“You are horrible people. I mean that. I am not being facetious or wry. You are not good people. And by ‘you’ I mean everyone in Ontario who has been griping about the Amber Alert that woke most of the province late last night.”
So opens Scott Gilmore in his Macleans Op Ed (Feb 15, 2019).
Scott is not the only person to express this viewpoint; his is a common sentiment easily found online. A response to this sentiment could be based on how the Emergency Alert Messaging system is wonky, inconsistent and problematic. But that would miss the thrust of the sentiment supporting sending Amber Alerts over the Emergency Alert Messaging System to mobile devices, radios and televisions. The sentiment is, “If we oppose it, we are horrible people. And we are wrong.”
But it is our right.
It is our right to be horrible people in our own homes and in our own vehicles. We have the right to choose what information we consume, how we consume it and when we consume it. And that includes the right to opt out of it entirely. And an unelected, unaccountable government body should not have the authority to trample that right.
The defence of the sentiment is, “a child’s life is at risk!” as if that excuses any action the state deems wise to save the life of the child. But this is where the problem lies. Who gets to decide that the actions of the state are reasonable? Is this where this stops? Where is the oversight and the accountability? Or is that now a quaint, irrelevant concept?
Scott adds “In small towns, when a child goes missing everyone knocks on doors and wakes each other up and searches all night.” He concludes with, “If you want to live in a province that protects its children, occasionally you have to roll over in bed and check your phone. And it that is too much to ask, then you are objectively a horrible person.”
And that gets to the hub of the matter. If the actions required to save a child’s life are so important, why does the system only require notification? Why are we not required to assemble “and search all night?” Because that would be unreasonable overreach by the state? Why? If it saves a child’s life faster, would it not be worthwhile to mandate citizen participation in the search? The system mandates we get notified, but it does not mandate participation or action. If a child’s life is at stake, why is physical participation optional? Is the whole point a state enforced guilt trip?
More troubling, why does the state get to decide which life is worth saving? Why is it only children of a certain age in certain circumstances? Why does it not include all children? Why not missing adults? Are those lives really less important?
Objectors are called “horrible people” because it is a value judgement that Scott and many others disagree with. But the whole system is a values judgement. And no one is allowed to question any aspect of it. Not without being called a horrible person. There is a very strong argument the system is equally as horrible because it decides which citizens life is worth saving, and which is not.
Or, perhaps, it is not horrible to argue that the Emergency Alert Messaging system is being misused. Maybe you think it is perfect the way it is now. But ask yourself, how long does technology stay static? What changes are coming that will impede the effectiveness of the system? This is not conjectural, this is already happening. If you use any media streaming service instead of cable or radio, you have already opted out of the Emergency Alert system. If you do not own a mobile phone, you have also opted out. So it is interesting that a person can implicitly opt-out if they use Netflix and Spotify. You can also opt-out if you only use WiFi devices instead of a cellular phone, but if you use legacy broadcast technologies you implicitly opt-in. Are the people that use modern systems instead of legacy systems “horrible people” too?
Let’s extend that point. What happens when the legacy technologies the Emergency Alert Messaging system uses become obsolete? What powers will we grant the state to replace that system? The only reason the current system works is because of centralized control of the legacy broadcast systems (cellular, TV and radio.) But as those systems become decentralized, will we be required to install government sanctioned applications on our Internet of Things appliances?
OK, maybe that’s too futuristic of an argument for many. Let’s stay with current technology. How about we mandate that the government track all children through the GPS chip in their mobile devices, so that we can find our children faster. Or deploy CCTV monitors on all our highways, streets and sidewalks with automated facial recognition. If you aren’t doing anything wrong, there’s no harm. After all, children’s lives are at stake! If you think this would be an invasion of your privacy, “then you are objectively a horrible person.”
You’re welcome to join the club. We have room.