program and force you to watch an Amber Alert. Does the government force Tivo to provide them with a back door? There are compelling reasons to provide Emergency Alerts in the case of a true emergency but invade everyone's home with an allegedly lost child announcement? Ridiculous.
> 
> My privacy has been violated. I need a constitutional lawyer, NRA membership, ACLU card and tinfoil hat.


Please tell me this was in a sarcastic post, because I can't believe anyone would care more about their TV shows than a lost child. 

If even one tip that could lead to recovering a lost child were come from the Amber Alert, then it was worth it.


----------



## GoHokies! (Sep 21, 2005)

RBlount said:


> Please tell me this was in a sarcastic post, because I can't believe anyone would care more about their TV shows than a lost child.
> 
> If even one tip that could lead to recovering a lost child were come from the Amber Alert, then it was worth it.


:up:

Bravo, sir - surprised that it took that long for this comment to come about.


----------



## Lopey (Feb 12, 2004)

RBlount said:


> Please tell me this was in a sarcastic post, because I can't believe anyone would care more about their TV shows than a lost child.
> 
> If even one tip that could lead to recovering a lost child were come from the Amber Alert, then it was worth it.


It makes even less sense seeing that the OP was watching a recorded show... :down:


----------



## Lopey (Feb 12, 2004)

c-surfer said:


> So I'm watching my favorite recorded program on Tivo, and it spontaneously switches to the Travel Channel with some banner announcement about a missing child.
> 
> I'm so pissed. Why is this my problem? Who do I complain to? Who can I sue?
> 
> ...


Do you have kids? If something happened to your child, or someone you love wouldn't you want to get as much help as you can to have that person back unharmed?

This is what is wrong with our culture... the "I" factor.. I am not directly affected, why do I care...
This is so wrong on so many levels.... I must leave now before I explode


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

RBlount said:


> Please tell me this was in a sarcastic post, because I can't believe anyone would care more about their TV shows than a lost child.


I whole-heartedly agree with the OP and I am not being sarcastic in the least.

If I'm sitting in my living room watching TV, I am not in the position to do anything about a lost child. Sure, if the kid wandered through my living room, I might be able to do something, but chances are that if some random kid started walking through my place, I'd call the cops no matter if I heard an alert or not.

Or are you suggesting that some people might be comfortably watching TV, get interrupted by the alert and then put on their coats, go outside and start combing the streets? Well, if that's what you want to do, I suggest that you sign up for a special service that informs you of these events so that you contribute. I assure you that most people do not share your zeal.


----------



## Lopey (Feb 12, 2004)

Amnesia said:


> I whole-heartedly agree with the OP and I am not being sarcastic in the least.
> 
> If I'm sitting in my living room watching TV, I am not in the position to do anything about a lost child. Sure, if the kid wandered through my living room, I might be able to do something, but chances are that if some random kid started walking through my place, I'd call the cops no matter if I heard an alert or not.
> 
> Or are you suggesting that some people might be comfortably watching TV, get interrupted by the alert and then put on their coats, go outside and start combing the streets? Well, if that's what you want to do, I suggest that you sign up for a special service that informs you of these events so that you contribute. I assure you that most people do not share your zeal.


No but if they put the childs picture in your face and make you look at it for a couple of minutes, then later on that day or the next you are driving down the road and you see the child....


----------



## DCipher (Oct 22, 2003)

Gimme a break... it's a TV show. Get a grip.

I'm sure you realize why they have the Amber alerts - maybe you saw something that was suspicious, but didn't really think about it at the time... or maybe when you are outside of your house you might see something - in any case, it's a TV show that's being interrupted so that maybe, just maybe, you can help someone else in need.

OMG! My TiVo recording is messed up! call 911!


----------



## GoHokies! (Sep 21, 2005)

No, but usually the alert includes details like the person the child was last with, and what kind of vehicle they were driving. Maybe you saw something suspicious earlier in the day and didn't realize it, or saw the suspects car, or ...

It's a remote possibility that you personally saw something, but chances are good that someone saw something that will help law enforcement, hence the need for a system that reaches as many people as possible.


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

If the recording returns to the scheduled show after the alert I have no problem. It is when the show gets totally hosed from the point of the alert onward that there are problems. 

If it is during a playback of a recording, what is the big deal? Rewind a touch and resume watching.

The constitution allows the government to perform reasonable actions that may infringe on you in a minor way if there is benefit *. The definition of reasonable and minor are up for debate but if the action causes a very minor loss of a recorded show or a delay in watching your show then you'd be hard pressed to claim you were hurt by the event. 

* let's not turn this into a constitutional debate.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

Lopey said:


> No but if they put the childs picture in your face and make you look at it for a couple of minutes, then later on that day or the next you are driving down the road and you see the child....


When I'm driving, I pay attention to the cars.

Now, I've seen Amber alerts on electronic highway signs that say to be on the lookout for a particular car and give the license plate---that's fine. I have no problem with that. Of course, if they interrupted my music to force this message on me, that's an issue again.

But we're talking about television. And not even the annoyance of shrinking the picture to present a news scrawl at the bottom of the screen (which is bad enough---if I want to watch the news I'll change the channel). No---we're talking about the government changing the channel on *your* consumer electronics device to force you to watch a message that *they* choose. Again, if this were opt-in, I'd be all for it. Maybe I'd even support opt-out. But mandatory? No way. Sorry, Big Brother---I'm watching another show.


----------



## Lopey (Feb 12, 2004)

Lopey said:


> This is what is wrong with our culture... the "I" factor.. I am not directly affected, why do I care...
> :





Amnesia said:


> When I'm driving, I pay attention to the cars.
> 
> Now, I've seen Amber alerts on electronic highway signs that say to be on the lookout for a particular car and give the license plate---that's fine. I have no problem with that. Of course, if they interrupted my music to force this message on me, that's an issue again.
> 
> But we're talking about television. And not even the annoyance of shrinking the picture to present a news scrawl at the bottom of the screen (which is bad enough---if I want to watch the news I'll change the channel). No---we're talking about the government changing the channel on *your* consumer electronics device to force you to watch a message that *they* choose. Again, if this were opt-in, I'd be all for it. Maybe I'd even support opt-out. But mandatory? No way. Sorry, Big Brother---I'm watching another show.


Thank you for adding to my point....

But.. what if you were looking at the leaves while you were driving, and then all of a sudden one of these highway signs starts flashing...

So you are paying attention to the cars while you are driving.. so if on the Amber alert you saw earlier it gave you a car and license plate to look out for and you actually see it...

I just can't believe that people complain about this.... I know it takes all kinds.. but come on..

So what if they stop your music while you are in the car to tell you about a traffic accident that happens to be on the road that you are about to get on to, and that that road is now closed.... because it actually benifited you, is that ok??


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Amnesia said:


> I whole-heartedly agree with the OP and I am not being sarcastic in the least.
> 
> If I'm sitting in my living room watching TV, I am not in the position to do anything about a lost child. Sure, if the kid wandered through my living room, I might be able to do something, but chances are that if some random kid started walking through my place, I'd call the cops no matter if I heard an alert or not.
> 
> Or are you suggesting that some people might be comfortably watching TV, get interrupted by the alert and then put on their coats, go outside and start combing the streets? Well, if that's what you want to do, I suggest that you sign up for a special service that informs you of these events so that you contribute. I assure you that most people do not share your zeal.


the whole idea is that as many people as possible are informed about it as quickly as possible. TV is of course the logical medium for that. The more people the more chance that the burger product placement that made you go hit a fast food joint after the show will give you the information needed if you saw the child being walked through the place by some adult. Even if the alert was in a recorded show that was a month old - stranger things have happened.

Now what TiVo has to do is follow the rules on displaying those alerts. I recall discussion around this when Severe weather alerts in the Midwest took on this new form. Instead of saying "switch to channel xx fo more info" in the scroll - the digital age was leveraged and cable boxes and TiVo DVR's looking for the alert signal can be switched to the channel detailing the alert. Should that be used for missing children as well? Well that is not a TCF Coffehouse discussion, but one I have seen in Happy Hour in other forms but with this same basic tone.

The only glitch I saw before was that the TiVo did not switch back to the channel a scheduled recording was set for after the legally prescribed swicth to the alert channel was satisfied. Plus I never saw what the complete legal requirements for showing the alert is.

If the TiVo stayed on alert channel until user manual intervention - that would be a bug topic for Coffeehouse.


----------



## tootal2 (Oct 14, 2005)

c-surfer said:


> So I'm watching my favorite recorded program on Tivo, and it spontaneously switches to the Travel Channel with some banner announcement about a missing child.
> 
> I'm so pissed. Why is this my problem? Who do I complain to? Who can I sue?
> 
> ...


one station here had a missing kids photo on the screen all day. I was worried 
it was going to burn in to my screen. They did find the kid and another one.


----------



## TriBruin (Dec 10, 2003)

Amnesia said:


> When I'm driving, I pay attention to the cars.
> 
> Now, I've seen Amber alerts on electronic highway signs that say to be on the lookout for a particular car and give the license plate---that's fine. I have no problem with that. Of course, if they interrupted my music to force this message on me, that's an issue again.
> 
> But we're talking about television. And not even the annoyance of shrinking the picture to present a news scrawl at the bottom of the screen (which is bad enough---if I want to watch the news I'll change the channel). No---we're talking about the government changing the channel on *your* consumer electronics device to force you to watch a message that *they* choose. Again, if this were opt-in, I'd be all for it. Maybe I'd even support opt-out. But mandatory? No way. Sorry, Big Brother---I'm watching another show.


When does your inconvenience outweigh someone else's safety and security?

With likely millions of people seeing the alert, maybe just one person will recognize a name, car, license plate, color of clothing, or anything that can help the police find the child.

I certainly hope that if you were ever in a situation that requires others to be inconvenienced to help you, they don't have the same attitude you do.


----------



## allan (Oct 14, 2002)

IMO, it depends on how they implment it. If there is reason to think that a lost kid might be in my general area, and the interruption isn't too long, I have no problem. But if some kid went missing from a small town 200 miles away, and they spend hours talking about it (like they do about weather alerts), that would piss me off.


----------



## usnret (Nov 25, 2003)

> I certainly hope that if you were ever in a situation that requires others to be inconvenienced to help you, they don't have the same attitude you do.


If they had the same attitude and didn't help, he would probably contact the ACLU and sue.


----------



## Lopey (Feb 12, 2004)

allan said:


> IMO, it depends on how they implment it. If there is reason to think that a lost kid might be in my general area, and the interruption isn't too long, I have no problem. But if some kid went missing from a small town 200 miles away, and they spend hours talking about it (like they do about weather alerts), that would piss me off.


Yeah, because a car can't go 200 miles..


----------



## c-surfer (Jul 25, 2001)

There are some very large issues here that the "save the children" people don't get.

There's a constitutional right to privacy in California. Giving the government a remote control into citizen's living rooms is an abomination of that right. What's more, Amber alerts interferer with the right to free expression and freedom of the press.

This system is dream come true for totalitarian governments. Finally, there's set-top box technology that lets agents from the Censorship Bureau and Ministry of Propaganda flip a switch and force CNN viewers to the Travel Channel any time there's news they don't want you to see.


----------



## webin (Feb 13, 2008)

I'm siding with the "stay out of my TiVo" argument. Maybe I'm a mean self-centered oaf, but I don't like anything being mandatory, and I don't want something interrupting what I'm doing. My Tivo, My Time. Not yours.


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

c-surfer said:


> There are some very large issues here that the "save the children" people don't get.
> 
> There's a constitutional right to privacy in California. Giving the government a remote control into citizen's living rooms is an abomination of that right. What's more, Amber alerts interferer with the right to free expression and freedom of the press.
> 
> This system is dream come true for totalitarian governments. Finally, there's set-top box technology that lets agents from the Censorship Bureau and Ministry of Propaganda flip a switch and force CNN viewers to the Travel Channel any time there's news they don't want you to see.


I was afraid of this, but...

The rights of citizens can be infringed if the government shows that the benefit outweighs the infringement. There are several criteria that the courts use to determine whether or not the infringment is unconstitutional but to claim your rights are absolute is simply not true.

If say that your whole recording was wacked you may have more defenders than if you say you were delayed by less than a minute.

p.s. Aren't you getting a little dramatic with your words?


----------



## GoHokies! (Sep 21, 2005)

c-surfer said:


> There are some very large issues here that the "save the children" people don't get.
> 
> There's a constitutional right to privacy in California. Giving the government a remote control into citizen's living rooms is an abomination of that right. What's more, Amber alerts interferer with the right to free expression and freedom of the press.
> 
> This system is dream come true for totalitarian governments. Finally, there's set-top box technology that lets agents from the Censorship Bureau and Ministry of Propaganda flip a switch and force CNN viewers to the Travel Channel any time there's news they don't want you to see.


I'm not a California resident, but as I understand it your "right to privacy" you keep trumpeting about refers to the protection of your personal information.

Pray tell, what kind of personal information does flashing info on a missing child reveal to the world that violates your privacy?

Take off the tinfoil hat, put down your copy of A Brave New World, and stop being so selfish.


----------



## allan (Oct 14, 2002)

Lopey said:


> Yeah, because a car can't go 200 miles..


Sure, but how likely is it that the child would end up in my city? There's a reason we don't get Amber Alerts from New York or California, even though the Midwest might be a good place for a kidnapper to hide.


----------



## Lopey (Feb 12, 2004)

allan said:


> Sure, but how likely is it that the child would end up in my city? There's a reason we don't get Amber Alerts from New York or California, even though the Midwest might be a good place for a kidnapper to hide.


OK... so something happens to the child.. the next thing would be.. why did the city of blah blah not get the alert... because we ASSUMED that the kidnapper wouldn't go there...


----------



## Joules1111 (Jul 21, 2005)

c-surfer said:


> That's pretty creepy that the government is able to reach into a private living room, interrupt a recorded program and force you to watch an Amber Alert. Does the government force Tivo to provide them with a back door? There are compelling reasons to provide Emergency Alerts in the case of a true emergency but invade everyone's home with an *allegedly lost child announcement*? Ridiculous.


The criteria for an Amber Alert is not simply a missing child. If this WAS an Amber alerts are only issued in very strict circumstances. 


> Law enforcement must confirm that an abduction has taken place
> The child must be at risk of serious injury or death
> There must be sufficient descriptive information of child, captor, or captor's vehicle to issue an alert
> The child must be 17 years old or younger


I think that the possibility of finding the child alive decreases markedly in the first 24-hours of an Amber alert, and then almost disappears after the first 48-hours. Personally, I can take the inconvenience of my television show being interrupted for an actual Amber Alert. But that's just me.


----------



## audioscience (Feb 10, 2005)

Does c-surfer live in a 12x10 shack in the middle of the woods?


----------



## SeanC (Dec 30, 2003)

As a person who finds these messages stupid my main beef is the audience they are talking to. 99&#37; of people watching TV are home, not out and about in the world, the medium to get the word out quickly to a populace that has a chance to see something is radio. I dunno why they are bothering to tell people watching TV.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

The alert may come while you are watching TV, but then people go out and about their business. Not many sit in front of the TV every minute of the day. So having it on TV reaches the widest audience, which is the whole purpose of having the alert.


----------



## Joules1111 (Jul 21, 2005)

SeanC said:


> As a person who finds these messages stupid my main beef is the audience they are talking to. 99% of people watching TV are home, not out and about in the world, the medium to get the word out quickly to a populace that has a chance to see something is radio. I dunno why they are bothering to tell people watching TV.


Because no one comes home from work and switches on the television? Or turns the tv off and heads out to the store or to get dinner?

ETA: Or what eddyj said.


----------



## Inundated (Sep 10, 2003)

It may or may not freak you out, but cable companies are connected to the Emergency Alert System (EAS) much like broadcasters are.

Maybe you should petition TiVo for a software upgrade that doesn't pull you out of recorded TV with the live EAS alerts? I don't really see the problem if you can flip back a few seconds and watch the stuff that gets overrided, as it's still on the TiVo's hard drive.

The other stuff is just all rhetoric.


----------



## bigray327 (Apr 14, 2000)

"Who do I SUE????" Wow, our society is doomed.


----------



## SpiritualPoet (Jan 14, 2007)

Anyone who does not want a TiVo machine to switch to another channel while watching live programming should not watch live programming by means of the TiVo, but should bypass the TiVo signal whenever and however possible. That's what I do. I don't allow my TiVo to determine what I want to watch. I make that choice with each and every viewing. (Obviously, I can't control whether my chosen channel is interrupted for such things as: a weather bulletin, breaking news event, or a missing person (child or senior citizen or whomever).)


----------



## jwreiner (Aug 19, 2003)

RBlount said:


> Please tell me this was in a sarcastic post, because I can't believe anyone would care more about their TV shows than a lost child.
> 
> If even one tip that could lead to recovering a lost child were come from the Amber Alert, then it was worth it.


The "if even one tip ..." argument can be used to (unconvincingly) justify almost anything. For example: "if removing all radios from cars saves just one life because a driver wasn't distracted, then it was worth it."

This is something where, I think, people should have the option to opt-out (or maybe opt-in). If I had a child who had been abducted, I would want everyone in the country to stop what they were doing and starting looking. But the way our society normally works, people get to make their own choices about what they want to do and how much they want to help others. When you see an Amber alert on TV, you can go back to watching TV after it is over or you can go outside and try to find the child. Almost everyone will choose to stay in front of the TV. Maybe if the system shut off the TV for 4 hours, more people would go outside. If only one child was saved by such a system, ...

Having no choice about watching the Amber alert is a very small burden (with a very small chance of making any difference), but I think it should still be something a viewer can turn off if he wants, regardless of whether other people will think he is selfish.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

RBlount said:


> When does your inconvenience outweigh someone else's safety and security? With likely millions of people seeing the alert, maybe just one person will recognize a name, car, license plate, color of clothing, or anything that can help the police find the child.


Then why limit it to missing children? How about any time there's a murder, rape, armed robbery, car theft, etc then everyone with a television has no choice about what to watch---they are forced to read information about the crime in the remote chance that the might be able to help...

Same with the radio---no one is allowed to listen to the ball game when a crime has taken place in the area. And the Internet? Forget it. If any crime has occurred in the 100 square miles around you, then every time you attempt to go to a new Web page, you're instead redirected to a page giving information about the crime.

Would this help solve many crimes? Probably. Are you advocating that this be done? I certainly hope not.

I'm a firm believer in freedom of choice. If you want to drop everything and go look for the missing child, that's your right. More power to you. But by the same token, if I choose not to go look for the child and instead want to watch a recording of _Without a Trace_ instead, that's my right.


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

I guess I am going to get flamed. When the Amber Alert system started (just the normal system with signs, scrolls on TV shows etc.) I questioned it on several levels. 1. Are children more important than other crime victims? (possibly because they are to young to aid themselves but some other people are disabled and also unable to aid themselves.) 2. Has anyone been rescued by the system which is probably pretty expensive to impliment. Has the timelyness of these alerts helped anyone? 3. Though I do agree with the sentiment that TV shows are not important. I live way out of the area where they are broadcast and probably would not be of any help anyways unless the perv took the kid through my town after the alert was made. (My stations come from Los Angeles and I live three hours away.)

I don't consider the government interrupting a TV show to be a violation of privacy because all they know about me if they know that much is that I have my TV on (or my Tivo on) at a given time.

I remember during the Nixon Presidency that they wanted to be able to interrupt radio or TV with messages from the President. There better be mushroom clouds exploding for any President to be able to do that.


----------



## DCIFRTHS (Jan 6, 2000)

Amnesia said:


> I'm a firm believer in freedom of choice.


Me too, and I would stand right next to you defending that you are entitled to make your own choices.



Amnesia said:


> If you want to drop everything and go look for the missing child, that's your right.


Agreed. Again, I would stand right next to you defending your choice.



Amnesia said:


> But by the same token, if I choose not to go look for the child and instead want to watch a recording of _Without a Trace_ instead, that's my right.


I am going to add that your opinion on the subject of being interrupted for an Amber Alert disgusts me. Unfortunately, this is something I must stomach because one of the the downsides to living in a society, where freedom of choice is the norm, is that not everyone has the capacity to make intelligent choices.

There's a part of me that's hoping that you are assuming the role of _The Devil's Advocate_, and your post's purpose is just making a statement, and not how you truly feel.

I thought about what it would feel like if TiVo didn't record, or stopped recording (halfway through) the season finale of LOST due to the broadcast of an Amber Alert. Please note that LOST is my favorite show, and I really look forward to enjoying the experience in an uninterrupted setting. As far as TV goes, losing this show is a worst case scenario for me. Next, I thought about the fact that some little human being might possibly escape death, rape or any unimaginable (for me) crime because of the Amber Alert. My conclusion is that not watching the season finale of LOST would absolutely suck, I would be 100 percent disappointed, it would put me in a really bad mood, and you probably wouldn't want to be anywhere near me for several hours, but I would still choose to miss the show if there was even the slightest chance that it could interrupt a tragedy.


----------



## DCIFRTHS (Jan 6, 2000)

sieglinde said:


> I guess I am going to get flamed. When the Amber Alert system started (just the normal system with signs, scrolls on TV shows etc.) I questioned it on several levels. 1. Are children more important than other crime victims? (possibly because they are to young to aid themselves but some other people are disabled and also unable to aid themselves.) 2. Has anyone been rescued by the system which is probably pretty expensive to impliment. Has the timelyness of these alerts helped anyone? 3. Though I do agree with the sentiment that TV shows are not important. I live way out of the area where they are broadcast and probably would not be of any help anyways unless the perv took the kid through my town after the alert was made. (My stations come from Los Angeles and I live three hours away.)
> 
> I don't consider the government interrupting a TV show to be a violation of privacy because all they know about me if they know that much is that I have my TV on (or my Tivo on) at a given time.
> 
> I remember during the Nixon Presidency that they wanted to be able to interrupt radio or TV with messages from the President. There better be mushroom clouds exploding for any President to be able to do that.


It would be irresponsible not to ask questions, and consider whether any rule or law is necessary and/or effective. No flames from me.


----------



## GoHokies! (Sep 21, 2005)

sieglinde said:


> I guess I am going to get flamed.


Not at all - I'm dissapointed that you don't have more faith in our ability to have a rational discussion.



> 2. Has anyone been rescued by the system which is probably pretty expensive to impliment. Has the timelyness of these alerts helped anyone?


 a quick trip to google ("amber alert success") brings up a Penn State website that lists 15 separate success stories since 2002. The second result is for the Center for Missing and Exploited children that cites 6 success stories nationwide in 2008 alone and nearly 50 for 2007, so I would say that (despite the opinion of some here), these alerts really do work.



> 3. Though I do agree with the sentiment that TV shows are not important. I live way out of the area where they are broadcast and probably would not be of any help anyways unless the perv took the kid through my town after the alert was made. (My stations come from Los Angeles and I live three hours away.)


 Probably, but you never know - the fact that these alerts are broadcast in such a pervasive manner is what makes them effective.



> I don't consider the government interrupting a TV show to be a violation of privacy because all they know about me if they know that much is that I have my TV on (or my Tivo on) at a given time.


Thanks for that, I agree completely - clearly that view isn't shared by all if your fellow Californians.



> I remember during the Nixon Presidency that they wanted to be able to interrupt radio or TV with messages from the President. There better be mushroom clouds exploding for any President to be able to do that.


Before my time, but I would trust the C-in-C's discretion (even our current one) to only do this when it was truly important.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

c-surfer said:


> Does the government force Tivo to provide them with a back door?


As I stated TWO MESSAGES ABOVE, I believe this is a FCC and/or CableCard requirement.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

RBlount said:


> Please tell me this was in a sarcastic post, because I can't believe anyone would care more about their TV shows than a lost child.


If I'm watching a TV show *WEEKS, MONTHS, OR YEARS* later, why do I care about an Amber Alert that happened *THEN*?

Again, this ONLY happens with CableCards.

WE NOW BREAK INTO mattack's POST FOR AN IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT
The Lindberg baby has been kidnapped. More on this later.
NOW BACK TO THE ORIGINAL POST..

If it only happened when you were using Live TV, NOT watching a previously recorded programming, I could see it being reasonable.

Plus, as others have stated, until a recent bug was fixed, it *entirely ruined* your recording, and didn't start recording again when the Alert was over.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)




----------



## c-surfer (Jul 25, 2001)

Good news. The boy and father were apprehended by Interpol in Bucharest, Romania. I guess that proves the television Amber Alert system works and is more than a paranoia driven media PR exercise.

http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_9348890

RBlount, GoHokies!, webin, audioscience: You are incredibly self-righteous. You don't know me at all. I hope you're giving generously to the Red Cross China Earthquake Relief Fund.


----------



## GoHokies! (Sep 21, 2005)

mattack said:


> If I'm watching a TV show *WEEKS, MONTHS, OR YEARS* later, why do I care about an Amber Alert that happened *THEN*?


As I understand it, we're not talking about watching a recorded amber alert from months ago, we're talking about dumping to live TV and viewing a realtime Amber Alert.


----------



## GoHokies! (Sep 21, 2005)

c-surfer said:


> Good news. The boy and father were apprehended by Interpol in Bucharest, Romania. I guess that proves the television Amber Alert system works and is more than a paranoia driven media PR exercise.
> 
> http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_9348890
> 
> RBlount, GoHokies!, webin, audioscience: You are incredibly self-righteous. You don't know me at all. I hope you're giving generously to the Red Cross China Earthquake Relief Fund.


Your name calling, coupled with your willful ignorance how actual Amber Alerts have been successful in a wide number of cases shows the kind of person that you really are. You can't buy decency by donating to the Red Cross, either.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

DCIFRTHS said:


> I thought about what it would feel like if TiVo didn't record, or stopped recording (halfway through) the season finale of LOST due to the broadcast of an Amber Alert. _(...)_ My conclusion is that not watching the season finale of LOST would absolutely suck _(...)_ but I would still choose to miss the show if there was even the slightest chance that it could interrupt a tragedy.


If that's really true, then you should give up TV altogether and spend the time volunteering at organizations that try to help victims of crimes.

Right? You're saying that you'd prefer the slightest chance of helping a crime victim over watching the finale of your favorite show. Then why are you "wasting" your time watching TV? Or visiting an Internet forum? Again---there is a finite chance that the time you're spending here could otherwise be used to help out a crime victim.

To take it even further, perhaps you should sell your TV and maybe even your computer and donate the money to organizations that help fight crime.

OK, I doubt you're going to do all that. Very few people would. Even if someone feels strongly about helping out victims of tragedies, most people don't dedicate their entire lives to that endeavor. Most people want to be able to relax at home, too. They want to be able to watch the season finale of _Lost_ without having the recording interrupted by a message that chances are they could do nothing about.


----------



## Joules1111 (Jul 21, 2005)

Here is a link for anyone who might want to actually see how Amber Alerts have worked (links on the bottom for prior years).

I don't think anyone is going to start working for a Missing Children's organization 24/7. It's more a matter of priorities. If I miss the end of my t.v. show for something that I deem worthwhile like an Amber alert it isn't going to kill me. Therefore, it is a minor inconvenience in the hopes of something good coming out of it.


----------



## Lopey (Feb 12, 2004)

"The Sacramento County Sheriff's Department then issued its first-ever Amber Alert and notified Interpol, sheriff's spokeswoman Sharon Chow said."

So this is the first time...in how many years?? 

And see.. this is how it worked.. they thought he was leaving the country.. put this on TV so hopefully others that are going to the airport, or possibly even taking the same flight as him, might happen to see him...


----------



## skiajl6297 (Dec 27, 2007)

If (the collective) you are so tied to your right to watch tv, as to ignore even a remote possibility that a public message, which is an inconvenience to you, could even possibly, remotely, coincidentally save a life somewhere, somehow, you need a lesson in what is important in life. There is NEVER a moment in life where TV or your convenience surrounding its use is more important than the remotest possibility of saving a life. Yes, there are a billion other crimes, and no alerts for them, but how in any way does that negate the possible good of this process? Argue all you want about your constitutional rights, but any excuse why tv or TiVo is somehow more important than humanity is childishly ignorant.


----------



## Krandor (Jun 10, 2004)

skiajl6297 said:


> If (the collective) you are so tied to your right to watch tv, as to ignore even a remote possibility that a public message, which is an inconvenience to you, could even possibly, remotely, coincidentally save a life somewhere, somehow, you need a lesson in what is important in life. There is NEVER a moment in life where TV or your convenience surrounding its use is more important than the remotest possibility of saving a life. Yes, there are a billion other crimes, and no alerts for them, but how in any way does that negate the possible good of this process? Argue all you want about your constitutional rights, but any excuse why tv or TiVo is somehow more important than humanity is childishly ignorant.


I understand that part, but here is my biggest issue. The TV is mine - I bought it. The DVR is mine - I bought it. Somebody else should not be deciding what I watch for me. If I want to be iresponsible and only watch "fluff" programs (however you define that) then I should be allowed to without somebody else deciding that my TV and my DVR should be watching something else.

See, once you start down this path then it only gets worse. What if tomorrow they decide that everybody really needs to watch this presidental address or this news program or whatever?

Bottom line is I should have the right to watch what I want without somebody else deciding something else is "better" for me to watch.

I certainly feel bad about kids that are abducted and will help if there is anything I can do, but I have a fundamental problem with somebody else taking control of my equipment without my consent.


----------



## GoHokies! (Sep 21, 2005)

Then contact your elected representative and try and get the rules changed - I doubt that you'll be met with much success, as (fortunately) most of the rest of us are a little more open to helping out our fellow man.

Tivo is just implementing the same FCC rules that the cable company has to play by, so any blame at them is misplaced.


----------



## DougF (Mar 18, 2003)

There are some real heartless SOBs posting in this thread. We are talking about something that is irreplaceable! Once that TV program is over, it's gone forever! If I miss the last few minutes of the season finale of "Lost", I'll never be able to see it again!!!!

Now, a kid, that's easily taken care of. We all learned about the birds and the bees. If you lose your kid, just make another one. Plus, if you're lucky enough to have another of the same sex, you don't have to buy any new clothes or toys.

You Amber Alert fanboys and fangirls really need to take a hard look at your priorities.


----------



## Krandor (Jun 10, 2004)

GoHokies! said:


> Then contact your elected representative and try and get the rules changed - I doubt that you'll be met with much success, as (fortunately) most of the rest of us are a little more open to helping out our fellow man.
> 
> Tivo is just implementing the same FCC rules that the cable company has to play by, so any blame at them is misplaced.


I don't blame TiVo, but I just dislike the idea of being forced to watch something without even giving me an option. When you start adding stuff in like this under the claim it "benefits society" or "benefits your fellow man" the same argument can start to be used for all kinds of other things and don't think people won't try to stretch the reach of stuff like this. It is better just not to start letting government decide which things you "must" watch unfortunatly we are now past that point now.


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

Krandor said:


> Bottom line is I should have the right to watch what I want without somebody else deciding something else is "better" for me to watch.


The rules makers feel there are conditions that merit interrupting your rights. If you feel those merits don't pass muster then make an argument that the benefits don't outweigh the costs or there is another economically feasable way to accomplish the same thing. It is as simple as that. We can argue all day about it but the only argument that really count are the ones before the courts.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

c-surfer said:


> I'm so pissed. Why is this my problem? Who do I complain to? Who can I sue?


You can blame the rest of society for having compassion.

But don't worry, if your kid / family is ever missing, we'll promptly ignore the alerts and get pissed off that it interrupted our TV show....

I could give a crap that someone's missing child interfered with your stupid TV show...


----------



## derspiess (Jul 10, 2007)

DougF said:


> There are some real heartless SOBs posting in this thread. We are talking about something that is irreplaceable! Once that TV program is over, it's gone forever! If I miss the last few minutes of the season finale of "Lost", I'll never be able to see it again!!!!
> 
> Now, a kid, that's easily taken care of. We all learned about the birds and the bees. If you lose your kid, just make another one. Plus, if you're lucky enough to have another of the same sex, you don't have to buy any new clothes or toys.
> 
> You Amber Alert fanboys and fangirls really need to take a hard look at your priorities.


My gripe with this is not that I'm inconvenienced, but that the government can be intrusive enough to change my channel against my wishes. I'm fully in favor of broadcasting the Amber Alerts, displaying them on the electronic highway signs, etc., as a private citizen I should not be *forced* to view them.

Government continues to get bigger & more powerful, and individual liberties continue to erode, one small bit at a time. Not only do people not care, they applaud this. Sad.


----------



## RS4 (Sep 2, 2001)

Well put me in the crowd of wanting an opt-in option. Anytime I read something like this where it's 'good for society', I get my hackles up. I don't like the government - i.e. a bunch of people who have been bought off, or otherwise don't have a lick of sense - telling me what is good for me.

This is no different then seat belts or smoking in a restaurant. If I want to live my life in a style that might seem risky to others, or I want to own an establishment that allows smoking, those are decisions that I should be allowed to make, and this kind of 'society benefits' arguments is totally ridiculous in my book.

This is just another example of government of infringing on my time because 'they know what's best for me'. 

I hate DirecTV, but at least they didn't show some stupid EMS test alert in the middle of the night when I am watching TV.

So, unless you give me an opt-in option, I immediately turn of the TV. I'll choose who I want to help when I want to help. I don't need a bunch of do-gooders telling me what I need to be watching.


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

Wow this sure hit some people's nerve's and caused us to veer off track a bit.

Also, some people seem to have a real false impression of how this country works and what rights they have (or more importantly don't have).


----------



## GoHokies! (Sep 21, 2005)

Adam1115 said:


> You can blame the rest of society for having compassion.
> 
> But don't worry, if your kid / family is ever missing, we'll promptly ignore the alerts and get pissed off that it interrupted our TV show....
> 
> I could give a crap that someone's missing child interfered with your stupid TV show...


Wow - never agreeing on anything, the fact that Adam and I are in perfect agreement on this one should really say something.


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

I didn't realize the stupid thing changed channels. How weird is that? Oh well, I have only seen the scrolls and the highway signs.

As for POTUS interupting TV and radio, the idea did not fly under the Nixon term because no one trusted him not to be political and interrupt it for something stupid.

Actually for POTUS level stuff, we have so many cable channels that we see everything live. I watched the second plane come in to the WTC live. If there ever was a moment to interrupt your regularily scheduled programming that was the moment.


Oh by the way, if I miss Lost tonight, I will down load it from itunes or Unbox. I don't see the big deal in missing an episode. I had to do that with Moonlight and Numb3rs last week because there was something wrong with my cable.


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

sieglinde said:


> I didn't realize the stupid thing changed channels. How weird is that?


The problem is the implementation of ems in the digital realm. If the cable company needs to broadcast a local emergency message they could 1) overlay that message on every channel they are currently broadcasting or 2) force-tune all the digital tuners to the single emergency broadcast. Until very recently the technology did not exist economically to overlay on every digital stream. The force-tune was a good solution but some tuners had a bug where they did not tune back after the ems. I think TiVo fixed that now so it does return to the previous channel and continues recording.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Krandor said:


> I understand that part, but here is my biggest issue. The TV is mine - I bought it. The DVR is mine - I bought it. Somebody else should not be deciding what I watch for me. If I want to be iresponsible and only watch "fluff" programs (however you define that) then I should be allowed to without somebody else deciding that my TV and my DVR should be watching something else.
> 
> See, once you start down this path then it only gets worse. What if tomorrow they decide that everybody really needs to watch this presidental address or this news program or whatever? .


then you are clearly ignorant of how the law works and how the right to invade your privacy is being decided.
The obligation to protect the welfare of the populace can over ride the individual right to privacy. That is what our process of lawmaking and interpretation by the Supreme Court is all about - keeping track of that fine line.

IN the case of DUI the courts have allowed checkpoints on major roads even though no probable casue to stop all people is present.

The Congress, Executive branch and Courts have of course struggled with security acts passed due to 9/11.

You have the right to swing your arms around in public with no one asking why until it hits my nose.

and so on

So this would not be a system for the presidnet to break into all TV viewing so we can watch the Republican nominee be officially appointed. Nor could it be used to have us all watch our daily message from the Government. That would clearly not be balanced out by the welfare of the populace measures of safety and need for immediacy. now a Government official breaking in to warn of of some imminent known threat - that is within the line.

and clearly making maximum use of everybody and anybody in the first hours after a known abduction of a child - that completely overrules your right to privacy on your TV. If it upsets you then turn the TV off and work on lobbying to overturn this doctrine our country follows - I wish you no luck with that though as I think Amber alerts are a very good thing


----------



## miadlor (Sep 4, 2003)

This has to be the saddest post I've ever seen.


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

Until someone has their own children they can't possibly understand their true value. It is really that simple.


----------



## jimb726 (Jan 4, 2007)

HiDefGator said:


> Until someone has their own children they can't possibly understand their true value. It is really that simple.


Something tells me that it would make no difference for the people whether they have children or not. They feel they have been violated and they would put their percieved rights in front of their childs well being I guess.


----------



## GoHokies! (Sep 21, 2005)

miadlor said:


> This has to be the saddest post I've ever seen.


You're going to have to be more specific, there many of the preceding 67 posts are vying for that "honor".


----------



## Joules1111 (Jul 21, 2005)

HiDefGator said:


> Until someone has their own children they can't possibly understand their true value. It is really that simple.


I take a wee bit of offense to this (though not near as much as I do to the OP).

I don't have children and have no issue with the Amber Alerts taking over my television. I don't think it's children you have to have, just the ability to empathies with a parent who has lost one.


----------



## tivoupgrade (Sep 27, 2000)

HiDefGator said:


> Until someone has their own children they can't possibly understand their true value. It is really that simple.


This struck me funny, as well.

We can't have kids and as it turns out my wife may need a kidney over these next few years.

Not sure how the balance of whose needs are more important than others is determined within the context of the original post, but I can certainly see why this is a polarizing issue and why contrary opinions should be considered (in a mature discussion).

Everyone has different issues and priorities and value is subjective.

Personally, I don't mind if my TV switches on/off or changes channels in a situation like this, but I wouldn't begrudge someone who was bothered by it.


----------



## Mishkin (Apr 20, 2002)

Food for thought from Wikipedia...



> Since the NCMEC has been involved in the Amber Alert System, most of the alerts have been for Parental Abductions rather than the original intended use for Stranger Abductions, resulting in a lot more Amber Alerts being issued.
> 
> . . .
> 
> ...


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

Joules1111 said:


> I take a wee bit of offense to this (though not near as much as I do to the OP).
> 
> I don't have children and have no issue with the Amber Alerts taking over my television. I don't think it's children you have to have, just the ability to empathies with a parent who has lost one.


Perhaps I was a bit too broad in my statement. I certainly didn't mean to insult anyone that wanted children, but couldn't have them for whatever reason. But I still think my statement covers a lot of the nonsense in this thread.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Mishkin said:


> Food for thought from Wikipedia...


good find. Certainly the alerts should meet the criteria of imminent danger to the child. In many child "abductions" by one parent - the child may well be getting away from the other dangerous parent that led the other parent to such an extreme.

IF Police do not see a threat from a parnet known to have been the abductor - an amber alert should not be sent.

I think in the specific case the OP had - the police were troubled by the fact that the husband who did the abduction also sexually assaulted the mother just before taking the child and that led them to perceive the imminent danger requiring an amber alert


----------



## [NG]Owner (Dec 19, 2006)

I was impacted by this as well, but for a weather alert. What annoyed me about the implementation was the inability for me to acknowledge the alert and go back to my recorded show, or regain control of my tuners. No matter what I did with the remote, I was not able to get back to the show I was watching. The weather alert did not phase me, nor did it affect me. It's my damn Tivo, so I yanked the cable cards. That got me my control back.

Let's face it there's a much more elegant way for this to be handled.

Situation 1) Watching live TV or a recorded show when an alert (of any kind) comes on. Neither tuner recording.

Behavior: Auto stop playback and/or switch to alert on tuner not presently in foreground. Give user an acknowledge ability to return to live TV on other tuner or NPL.

Situation 2) Watching Live TV or a recorded show when an alert (of any kind) comes on. One tuner recording.

Behavior: Auto stop playback and/or switch to alert on tuner not presently recording. Give user an acknowledge ability to return to tuner recording on other tuner or NPL.

Situation 3) Watching a recorded show or Live TV when an alert (of any kind) comes on. Both tuners recording. Use Season Pass Manager to determine which tuner to interrupt and switch to for the duration of the alert. Give user an acknowledge ability to return that tuner to the previous channel and continue recording or return to NPL.

Just to be crystal clear, I don't mind the interruption. I mind the draconian control. Thanks, I've seen the alert, but if I'm sitting there and I have determined that I cannot help or am not affected, I don't need to see the next x minutes of this alert. (How long do these things last anyway, I yanked the cards after three minutes.) And if it occurs during a time when I'm not sitting there, and can't acknowledge the alert, well the lower priortiy recording will just have to take one for the team, or for the greater good, or whatever.

It's the implementation, not the idea.

[NG]Owner


----------



## SeanC (Dec 30, 2003)

[NG]Owner;6314087 said:


> Just to be crystal clear, I don't mind the interruption. I mind the draconian control. Thanks, I've seen the alert, but if I'm sitting there and I have determined that I cannot help or am not affected, I don't need to see the next x minutes of this alert. (How long do these things last anyway, I yanked the cards after three minutes.) And if it occurs during a time when I'm not sitting there, and can't acknowledge the alert, well the lower priortiy recording will just have to take one for the team, or for the greater good, or whatever.
> 
> It's the implementation, not the idea.


Exactly.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

SeanC said:


> Exactly.


then you will need to petition the FCC for a change to the rules that TiVo has to follow.


----------



## [NG]Owner (Dec 19, 2006)

ZeoTiVo said:


> then you will need to petition the FCC for a change to the rules that TiVo has to follow.


Do the rules specify that *all* tuners on a single device must tune to the alert? Or do the rules specify that *a* tuner must tune to the alert?

Do the rules specify that there can be no acknowledgement of the alert to return control of the device to the viewer?

Do the rules specify that a tuner (or all tuners) *must* remain tuned to the alert for the duration of the alert?

Is there no room for implementation differences in the rules Tivo must follow?

[NG]Owner


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

[NG]Owner;6314172 said:


> Do the rules specify that *all* tuners on a single device must tune to the alert? Or do the rules specify that *a* tuner must tune to the alert?
> 
> Do the rules specify that there can be no acknowledgement of the alert to return control of the device to the viewer?
> 
> ...


How family friendly would Tivo look if the FCC complained they weren't following it close enough? Tivo really likes to push that kidzone thing.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

[NG]Owner;6314172 said:


> Do the rules specify that *all* tuners on a single device must tune to the alert? Or do the rules specify that *a* tuner must tune to the alert?
> 
> Do the rules specify that there can be no acknowledgement of the alert to return control of the device to the viewer?
> 
> ...


I do not have an issue with the amber alert on TiVo so I am not compelled to find the rule and find the specifics of it. I would guess the rule is about presenting the info to the viewer on screen and audio so sure TiVo should have some leeway with dual tuners. Course TiVo still has some glitch about suggestions taking over an obviously in use by the viewer tuner - rather they fix that first but if they could make amber alert behavior better - then like I said way back on the second or third paost - that would be a good discussion for feedback to TiVo


----------



## GoHokies! (Sep 21, 2005)

[NG]Owner;6314172 said:


> Do the rules specify that *all* tuners on a single device must tune to the alert? Or do the rules specify that *a* tuner must tune to the alert?
> 
> Do the rules specify that there can be no acknowledgement of the alert to return control of the device to the viewer?
> 
> ...


47 CFR Part 11:


> The Video interrupt must cause all channels that carry programming to flash for the duration of the EAS emergency message. The audio alert must give the channel where the EAS messages are carried and be repeated for the duration of the EAS message.
> 
> All digital cable systems and/Wireline Video Systems may comply with this requirement by providing a means to switch all programmed channels to a predesignated channel that carries the required audio and video EAS messages.


Since there seems to be nothing in here that speaks to exempting tuners, it stands to reason that ALL TUNERS should go to the predesignated channel, so the answer to your first question is "no".

Doesn't look like there is any room for "creative interpenetration" in there to me - and if someone tried it, I'm sure that they would just change the rules to close the loophole.


----------



## menos (Nov 13, 2007)

Krandor said:


> I understand that part, but here is my biggest issue. The TV is mine - I bought it. The DVR is mine - I bought it. Somebody else should not be deciding what I watch for me.


Using that logic. Your car is yours - You bought it. How dare the gubmit tell me that I can't do 120 on the highway. How dare they tell me to wear my seatbelt.

The government has to balance the needs of the many versus the desires of the few. No mater what your leaning, people can argue that the government has strayed one way or the other. However the government has a duty to protect its people, it is after all a government 'For the People'. Your argument is a slippery slope toward total anarchy.


----------



## miadlor (Sep 4, 2003)

GoHokies! said:


> You're going to have to be more specific, there many of the preceding 67 posts are vying for that "honor".


The OP's and any post that agrees.


----------



## webin (Feb 13, 2008)

menos said:


> Your argument is a slippery slope toward total anarchy.


And your's is a slippery slope towards 1984. Don't close your eyes to both sides of the argument because you feel your opinion is clearly the more righteous. This thread is so long and the arguments so heated and passionate because it isn't clear cut. People fall on both sides of the argument. Some want the government to take actions for the greater good of the people, and some want government that keeps their hands out of personal matters.

Don't get me wrong here. I love children, I think children need the protection they can't provide for themselves. I agree that the Amber Alert system is a good (albeit overly expensive) system to provide some of that protection. I do think the current tivo/digital cable procedures (as described here, since I haven't seen it myself) is a poor way to spread the alert to the needed eyeballs (and it seems like it's mostly the result of overzealous FCC guidelines).

Will I petition the FCC to refine the guidelines to be something that is both useful and not overly intrusive? Naw. The odds of me even seeing one of these alerts is fairly low, and I don't care about the common good/personal intrusion issue enough to go to the trouble.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

GoHokies! said:


> Wow - never agreeing on anything, the fact that Adam and I are in perfect agreement on this one should really say something.


Oh stop, we've agreed an a couple of other things....


----------



## webin (Feb 13, 2008)

Slightly off-topic (amber alerts on tivo), but I just heard about this service on the radio: https://www.wirelessamberalerts.org/index.jsp

If you sign up with them, they will send a free text message to your cell phone if an Amber Alert is issued in your area. To me, this is a good example of how to properly implement the Alerting system. It's opt-in, so only people who "potentially care" will be getting the message, and it's sent to a cell phone, which is much more likely to be at hand when someone is out and about (and available to look out for the child).


----------



## pomerlp (Apr 22, 2008)

As soon as I saw this thread I knew it was going to be controversial.

My opinion is that I don't blame the OP, I see his point. But I have to say I think this is something that we have to put up with.

I don't have kids, I don't even like kids. I find them annoying, sometimes very cruel to others including adults. I'm not comfortable around kids.

Yet I still see why a parent would want to spread the word of their child being missing. I've got plenty of friends with kids and I know that they would do anything to protect their child. So while it may be annoying to the OP, tough tittie said the kitty when the milk ran dry.

Deal with it.


----------



## jim_h (May 6, 2008)

As an earlier post pointed out, the great majority of Amber Alerts are just nonsense - custody disputes aired in public. And in a nation of 300 million people, bad things are happening to children somewhere, every minute of the day. In fact we could have non-stop 24/7 warnings about threatening,weather, traffic accidents, "abducted" children, contaminated food, air quality alerts, escaped sex offenders, and countless other dangers real and imagined. It should be up to each individual to decide how much of this information they need or want to take in.


----------



## TivoZorro (Jul 16, 2000)

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/2918245/

This happened here recently - Amber Alert Hoax. I remember them talking about the alert on TV. Can't remember if they interrupted any tv programs or just did the scroll. Nobody seems to be saying what is going to happen to the mother.


----------



## pomerlp (Apr 22, 2008)

jim_h said:


> As an earlier post pointed out, the great majority of Amber Alerts are just nonsense - custody disputes aired in public. And in a nation of 300 million people, bad things are happening to children somewhere, every minute of the day. In fact we could have non-stop 24/7 warnings about threatening,weather, traffic accidents, "abducted" children, contaminated food, air quality alerts, escaped sex offenders, and countless other dangers real and imagined. It should be up to each individual to decide how much of this information they need or want to take in.


You know I forgot about that. Many of these alerts are caused by baby mama daddy drama. And as far as sex offenders go the news puts to much emphasis on "strangers" when I think I saw 99% of the time it's a family member.

I changed my mind. I think I agree now with the OP.


----------



## liquid8 (Apr 3, 2008)

I''d like to jump off the Amber alert thing (because it's starting to become an entirely different conversation) and talk about the Emergency Alert system in general.

Today, we were trying to watch a recorded show, and every 5 minutes an "Emergency" alert comes up... for severe thunderstorms. Just to be clear, we live in South Florida, where there are severe thunderstorms on a regular basis for many months. Now, assuming this was a killer thunderstorm, I am glad that I have been informed, but do a need a new update at 5 minute intervals? I have been warned, can I move on now? We now cannot watch the show now until this "Emergency" is over.

The real question is this - Emergency alerts ARE a good thing, and Tivo IS required to show them. I am assuming since the alert is through the cable company, it is unable to overlay this message on the recorded show, instead of kicking you out of it? So this seems to be something we will have to deal with until tru2way.. which by then I will need to by a new Tivo system, and still don't know that the issue will be resolved.


----------



## pomerlp (Apr 22, 2008)

liquid8 said:


> Today, we were trying to watch a recorded show, and every 5 minutes an "Emergency" alert comes up... for severe thunderstorms. Just to be clear, we live in South Florida, where there are severe thunderstorms on a regular basis for many months. Now, assuming this was a killer thunderstorm, I am glad that I have been informed, but do a need a new update at 5 minute intervals? I have been warned, can I move on now? We now cannot watch the show now until this "Emergency" is over.
> 
> The real question is this - Emergency alerts ARE a good thing, and Tivo IS required to show them. I am assuming since the alert is through the cable company, it is unable to overlay this message on the recorded show, instead of kicking you out of it? So this seems to be something we will have to deal with until tru2way.. which by then I will need to by a new Tivo system, and still don't know that the issue will be resolved.


If a tornado is headed in my direction I sure as heck want to know about it. Unfortunately a County that is 40 miles away I'm really not interested unless I have family or friends in that area.

I have a desktop weather client and it will inform me as well about sever weather and usually you will know if something is brewing by either your local news or if you have a Weather Radio.

The question is - Is this saving lives? If it is then again even if it's someone I don't know then fine. I mean it is only a television show and if I do miss it there is Amazon.com and that other thing with the initials bt so nothing is impossible to recover. Well almost nothing.


----------



## CrashHD (Nov 10, 2006)

The Amber Alert system is a total wreck of uselessness. They occur with such frequency, that no one pays attention to it. They should hold it to the same standards as the emergency broadcast system. If there's a weather event threatening thousands of people in a populated area, please do interrupt my television for it. If dead beat daddy is 4 hours late returning jr from his weekend visitation, I don't give a sh1t. Not interruption worthy, to say the least. 

The other thing the amber alert system needs is a punishment. In my opinion, a parent who allows his/her child to be kidnapped should be considered an accomplice of the kidnapper, and charged/sentenced accordingly. A child cannot be kidnapped without there first being parental neglegence to make the kidnapping possible. Catch the kidnapper, charge him/her with kidnapping. Catch the liable parent, charge him/her with reckless endangerment. Make a few examples of the first few parents allowing their children to be kidnapped, and people will start watching their children carefully enough to prevent their kidnapping in the first place.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

CrashHD said:


> The other thing the amber alert system needs is a punishment. In my opinion, a parent who allows his/her child to be kidnapped should be considered an accomplice of the kidnapper, and charged/sentenced accordingly.


Well, there are degrees. A parent who leaves their child alone in a locked car is one thing. A parent whose child is taken from them at gunpoint is another.


----------



## CrashHD (Nov 10, 2006)

Amnesia said:


> Well, there are degrees. A parent who leaves their child alone in a locked car is one thing. A parent whose child is taken from them at gunpoint is another.


Pay attention to the amber alerts. I have yet to see one where a child was taken by force. Now, I certainly haven't seen them all, but the majority of them were a result of parental inattentiveness/carelessness/recklessness.

Your example of an "at gunpoint" is an example of a "less inexcusable" event. It may be less inexcusable that way, but less inexcusable does not = excusable. The gunman may not even be willing/psychologically capable of pulling the trigger (I suspect most aren't).

It will take more than a gun for anyone to ever get between me and my kids. To be specific, it will take a gun and bullets. Probably 2 or more.


----------



## Emacee (Dec 15, 2000)

Some people here are apparently incapable of logical thought.

(1) The show on the travel channel was recorded. By the time the original poster saw it, the alert was out of date. Amber Alerts are only useful because they allow the public to take quick action.

(2) Amber alerts might be useful on the radio. People in their cars might actually see something useful. Somebody sitting at home watching TV is going to be no help at all.

These wall-to-wall amber alerts (on all channels, you can't avoid them) come from cable companies. They do them to placate local governments which award cable franchises (and also require them to waste bandwidth on school channels and public access channels nobody watches). 

And people who've gotten involved in a program don't want to see it interrupted. The network stations have wised up about this and have started using crawls across the bottom of the screen - and not cutting into a show. The cable systems could do that, too.

I wonder what else the cable systems and local regulators are going to decide we must see right now (while being oblivious to the fact that more and more DVR users will not see it "right now")? Around here, they do weather alerts, too.


----------



## pomerlp (Apr 22, 2008)

Emacee said:


> Some people here are apparently incapable of logical thought.
> 
> (2) Amber alerts might be useful on the radio. People in their cars might actually see something useful. Somebody sitting at home watching TV is going to be no help at all.


Still agreeing with the OP, on this point however I can find an argument. If you were sitting at home and they showed the picture of the "suspect" or child any one might recognize him or her from maybe just coming home seeing him in a convenience store or restaurant. But that would only be if it was live television.

Another point is that if you go to the "Now Playing - TV Talk" thread there are discussions going on about the shows while they are being broadcast. So many people seem to still watch live television, though for what reason I don't know.


----------



## greg_burns (May 22, 2004)

Emacee said:


> Some people here are apparently incapable of logical thought.
> 
> (1) The show on the travel channel was recorded. By the time the original poster saw it, the alert was out of date. Amber Alerts are only useful because they allow the public to take quick action.


Why do you say it was recorded? He was watching a recording and it switched to live TV to show a banner scroll (which doesn't get recorded). Not really sure what Travel channel has to do with it, other than being the channel the scroll is overlayed on? 

I've never seen one, is it just a scroll or is there video?


----------



## jhimmel (Dec 27, 2002)

Emacee said:


> Some people here are apparently incapable of logical thought.
> 
> (1) The show on the travel channel was recorded. By the time the original poster saw it, the alert was out of date. Amber Alerts are only useful because they allow the public to take quick action.


Before throwing insults around, re-read the first two posts by the OP. It switched to a LIVE alert. Check yourself.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

The only kind of alert I've seen is a force-tune*: the tuner is switched to a specific channel that displays a message, and you can't do anything for a few seconds (or up to a few minutes). Then it switches back. If you're recording at the time, the alert is recorded, and the corresponding portion of the program is lost. (Before the last software update, it was much worse: the recording would stop at that point, and not resume.) If you're watching a previous recording, you're forced to LiveTV, and you're not sent back to your recording when the alert lets you go. (Before the last software update, it was much worse: the Tivo lost track of your place in the program.)

The only way around this is to put your TiVo in Standby mode. In Standby, force-tuning is suppressed, because it's only intended to apply to live viewers. Unfortunately many TiVo owners never use Standby mode.

* Also, IIRC, the only kind of alert I've seen is a test (and lots of them), which makes this whole thing extremely annoying.


----------



## greg_burns (May 22, 2004)

wmcbrine said:


> If you're recording at the time, the alert is recorded, and the corresponding portion of the program is lost. (Before the last software update, it was much worse: the recording would stop at that point, and not resume.)


So lets say you weren't at your Tivo during the alert. Later you are watching a recording that took place during the time of the alert. You will see in the recording a channel change and the alert? I can see where Emacee might get the impression that alerts are not live (if you only ever saw them during playback.)


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

greg_burns said:


> So lets say you weren't at your Tivo during the alert. Later you are watching a recording that took place during the time of the alert. You will see in the recording a channel change and the alert?


Yes -- unless your TiVo was in Standby at the time of the alert.

I don't think the channel change would be apparent per se, though, just the alert itself. (I'm assuming a Series 3 or TiVo HD here. I don't think that any of this applies to a Series 2, although you might see a similar effect on a cable box that an S2 was recording from.)


----------



## Grinderhand (Apr 19, 2005)

SeanC said:


> As a person who finds these messages stupid my main beef is the audience they are talking to. 99% of people watching TV are home, not out and about in the world, the medium to get the word out quickly to a populace that has a chance to see something is radio. I dunno why they are bothering to tell people watching TV.


A very good point. I can say that i have NEVER heard an Amber Alert on the radio station to which I listen. They have broadcast weather alerts many times, but never a single AA. Many times I come home from work to find an AA crawler along the bottom of whatever program is playing on TV, but I never heard word 1 on the radio, where I or anyone might personally have a chance to do something about it in a more timely manner. Things that make you go "Hmmmm..."

And for those who would say "Well, maybe you saw something on the way home from work pertinent to the AA?", I would say that I don't know about everyone, but when I'm on my way home from work, I'm on autopilot, and unless I physically ran into the subject of the AA, it would not register on my radar at all. Maybe that's just me.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Grinderhand said:


> but when I'm on my way home from work, I'm on autopilot, and unless I physically ran into the subject of the AA, it would not register on my radar at all. Maybe that's just me.


and being just you the Amber alerts are designed to go out to MANY people so it also gets to someone who might make a difference in an imminent danger case. I still have no clue how the "Amber Alert does no good by me argument" negates it being spread to a wide audience.


----------



## Grinderhand (Apr 19, 2005)

ZeoTiVo said:


> I still have no clue


Exactly. A "wider audience" who would be in a position to help would be those who are out driving around and might see something, hence my point about the wisdom of imposing this burden on the TV audience while making no such requirements on the radio medium. It makes very little sense to limit the imposition of interrupting regular programming to the visual audience since 95% of the time the initial reports include only a textual-based physical description of the alleged victim, which could serve the same purpose whether read or heard audibly. Speaking only for myself, if I heard a description of an AA subject while stopped at a light, I would be more inclined to scan the surrounding area and this scenario would have a much better chance of producing results than hearing or seeing the same description after I got home from work and trying to scan my memory of the trip home. I'm just looking at the situation and saying "Why not?"


----------



## megazone (Mar 3, 2002)

wmcbrine said:


> The only way around this is to put your TiVo in Standby mode. In Standby, force-tuning is suppressed, because it's only intended to apply to live viewers. Unfortunately many TiVo owners never use Standby mode.


I'm glad someone mentioned this, I was about to.


----------



## jim_h (May 6, 2008)

I'm one of those weird guys who still doesn't have cable. And I was absolutley shocked to hear about this "force tuning" thing - I had to read these posts a couple of times before I understood that yes, Tivo switches the channel on its own and forces you to look at a public service alert. It's mind boggling, like an old Twilight Zone show.

How about creating a dedicated cable channel with non-stop alerts about everything bad happening in the world at this exact moment? Call it the "High Anxiety" channel. I am only half joking - it would attract a huge audience.

"Amber Alerts" on the highway have no more effect than the back-up beepers on trucks, or the 3rd automobile taillight mandated by Elizabeth Dole, or car alarms going off in mall parking ramps, or bottom-of-screen crawlers blabbering about thunderstorms 3 counties away. We simply stop paying attention, because it's impossible.


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

People are getting all hung up on the fact that the channel changes. The fact that TiVo changes channels is irrelevant, that is just the implementation for performing the mandated functionality. Who cares if it changes channels or overrides your screen. Same effect either way. Channel changes were just the easiest implementation.


----------



## CrashHD (Nov 10, 2006)

jim_h said:


> 3rd automobile taillight mandated .


I like them. It does make braking much more visible from a distance.


----------



## GoHokies! (Sep 21, 2005)

CrashHD said:


> In my opinion, a parent who allows his/her child to be kidnapped should be considered an accomplice of the kidnapper, and charged/sentenced accordingly. A child cannot be kidnapped without there first being parental neglegence to make the kidnapping possible. Catch the kidnapper, charge him/her with kidnapping. Catch the liable parent, charge him/her with reckless endangerment. Make a few examples of the first few parents allowing their children to be kidnapped, and people will start watching their children carefully enough to prevent their kidnapping in the first place.


So by your metric, we should also just go ahead and strike laws against rape from the books too. You see, if a woman doesn't want to get raped, she just has to fight back! If she ends up getting "raped", then she just didn't fight back hard enough, and obviously wanted it, ergo no rape. If the perp is willing to kill to get what he wants, then we can just get him on murder!


----------



## CrashHD (Nov 10, 2006)

GoHokies! said:


> So by your metric, we should also just go ahead and strike laws against rape from the books too. You see, if a woman doesn't want to get raped, she just has to fight back! If she ends up getting "raped", then she just didn't fight back hard enough, and obviously wanted it, ergo no rape. If the perp is willing to kill to get what he wants, then we can just get him on murder!


Nice strawman. That was a completely ridiculous, illogical spin on my point.

If those are the terms you want to see this in, than I shall try one more time to explain. A parent who allows their child to be kidnapped would be analogous to a rape victim that doesn't even bother to say "no".


----------



## Martin Tupper (Dec 18, 2003)

jim_h said:


> "Amber Alerts" on the highway have no more effect than the back-up beepers on trucks, or the 3rd automobile taillight mandated by Elizabeth Dole, or car alarms going off in mall parking ramps, or bottom-of-screen crawlers blabbering about thunderstorms 3 counties away. We simply stop paying attention, because it's impossible.


Then let me be the first to call for a _fourth _taillight.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Grinderhand said:


> Exactly. A "wider audience" who would be in a position to help would be those who are out driving around and might see something, hence my point about the wisdom of imposing this burden on the TV audience while making no such requirements on the radio medium. It makes very little sense to limit the imposition of interrupting regular programming to the visual audience since 95% of the time the initial reports include only a textual-based physical description of the alleged victim, which could serve the same purpose whether read or heard audibly.


then you have no clue of thetech either (despite your unclever attempt to paint me as the one without a clue) - it is harder for a cable broadcaster to put a scrawl *on every channel* then to send the signal to tune to the channel with the Amber Alert info. Since they are sending people to a specific channel then they figure they might as well put a talking head with the info - plus they can usually get some picture of the child up as well.

The TV is a way to reach more people and obviously many homes will have the TV on right after work. The argument that *you, one individual* is in your home and thus of no use is silly in the extreme when you are discussing a system being broadcast to many, many people at the same time. I hope that is just your emotion over missing out on some important show while the annoyingly empathetic community tries to help some useless kid, and not your usual logical reasoning being applied.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

CrashHD said:


> Nice strawman. That was a completely ridiculous, illogical spin on my point.
> 
> If those are the terms you want to see this in, than I shall try one more time to explain. A parent who allows their child to be kidnapped would be analogous to a rape victim that doesn't even bother to say "no".


come on, you are just tossing out stuff to get a reaction now. All kidnapping cases are not about negligent parents and proving you did indeed say "No" to make a rape case is ridiculous, and I bet actually you think the same thing.


----------



## GoHokies! (Sep 21, 2005)

CrashHD said:


> Pay attention to the amber alerts. I have yet to see one where a child was taken by force. Now, I certainly haven't seen them all, but the majority of them were a result of parental inattentiveness/carelessness/recklessness.
> 
> *Your example of an "at gunpoint" is an example of a "less inexcusable" event. It may be less inexcusable that way, but less inexcusable does not = excusable. *The gunman may not even be willing/psychologically capable of pulling the trigger (I suspect most aren't).
> 
> It will take more than a gun for anyone to ever get between me and my kids. To be specific, it will take a gun and bullets. Probably 2 or more.





CrashHD said:


> Nice strawman. That was a completely ridiculous, illogical spin on my point.
> 
> If those are the terms you want to see this in, than I shall try one more time to explain. A parent who allows their child to be kidnapped would be analogous to a rape victim that doesn't even bother to say "no".


That's not what you said in the part I bolded.

Your proposition of punishing the victim is just as ludicrous in either case.


----------



## jim_h (May 6, 2008)

ah30K, are these alerts actually "mandated" by the cable companies? If so, what's the legal basis used by them to compel a DVR manufacturer to implement something like this at their own expense?

I admit I'm outraged by this. Forget "Amber Alerts", the issue is the cable companies compelling you to watch something that a government agency wants you to watch at that particular moment.


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

jim_h said:


> ah30K, are these alerts actually "mandated" by the cable companies? If so, what's the legal basis used by them to compel a DVR manufacturer to implement something like this at their own expense?
> 
> I admit I'm outraged by this. Forget "Amber Alerts", the issue is the cable companies compelling you to watch something that a government agency wants you to watch at that particular moment.


This has already been brought up in this thread. The system is mandated by FCC requirements.


----------



## RS4 (Sep 2, 2001)

jim_h said:


> ah30K, are these alerts actually "mandated" by the cable companies? If so, what's the legal basis used by them to compel a DVR manufacturer to implement something like this at their own expense?
> 
> I admit I'm outraged by this. Forget "Amber Alerts", the issue is the cable companies compelling you to watch something that a government agency wants you to watch at that particular moment.


I think what annoys me the most - as in most cases with the government knowing what is 'best for society' - is that all common sense is lost. The current implementation offers no way of tuning back to the original recording - hence I turn of the TV. What would make even more sense would be an opt-in system for getting the notice, but at the very least - let me change back to the recording I was watching.

And if they are breaking in for the TV audience, why not the radio audience as well - after all the apparent goal is to gather as many eyeballs and ear lobes as possible?

I also have no idea why they seem to have to broadcast the EMS test message once a week. That thing is a total annoyance. I'm sure with today's technology there must be a way for them to 'test' the equipment without broadcasting to the general public.


----------



## mproper (Aug 16, 2005)

I think the weather alerts are great if they are accurate. I am happy to know that my TiVo will let me know if a tornado is coming. They are frustrating when they are inaccurate. Last week I was watching TV and an alert came on for a tornado watch. I was surprised because our weather forecast had mentioned no such possibility. I tried to change the channel for local weather and was not able to get the TiVo to respond at all. This would not have been too terrible had the alert cleared. I had to wait for a string of 3 - 4 different alerts to each repeat on my screen taking at least 8 minutes. The really problematic part is that all of the alerts were for areas 120 - 150 miles east of my city. They were nowhere near our broad viewing area. I had to go to another TV to make sure that we were ok.


----------



## kemajor (Jan 2, 2003)

c-surfer said:


> So I'm watching my favorite recorded program on Tivo, and it spontaneously switches to the Travel Channel with some banner announcement about a missing child.
> 
> I'm so pissed. Why is this my problem? Who do I complain to? Who can I sue?
> 
> ...


They pull this same crap when there is a test of the ERS system and when there is bad weather. It is very annoying.

I don' think the missing child is going to be in my AV room. If they were (*which would never be the case*) I guess I probably wouldn't be calling it in, would I?

- Kelly


----------



## CrashHD (Nov 10, 2006)

ZeoTiVo said:


> come on, you are just tossing out stuff to get a reaction now. All kidnapping cases are not about negligent parents and proving you did indeed say "No" to make a rape case is ridiculous, and I bet actually you think the same thing.


That wasn't me. I posted a statement that parents should take some responsibility for protecting their children from being kidnapped, and should be punished for a failure to do so. GoHokies made the giant strawman leap to suggest that by that logic a rape victim is responsible for the crime, which I think is ridiculous.



GoHokies! said:


> So by your metric, we should also just go ahead and strike laws against rape from the books too. You see, if a woman doesn't want to get raped, she just has to fight back! If she ends up getting "raped", then she just didn't fight back hard enough, and obviously wanted it, ergo no rape. If the perp is willing to kill to get what he wants, then we can just get him on murder!





GoHokies! said:


> Your proposition of punishing the victim is just as ludicrous in either case.


The victim is the child. I made no suggestions that the child be punished. I suggested parents who by their recklessness, inattentiveness, and or inaction allow their child to be kidnapped, should have consequences to deal with.



GoHokies! said:


> That's not what you said in the part I bolded.


I did not respond to that aspect of it because it was not quoted in your original post. It is not highly relevant, because only a small percentage of kidnappings occur through use of force, and/or at gunpoint. 
Just because someone points a gun at you, doesn't mean you should no longer be held responsible for your own actions. Anyone willing to surrender theirchild to a mad gunmen to save their own ass is a coward, and an unfit parent.


----------



## GoHokies! (Sep 21, 2005)

CrashHD said:


> That wasn't me. I posted a statement that parents should take some responsibility for protecting their children from being kidnapped, and should be punished for a failure to do so. GoHokies made the giant strawman leap to suggest that by that logic a rape victim is responsible for the crime, which I think is ridiculous.


 Not as ridiculous as wanting to charge parents as accomplices of the person who kidnaps their children.



> The victim is the child. I made no suggestions that the child be punished. I suggested parents who by their recklessness, inattentiveness, and or inaction allow their child to be kidnapped, should have consequences to deal with.


Suuuuure, parents don't suffer at all when their kids are kidnapped.



> Just because someone points a gun at you, doesn't mean you should no longer be held responsible for your own actions. Anyone willing to surrender their child body to a mad gunmen to save their own ass is a coward, and an unfit parent.


I'm glad that you're such a perfect parent. Those of us that live in touch with the real world seem to see the situation a little differently with a little bit more compassion and understanding.


----------



## pomerlp (Apr 22, 2008)

CrashHD said:


> I did not respond to that aspect of it because it was not quoted in your original post. It is not highly relevant, because only a small percentage of kidnappings occur through use of force, and/or at gunpoint.
> Just because someone points a gun at you, doesn't mean you should no longer be held responsible for your own actions. Anyone willing to surrender theirchild to a mad gunmen to save their own ass is a coward, and an unfit parent.


I'm not a parent so I certainly can't speak for the majority of people with kids. I am however a human being. As such I believe that if I loved someone with all my heart and it was my life or theirs, that doesn't necessarily mean I will give up my own life.

If that occurred I would feel guilty, cowardly, and absolutely hate myself but I honestly don't know if I am capable of throwing myself in front of the bullet. I'd have to be in that situation to find out.

Having said that to say the person is an unfit parent is simply not true. If the situation had not occurred they may have been a perfect parent, just lacking in the ability to sacrafice their own life and no one would ever know.

My brother use to shield his kids with his body when they were young on New Years and Independence Day when they were in bed. I thought he was crazy. First, he didn't live in a neighborhood where that happened and second putting your body in front of someone doesn't mean that the bullit will deflect and not hit the other person anyway.

And if it's some pervert and he kills you is that going to keep him from taking the kids?

Anyway isn't all this getting way off track of the thread topic? I actually had to look up to see what thread I just posted in, I was so shocked by the quoted post.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

CrashHD said:


> Nice strawman. That was a completely ridiculous, illogical spin on my point.
> 
> If those are the terms you want to see this in, than I shall try one more time to explain. A parent who allows their child to be kidnapped would be analogous to a rape victim that doesn't even bother to say "no".





CrashHD said:


> That wasn't me. I posted a statement that parents should take some responsibility for protecting their children from being kidnapped, and should be punished for a failure to do so. GoHokies made the giant strawman leap to suggest that by that logic a rape victim is responsible for the crime, which I think is ridiculous..


nope- sorry. You did indeed say it was analogous. However I am still of the opinion you are just typing stuff without much regard to the logic so I can see how you might forget you said it as well


----------



## TriBruin (Dec 10, 2003)

pomerlp said:


> I'm not a parent so I certainly can't speak for the majority of people with kids. I am however a human being. As such I believe that if I loved someone with all my heart and it was my life or theirs, that doesn't necessarily mean I will give up my own life.
> 
> If that occurred I would feel guilty, cowardly, and absolutely hate myself but I honestly don't know if I am capable of throwing myself in front of the bullet. I'd have to be in that situation to find out.


Since that is your personal feelings, I am in no position (and have no right) to say you are wrong. However I wonder if you did have kids would you feel different. I don't think even you could 100% say for sure.

As a parent myself, I can tell you 100% that if I could save the life of my child, but had to give up mine at the same time, there is NO doubt that I would. Not a question, not a hesitation.

However, that doesn't mean that I would just accept someone shooting me. There is a big difference. If the kidnapper shot me, do you think he is NOT going to take the kid? Of course he is. In fact it is probably more likely that my child would also be killed. I am always going to do whatever it takes to make sure my kids are safe. I just pray to God that I never have to deal with this situation.


----------



## bschuler2007 (Feb 25, 2007)

I feel for the original poster...

Yeah, even though almost all of child abuctions are done by parents.. we all have to pay for their messed up families. But why should TV be immune? Ya know, remember old public swimming areas without lifeguards, go-cart tracks, etc.. all the good stuff ruined because of stupid people. This is just one more example of the goverment trying to stop stupid people from being stupid and ruining the rest of our lives.


----------



## jim_h (May 6, 2008)

mrdbdigital said:


> This has already been brought up in this thread. The system is mandated by FCC requirements.


I see several references to FCC requirements but no details. What is this requirement called?

I don't have cable and fortunately, it will be gone within my lifetime, replaced by digital downloads. The public wants to control what they watch, and when. End of story.

Unfortunately it's impossible to oppose anything that's promoted as "child protection". The Amber Alert system is pure political theater. Like the 55 mph speed limit, it will be hard to get rid of.


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

jim_h said:


> The public wants to control what they watch, and when. End of story.


and I want to be rich. To quote our famed VP, "who cares what the public wants?".

To be a little fair to the oft maligned VP, there are some instances where the public does not get what it wants.


----------



## pomerlp (Apr 22, 2008)

ah30k said:


> and I want to be rich. To quote our famed VP, "who cares what the public wants?".


Exactly. Ever wonder why there is no cure for disease? There hasn't been one since they came up with the vaccination for polio. Why? because it's more profitable to "manage" a disease then it is to cure it.

If digital downloads arn't profitabale then they will not be replacing our current form of television. Anyway there is still news and stuff like that for regular television.

The radio never died because of television.


----------



## GoHokies! (Sep 21, 2005)

GoHokies! said:


> *47 CFR Part 11:*
> 
> 
> > The Video interrupt must cause all channels that carry programming to flash for the duration of the EAS emergency message. The audio alert must give the channel where the EAS messages are carried and be repeated for the duration of the EAS message.
> ...





jim_h said:


> I see several references to FCC requirements but no details. What is this requirement called?


You didn't read very hard - CFR = Code of Federal Regulations. It's called federal law. I even quoted it verbatim.



> The Amber Alert system is pure political theater.


Try telling that to the hundreds of children that have been reunited with their parents as a result of the system.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

pomerlp said:


> Ever wonder why there is no cure for disease? There hasn't been one since they came up with the vaccination for polio.


Your claim is absurd. Put down the crack pipe.



> _The radio never died because of television._


Radio today is a pale shadow of what it was pre-television. Probably the only reason it survives is that you can listen to it in the car.


----------



## Grinderhand (Apr 19, 2005)

ZeoTiVo said:


> then you have no clue of thetech either (


Ok, I give up. You win. Of course, broadcasting an Amber Alert on my home TV is a much better way to get results than to broadcast it over the radio in my car. Yes, that's logical. Next time I see one, I'll keep an eye out in my living room for any stray children wandering through looking lost. Makes perfect sense.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

liquid8 said:


> We now cannot watch the show now until this "Emergency" is over.
> 
> The real question is this - Emergency alerts ARE a good thing, and Tivo IS required to show them. I am assuming since the alert is through the cable company, it is unable to overlay this message on the recorded show, instead of kicking you out of it?


If you had a Tivo without cablecards, you could put the affected Tivo in standby, then transfer shows to the cablecard-less Tivo.

I realize not at all a realistic solution, but if you happen to have some with cablecards and some without, it would work.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

megazone said:


> I'm glad someone mentioned this, I was about to.


I mentioned it *several* times near the beginning of the thread.


----------



## Chester_Lampwick (Jul 19, 2004)

While I'm impressed that there is technology to quickly and widely distribute Amber Alerts, I must say the execution of this sucks! Talk about a captive audience.

First I don't like the idea of interrupting a recording. What if this was $50 PPV live event that they interrupted? I'm sure this is a Series 3 feature, but I have a Series 2 with DVD. Would it be okay it interrupt my DVD watching? Where do they draw the line?

This could be timed as to happen at a commercial break. Depending on what channel you're watching the TV news crew already does this. I watch my local new 4 times a day. Just saying!

It wouldn't be consistant among different DVRs, but there could be cues similar to the press thumbs up to record. Press thumbs up to record an important Amber alert. 

Not to be insensitive, but do parental abductions make for Amber alerts? Is there one everytime some Dillweed leaves his/her souse and takes the kid(s)? That would grow old real quick....

Could the Amber alert use the inactive tuner instead? If both tuners are recording could it pick the lower priority season pass?


----------



## CrashHD (Nov 10, 2006)

ZeoTiVo said:


> nope- sorry. You did indeed say it was analogous.


No, I did not. That comparison was another poster's poor analogue. It was better off ignored, but I wasn't wise enough to do so, and instead attempted to correct the faulty analogue. See below, in bold. It was an incorrect decision to attempt to correct another's faulty premise by building upon it, and now I know better for the next time. Lesson learned.



CrashHD said:


> Nice strawman. That was a completely ridiculous, illogical spin on my point.
> *If those are the terms you want to see this in, than I shall try one more time to explain.*
> <attempted correction to poor analogue snipped>


The whole "at gunpoint scenario" came in after my original post. What I said, in my original post, to paraphrase and sum up in one sentence, if the parents were negligent, and that negligence is what enabled a kidnapping, they should be held accountable for their criminal negligence. That is not to say being held at gunpoint is negligence. After the "gunpoint scenario" was raised, I posted that giving up your child is still inexcusable. I was unclear. While I do think it is an (morally)inexcusable, I do not think it is (criminally) negligent. I did not make that clear in my post. I think it has been implied that was what I meant, and that is not the case. I think the parents of a kidnapped child should face criminal charges IF AND ONLY IF they were negligent in a manner that facilitated the kidnapping. I got a little carried away talking about what I thought a parent should do in that situation, without clearly making a distinction between what I think it a legal obligation, and a moral obligation. I will now try to state clearly, what I stated so poorly then.

I think it is a parents legal obligation to resist an armed kidnapper with all reasonable force of which they are capable, short of putting their own safety at risk. Anything less than that is negligent. It should be criminal 
I think it is a parents moral obligation to resist an armed kidnapper with all force of which they are capable, bar nothing, and I reserve the right to think less of anyone who does anything less than everything in that situation.

Force/at gunpoint kidnappings are not representative of most of them, which I suppose makes the whole gunpoint scenario is a poor example anyway. I guess the aforementioned lesson was not properly learned.


ZeoTiVo said:


> All kidnapping cases are not about negligent parents


I will recognize, and agree with that point. Not all of them are. Many/most of them are. How many of these amber alerts have you seen where the perpetrator wasn't even seen? If you don't see the person taking your child, then obviously you weren't watching when you should have been. That is negligent. Know where your kids are and what they are doing. If they're not under your own watchful eye, be certain they are under the watchful eye of a trustworthy person.



ZeoTiVo said:


> come on, you are just tossing out stuff to get a reaction now.


No, I honestly, firmly believe all that I have written. Having reread this, if there's a point I "tossed" out there that might meet that criteria, it's this next one, but I believe it, so I'll throw it out there again. If you give in to someone's demands just because they have a gun, you are giving them what they want based on the assumption that they will shoot. I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I'm not giving my kids up based on an assumption. Dude says he's going to shoot if I don't give him the kids, I'm gonna say prove it. In a situation like this, the stakes are just too high to lose on a bluff. Ya gotta make the guy put his cards on the table.


----------



## CrashHD (Nov 10, 2006)

Chester_Lampwick said:


> Is there one everytime some Dillweed leaves his/her souse and takes the kid(s)? That would grow old real quick....


Not everytime, but still too often.


----------



## 1003 (Jul 14, 2000)

*Local authorities*
around here seem to view every 'Amber Alert' announcements as an opportunity for self-publicity.

Incoherent ramblings of a public information officer on a phone line quality connection. Annoncements repeated at least three times (sometimes up to five repeats)really make sense on my DVR. Believe me, I'm not jumping off the couch to go searching every time you make an announcement. Anyone else fearing the day they start passing photos to navigation system screens in cars, causing untold accidents?

Yet another reason to question the wisdom at the FCC...


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Grinderhand said:


> Ok, I give up. You win. Of course, broadcasting an Amber Alert on my home TV is a much better way to get results than to broadcast it over the radio in my car. Yes, that's logical. Next time I see one, I'll keep an eye out in my living room for any stray children wandering through looking lost. Makes perfect sense.


again - you go out on some tangent away from the point
I was speaking as to why the Amber Alert involved switching channels on the TV - I was not addressing radio at all.

And the last Amber Alert we had in my area was all over the radio as well. It incuded a description of the girl's school backpack which led someone to recognize it in a field and that led authorities to her body in a shallow grave 36 hours after she was kidnapped. 

The negligent parents had sent their kid to the bus stop while they left for work. I sure hope the police lock those horrible parents up for a long time.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

CrashHD said:


> I think the parents of a kidnapped child should face criminal charges IF AND ONLY IF they were negligent in a manner that facilitated the kidnapping. I got a little carried away talking about what I thought a parent should do in that situation, without clearly making a distinction between what I think it a legal obligation, and a moral obligation. I will now try to state clearly, what I stated so poorly then.
> 
> I think it is a parents legal obligation to resist an armed kidnapper with all reasonable force of which they are capable, short of putting their own safety at risk. Anything less than that is negligent. I


you do realize of course that it is actually very rare that a child kidnapper is armed. The predators are just that - predators that lurk and wait for an opportunity. A child darts alone down the aisle of a store without asking permission. Child goes outside to play while the parents are inside doing things. Child goes off to a bathroom at a park. Either you socially cripple your kids by being a helicopter parent always hovering about and never let them go play with their friends or there will be chances for a predator.

Most armed kidnappings are by a spouse who has gone over the edge. In the OPs Amber Alert it was the father and he had sexually assaulted the mother before taking the child out of the country. Hope she said NO and did everything she could to resist the kidnapper. I say they investigate her thoroughly at the expense of the taxpayers.


----------



## GoHokies! (Sep 21, 2005)

CrashHD said:


> No, I did not. That comparison was another poster's poor analogue. It was better off ignored, but I wasn't wise enough to do so, and instead attempted to correct the faulty analogue. See below, in bold. It was an incorrect decision to attempt to correct another's faulty premise by building upon it, and now I know better for the next time. Lesson learned.


It wasn't a poor analogy, it was a logical extension of your flawed (by your own admission) post.



> I was unclear. While I do think it is an (morally)inexcusable, I do not think it is (criminally) negligent. I did not make that clear in my post. I think it has been implied that was what I meant, and that is not the case. I think the parents of a kidnapped child should face criminal charges IF AND ONLY IF they were negligent in a manner that facilitated the kidnapping. I got a little carried away talking about what I thought a parent should do in that situation, without clearly making a distinction between what I think it a legal obligation, and a moral obligation. I will now try to state clearly, what I stated so poorly then. I think the parents of a kidnapped child should face criminal charges IF AND ONLY IF they were negligent in a manner that facilitated the kidnapping. I got a little carried away talking about what I thought a parent should do in that situation, without clearly making a distinction between what I think it a legal obligation, and a moral obligation. I will now try to state clearly, what I stated so poorly then.
> 
> I think it is a parents legal obligation to resist an armed kidnapper with all reasonable force of which they are capable, short of putting their own safety at risk. Anything less than that is negligent. It should be criminal.


Now that you've backtracked into the land of the sane, I can agree with you. Fortunately the bar for criminal negligence and child neglect is well established, so if a parent is negligent, there is already a path for legal recourse against them.



> How many of these amber alerts have you seen where the perpetrator wasn't even seen? If you don't see the person taking your child, then obviously you weren't watching when you should have been. That is negligent. Know where your kids are and what they are doing. If they're not under your own watchful eye, be certain they are under the watchful eye of a trustworthy person.


I wish that I had your superhuman ability to keep your eyes firmly fixed on your children 24/7/365.



> No, I honestly, firmly believe all that I have written.


Except for those parts that say you didn't.


----------



## pomerlp (Apr 22, 2008)

wmcbrine said:


> Your claim is absurd. Put down the crack pipe.
> 
> Radio today is a pale shadow of what it was pre-television. Probably the only reason it survives is that you can listen to it in the car.


And you are insulting. I listen to the radio at home frequently, only I listen to XM. Still it's radio, just better radio.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

pomerlp said:


> I listen to the radio at home frequently, only I listen to XM. Still it's radio, just better radio.


Radio is listened to in lots of places besides the car, but if it wasn't for car radios, I question whether radio would remain economically viable.


----------



## Nugent (Jan 20, 2004)

I blame the terrorists. They envy our freedom.


----------



## jim_h (May 6, 2008)

GoHokies! said:


> Try telling that to the hundreds of children that have been reunited with their parents as a result of the system.


Is that true? Can you provide a link to some factual numbers?


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

jim_h said:


> Is that true? Can you provide a link to some factual numbers?


in CA alone it is 131
http://www.news10.net/display_story.aspx?storyid=30950 

Five years after enacting California's Amber Alert child abduction warning system, state officials say statistics show the program has not only helped recover missing kids, it may actually be helping prevent child kidnappings in the first place.

"I think it does have a deterrent effect," said Commissioner Mike Brown of the California Highway Patrol.

Brown joined lawmakers and other law enforcement groups at the CHP Dispatch center in Rancho Cordova Monday to celebrate the five-year anniversary of California's Amber Alert Law. *Commissioner Brown said the law has a 100-percent success rate, leading to the safe recovery of 131 children.*
"We haven't lost one," Brown said.

Since the measure became law on July 31, 2002, the number of Amber Alerts issued has been dropping steadily. During the first full year of implementation in 2003, California issued 29 Amber Alerts. In 2006, that number dropped to 14, and there have only been three Amber Alerts issued so far in 2007.

"You're seeing this clear decline in the use of the Amber Alert," said the measure's author, Sen. George Runner, R-Antelope Valley. Runner says he hopes the law is causing would-be kidnappers to "think twice" before abducting children.


----------



## Nugent (Jan 20, 2004)

This proves nothing. The question is, what difference did it make? If the Amber Alert system was not in use, and all the kids were recovered, what would be the value?


----------



## GoHokies! (Sep 21, 2005)

Nugent said:


> This proves nothing. The question is, what difference did it make? If the Amber Alert system was not in use, and all the kids were recovered, what would be the value?


Then you do the research to look at each case and prove Zeo's numbers wrong then. I don't really have the time or inclination to try to convince you that these things work.

Here's a link to the 2007 report to get you started.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Nugent said:


> This proves nothing. The question is, what difference did it make? If the Amber Alert system was not in use, and all the kids were recovered, what would be the value?


that is stupid in the extreme


----------



## bschuler2007 (Feb 25, 2007)

All those statistics proves to me is... Parents don't even want their own kids anymore. lol

If you care to look at Parental rights cases, you'd see a huge upswing in parents opting out of visitation, guardianship, etc.. as well during that time period. Sad but true.

Now, don't get me wrong.. I'm just trying to put those statistics in reference.
Overall, I have rarely seen an Amber alert where I live.. so I could care less. But the guys saying Amber alerts have yet to be proven useful are basically right. You can state this study or that.. but that is because the study was based to show how useful it is and bias.. I have yet to see anyone release a study based on how useless it is. Cuz after all, where is the money in that?


----------



## GoHokies! (Sep 21, 2005)

Do you have any facts to back up that delusional rambling?


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bschuler2007 said:


> But the guys saying Amber alerts have yet to be proven useful are basically right. You can state this study or that.. but that is because the study was based to show how useful it is and bias.. I have yet to see anyone release a study based on how useless it is. Cuz after all, where is the money in that?


wow, stupider just got extremer


----------



## jim_h (May 6, 2008)

Poster 'nugent' is correct, there's no proof that the system is effective because it's not possible to perform any sort of controlled experiment in this case. I don't dismiss the CA official's claim of a deterrent effect however - that seems possible. There was no actual claim that the children had been recovered as a direct result of the Amber Alert system, and would not have been recovered otherwise.

So in 2007, a handfull of Amber Alerts were issued in California, and presumably everyone watching cable in that state of 36 million people was required to view them. Since these alerts were so successful, let's have some more. Maybe a blood bank urgently needs a donation for a patient with a rare type. A child has a failing kidney - a donor must be found immediately. A vulnerable retarded adult is reported lost in a big city. A tornado is striking, 100 miles away - but maybe you know someone in its path and could call them. Where does it end?


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

jim_h said:


> Poster 'nugent' is correct, there's no proof that the system is effective because it's not possible to perform any sort of controlled experiment in this case.


 just like no proof of cigarettes causing cancer for the longest time. Believe whatever you want but the effectiveness is as obvious as cigarettes cause cancer and thus part of the reason the system has gone nationwide and continues to be in place.



> So in 2007, a handful of Amber Alerts were issued in California, and presumably everyone watching cable in that state of 36 million people was required to view them. Since these alerts were so successful, let's have some more. Maybe a blood bank urgently needs a donation for a patient with a rare type. A child has a failing kidney - a donor must be found immediately. A vulnerable retarded adult is reported lost in a big city. A tornado is striking, 100 miles away - but maybe you know someone in its path and could call them. Where does it end?


Blood banks regularly inventory their stock have the ability to advertise for rare types and issue press releases to hit the regular news media - so no imminent Amber alert for that

The Kidney has been failing for a while and there is a national system in place to match donors to recipients that can flash alerts where it does the most good. Again, no happens suddenly with a short time to react.

Vulnerable child is close but must also meet the criteria of reasonable belief of imminent danger versus just being lost for a full scale amber alert instead of stations making their own decision to post alerts for the lost child.

Many areas have their own tornado alert systems including a TV system that does much the same thing as discussed here for areas in the path of known formed tornadoes.

so basically again a poster has ignored that amber alerts have a specific set of criteria that must be present in order for the override of privacy rights and the TV channel.


----------



## jim_h (May 6, 2008)

ZeoTiVo, I understand the point you're making. But your underlying assumption seems to be that if a child is actually in danger, that automatically provides a legal basis for an "override of privacy rights" of millions of uninvolved people. I'm not a legal expert but I certainly question that assumption. 

Government officials have a right to call me, or knock on my door. And I have the right to ignore that ringing phone or not answer the door. To break in that door and force me to listen, a warrant is required. Cable TV and DVR technology is now letting governement do an end run around traditional concepts of privacy, and demand my attention without a warrant. I believe this is wrong, and a dangerous precedent to say the least.

This does not mean I'm against mobilizing the resources of society to prevent a horrible crime. I'm well aware that the motivation for Amber Alert was the kidnapping and murder of a helpless young child. As oftent happens, people got carried away by the perfectly justifiable emotions attached to these sorts of crimes, politicians saw an opportunity to grab some positive publicity, and the result was a system that doesn't make sense, and opens a door for more serious violations of privacy. I think we can do better.


----------



## Mishkin (Apr 20, 2002)

GoHokies! said:


> Then you do the research to look at each case and prove Zeo's numbers wrong then. I don't really have the time or inclination to try to convince you that these things work.
> 
> Here's a link to the 2007 report to get you started.


According to the report there were 261 Amber Alerts issued in the US during 2006 (page 27).

261 - Total Alerts
53 - Successful Recoveries (69 children total)

Counted in the 53 success stories were 29 cases of family abductions so 24 non-family-dispute success stories in 2006.

Of the 53 successful recoveries for 2006 only 8% (4 cases) were the result of an individual recognizing either the child or the abductor from an "Amber Alert". In 15 cases the "abductor" heard the alert and turned themselves in to authorities; it is not not clear how many "abductors" who turned themselves in were family members in a custody dispute but adding it up for 2006 19 cases seemed to have been directly resolved as a result of the "Amber Alert".

There were 21 cases reported solved by law enforcement who recognized the vehicle from an Amber Alert. Can we assume that an all-points-bulletin would serve just as well as an Amber Alert in these 21 cases? I make that argument because the police probably did not get the alert information from the type of commercial broadcasts we're discussing.

I didn't see a breakdown by state but based on this report I don't believe that there has been 131 success stories for CA alone. It is probably nation wide. If we look at 2006 where 8% of the successful recoveries were from people identifying the child or abductor though the public alert and 28% were from abductors hearing about themselves (subsequently turning themselves in) and apply it to the 131 (131*.36) then public Amber Alerts are responsible for 46 resolved cases.

My criticism has been it being used for family abductions where there is a custody dispute. Over 50% of the successfully resolved cases in 2006 were custody disputes. My assumption is that many of the cases where the abductor turned themselves in were probably family abduction cases; otherwise why turn oneself in? Just dump the kid on the corner and drive off.

If we then look at the success stories from 2006 where 28% were from people turning themselves in and attribute that to family abductions/custody disputes (child probably not in physical danger) then the 36% number we applied to the 131 total falls to 8% solved as a result of publicly broadcasted Amber Alerts...10.5 cases resolved as a result of Amber Alerts since its inception.

And remember folks...97.8 of all statistics are made up on the spot...


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

jim_h said:


> ZeoTiVo, I understand the point you're making. But your underlying assumption seems to be that if a child is actually in danger, that automatically provides a legal basis for an "override of privacy rights" of millions of uninvolved people. I'm not a legal expert but I certainly question that assumption.


it is not my underlying assumption but is indeed the legal basis for over riding your privacy rights. Legal experts have codified that into law.

Also this is not the Govt. seeing what you are doing in your house or entering it or telling you to do some specific action under threat. it is simply providing the information on a situation involving imminent danger to a child under 17 in a manner that ensures the most people possible see it.

here are the legal guidelines for issuing an Amber Alert
if it saved only 4 kids LIVES in 2006 and detterred other kidnappings - how do you stack your TV show or momentary interruption against that?

Once law enforcement has been notified about an abducted child, they must first determine if the
case meets their program's AMBER Alert criteria of
&#56256;&#56451; There is reasonable belief by law enforcement an abduction has occurred
&#56256;&#56451; The abduction is of a child age 17 or younger
&#56256;&#56451; *The law-enforcement agency believes the child is in imminent danger of serious bodily injury
or death*
&#56256;&#56451; There is enough descriptive information about the victim and abduction for law enforcement
to issue an AMBER Alert to assist in the recovery of the child
&#56256;&#56451; The child's name and other critical data elements, including the Child Abduction flag, have
been entered into the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) database

PS - the 131 number was the total over all the years since 2002 in CA
I added the bold above to show that this is not just for custody disputes but would be family custody disputes where the family abductor is believed liable to harm the child. Most likely child abuse cases gone horribly wrong.


----------



## Mishkin (Apr 20, 2002)

ZeoTiVo said:


> here are the legal guidelines for issuing an Amber Alert
> if it saved only 4 kids LIVES in 2006 and detterred other kidnappings - how do you stack your TV show or momentary interruption against that?


I propose mandatory bike helmets in the car for any child under 16 years of age. My calculations (which I've just pulled from my rear) suggest it would save the lives of *at least* 40 kids per year...ten times the number of children saved by Amber Alerts in 2006. Additionally we can probably up that number considerably if we envelop the children with bubble wrap. Sure the kid would be whining the whole ride but the lives of children are paramount, no?

I'm suspicious of the "131" number after reading of the "100% success rate" claimed by the person in the article.

Edit: from what I've read different jurisdictions have different guidelines for issuing Amber Alerts. Those guidelines are not requirements...merely suggestions that are not always followed.


----------



## jim_h (May 6, 2008)

ZeoTivo, we will obviously never agree on this. In your mind, the possibility of saving even one child, anywhere, justifies forcibly interrupting the activities of literally millions of people. Carrying this logic to its limit, a person could be watching the last 60 seconds of the Super Bowl and be interrupted by an Amber Alert for a child in another state. 

This is very definitely the government "telling you to do some specific action" and not "simply providing the information". It's the equivalent of walking into your house and holding up a sign in front of your face without asking your permission. The fact that this is being done for a good purpose does not, in my view, make it acceptable. There could be any number of equally "good" reasons for forced notifications; Amber Alert is simply one that was pushed into law by a massive lobbying and publicity campaign.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Mishkin said:


> I propose mandatory bike helmets in the car for any child under 16 years of age. My calculations (which I've just pulled from my rear) suggest it would save the lives of *at least* 40 kids per year...ten times the number of children saved by Amber Alerts in 2006. Additionally we can probably up that number considerably if we envelop the children with bubble wrap. Sure the kid would be whining the whole ride but the lives of children are paramount, no?
> 
> I'm suspicious of the "131" number after reading of the "100% success rate" claimed by the person in the article.


that is fine - propose your law.
Personally I go with car safety laws and child seats and retsrainst and side airbags etc.. as a better more effective option.

and yes I have not looked for any cooborative evidence on CA article and its claims. It would seem a cut and dried part though that an amber alert issued and kid found or not. I am not going for deeper analysis of % from alerted person, how soon found and what kind of abduction. Feel free to rtay and tear it apart with some facts if you want.

PS - if the superbowl is on that would certianly be the place to tell people an abduction with imminent danger took place. I have no idea what kind of area the alerts cover though


----------



## NA9D (May 26, 2008)

jim_h said:


> ZeoTiVo, I understand the point you're making. But your underlying assumption seems to be that if a child is actually in danger, that automatically provides a legal basis for an "override of privacy rights" of millions of uninvolved people. I'm not a legal expert but I certainly question that assumption.


Oh my. How are your privacy rights violated. By the way, the US Constitution says nothing about privacy rights. There is no such right granted by the governing documents of our Republic. Rather this right was invented by the courts in interpreting certain clauses of the Constitution.

Beyond that, I fail to see how an alert for anything is violating your privacy. No one knows what you are doing. All that is happening is your favorite TV show is interrupted. Boo-hoo. Are we such a society of whiners that we cry when we can't watch our favorite show? Especially now when there are so many avenues by which we can later get that show from on demand or download sources?

This is incredible. Sure, it an annoyance, but your privacy is not being violated. Turn the TV off and spend some time with loved ones instead...


----------



## webin (Feb 13, 2008)

Zeo and GoHokies... I don't care how long you've been a part of this forum, or how many posts you've racked up. You are both being incredibly insulting. MUCH more than the people you are arguing against. It doesn't matter what your opinion is of these people, you should keep the discussion more civil, and treat them with respect. Better yet, since you feel the arguments they are making are so outrageous, just chalk this thread up to 'more idiots on the web' and stop engaging them. Move on with your day, and for god's sake stop insulting people to make your points.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

webin said:


> Zeo and GoHokies... I don't care how long you've been a part of this forum, or how many posts you've racked up. You are both being incredibly insulting. .


I did reply insultingly to two posts in this thread. However it wa my gut honest reaction to what I read and the lack of humanity and empathy I saw in the posts led me to do what I typically do not and post something insulting.

I guess it hit me like it did Sipowitz on NYPD Blue whenever he came across a child victim case.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

webin said:


> Zeo and GoHokies... I don't care how long you've been a part of this forum, or how many posts you've racked up. You are both being incredibly insulting. MUCH more than the people you are arguing against. It doesn't matter what your opinion is of these people, you should keep the discussion more civil, and treat them with respect. Better yet, since you feel the arguments they are making are so outrageous, just chalk this thread up to 'more idiots on the web' and stop engaging them. Move on with your day, and for god's sake stop insulting people to make your points.


I don't find anything they said insulting.

I find the OP insulting.


----------



## jim_h (May 6, 2008)

ZeoATivo, I find it ironic that you respond to a perceived "lack of humanity and empathy" with insults.

No further point to this discussion I guess. Every fanatic is convinced his cause is just and that people who disagree are evil.


----------



## kemajor (Jan 2, 2003)

jim_h said:


> The fact that this is being done for a good purpose does not, in my view, make it acceptable. There could be any number of equally "good" reasons for forced notifications...


The only good one I can think of is there are naked college girls running around my neighborhood. 

- Kelly


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

I think this thread has run its course. Can the moderators close it yet?


----------

