3 ms·

How are you opting out of the air raid sirens?

by sxates 8y ago

antsar 8y ago
You don't own air raid sirens, and you can't stop others from installing them. You do own your phone (in theory, at least). You should have full authority over what that phone does or doesn't do.
- spookthesunset 8y ago
  With all due respect, this seems like a pretty lame hill to die on. Consider the potential harm that might come from allowing people who don't fully understand what the implications are of opting out of a "presidential alert". In theory, this feature is only supposted to be used for the worst of the worst situations and if poeple disable it.... bad things might happen. Consider if a whole bunch of people are supposed to evacuate and some don't get the message because they opt'd out without knowing all the risks. Now you are in a situation where rescue workers are risking their lives trying to save people. There is no absolute right to freedom because "freedom" is an abstract concept that is fuzzy and full of edge cases and what-abouts. If your "freedom to opt out" of a possibly once-in-a-lifetime message puts rescue workers lives in danger... well that really isn't cool, now is it.
  - trollishName 8y ago
    People aren't required to carry phones, so mandating a required alert message still doesn't guarantee reach. The way I see it, now comes the time to eliminate cell providers, same as the "cut the cord" movement was adopted by people seeking to eliminate cable TV service for a wide variety of reasons. There are at least two straws this week, that threaten to break the camel's back. Mandatory noise alarms like this, and mandatory password seizure at borders and airports in places like New Zealand. Sorry, make noise and vibrate in some other pocket. And oh yeah, here's a password to a blank burner phone I never even used once. Throw it in the garbage for me, I bought it at a pawn shop for a dollar, instead of paying thousands to refuse some draconian policy. Time to drop cell phones. Large faceless groups of people don't seem to grasp that they might be pushing it too far.
  - noncoml 8y ago
    .
  - antsar 8y ago
    You make a good point about endangering rescue workers. That complicates things. Maybe those who disable such an alert should be exposed to liability for harm brought to others as a result of their choice? I realize that doesn't help the hypothetical dead rescue worker, but it's more of a middle ground between personal freedom and minimizing harm.
- oh_sigh 8y ago
  You're free to disable the alerts by installing a custom OS on your phone where you have disabled the feature. Your argument makes it sound like, say, Google owes you infinitely customizable software if they are going to provide any software at all, when they have no such obligation - just like you have no obligation to buy their phone, or use their software.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

How are you opting out of the air raid sirens?

by sxates 8y ago

How are you opting out of the air raid sirens?

You don't own air raid sirens, and you can't stop others from installing them. You do own your phone (in theory, at least). You should have full authority over what that phone does or doesn't do.

spookthesunset 8y ago
With all due respect, this seems like a pretty lame hill to die on. Consider the potential harm that might come from allowing people who don't fully understand what the implications are of opting out of a "presidential alert". In theory, this feature is only supposted to be used for the worst of the worst situations and if poeple disable it.... bad things might happen. Consider if a whole bunch of people are supposed to evacuate and some don't get the message because they opt'd out without knowing all the risks. Now you are in a situation where rescue workers are risking their lives trying to save people. There is no absolute right to freedom because "freedom" is an abstract concept that is fuzzy and full of edge cases and what-abouts. If your "freedom to opt out" of a possibly once-in-a-lifetime message puts rescue workers lives in danger... well that really isn't cool, now is it.
- trollishName 8y ago
  People aren't required to carry phones, so mandating a required alert message still doesn't guarantee reach. The way I see it, now comes the time to eliminate cell providers, same as the "cut the cord" movement was adopted by people seeking to eliminate cable TV service for a wide variety of reasons. There are at least two straws this week, that threaten to break the camel's back. Mandatory noise alarms like this, and mandatory password seizure at borders and airports in places like New Zealand. Sorry, make noise and vibrate in some other pocket. And oh yeah, here's a password to a blank burner phone I never even used once. Throw it in the garbage for me, I bought it at a pawn shop for a dollar, instead of paying thousands to refuse some draconian policy. Time to drop cell phones. Large faceless groups of people don't seem to grasp that they might be pushing it too far.
- noncoml 8y ago
  .
- antsar 8y ago
  You make a good point about endangering rescue workers. That complicates things. Maybe those who disable such an alert should be exposed to liability for harm brought to others as a result of their choice? I realize that doesn't help the hypothetical dead rescue worker, but it's more of a middle ground between personal freedom and minimizing harm.
oh_sigh 8y ago
You're free to disable the alerts by installing a custom OS on your phone where you have disabled the feature. Your argument makes it sound like, say, Google owes you infinitely customizable software if they are going to provide any software at all, when they have no such obligation - just like you have no obligation to buy their phone, or use their software.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]