4 ms·

The local (EU) law about emergency broadcast is clear in that it applies to both residents and visitors, and alerts are to be delivered without the need for “op

by isodev 4y ago

The local (EU) law about emergency broadcast is clear in that it applies to both residents and visitors, and alerts are to be delivered without the need for “opt-in”. In other words, if you’re in range of local services, you must receive the alerts (which, you know, is handy in case of an actual emergency).

bjt2n3904 4y ago
Gotcha. I'll just draft a law saying all devices must automatically unencrypt themselves when they enter my country's borders. Hey, it's the law! You must comply, and for your convenience, your phone will do that automatically for you! Good grief.
- warkdarrior 4y ago
  If you do not like the regulation, fight to change it. Do not expect your devices to do the fighting for you.
  - TreeRingCounter 4y ago
    My devices should absolutely work on my behalf, and only my behalf, i.e. "do the fighting for me".
  - kelnos 4y ago
    A better response to these laws would be that the device should just stop working if the settings I have selected conflict with local law. The cell towers are free to refuse to allow my phone to connect. They should send some sort of message to me to tell me what I'd need to do in order to comply with local law and be allowed on the network. But of course, that wouldn't be convenient, and a lot of people would be confused, and that would generate costly support calls, so they'd rather just violate the sanctity of the things we apparently don't really own and put intrusive hooks into "our" hardware and software. In the case of this particular requirement -- that wireless alerts be enabled -- I would almost certainly just enable them and go about my day. But reaching into my device and changing things without my consent crosses a line.
    - MichaelZuo 4y ago
      You can do that now with nearly all of the big carriers around the world. You just need to sign a service level agreement along with paying for them to develop that feature and deploy it on your phone.
  - oarsinsync 4y ago
    Given that the fight is between megacorps, megastates and ~mega~individuals, it feels like a slightly uneven fight. The people who have the power to make the phones vs the people who have the power to make laws and prevent the makers from selling, vs a few individuals who actually care and a large majority who do not have the time to care. I’d love to vote with my wallet, but I live in a country that 90%+ votes against me, so my vote is meaningless.
- Wowfunhappy 4y ago
  If you are in fact the monarch of a sovereign nation, you can indeed give companies a choice: "either design your products to automatically decrypt themselves when they enter my territory, or don't do business in my country." Companies will then be forced to make a decision based on the market size of your country. Or they will break the law, and you will have to deal with enforcement. Most companies would like to do business in the EU.
  - mschuster91 4y ago
    > Companies will then, of course, be forced to make a decision based on the market size of your country. And as we've seen time and time again, China can get away with a lot of bullshit with demands anywhere from tech to culture (e.g. MCU films that ended up censored). At least now, Apple has woken up and begun moving off production to Vietnam, and Marvel has decided to ignore Chinese demands after all.
TreeRingCounter 4y ago
My device should serve me, not the EU. If I choose to violate EU emergency alert laws, that's on me.
- isodev 4y ago
  For other use cases, I'd probably agree with you. But you being startled and confused during an emergency because you didn't see the instructions on time can be very dangerous for everyone around you. It's not just on you.
  - TreeRingCounter 4y ago
    The marginal upside to everyone else is not even close to worth the marginal downside to me. It's my choice to make. If a government wants to force messages on me so badly, they can set up something like an air raid siren (and they typically do, for actual emergencies).
  - brainchild-adam 4y ago
    For people suffering from certain mental health issues, the alert itself can cause significant problems for them and others. If you suffer from panic attacks, for example, and these alerts trigger them, they do not help you, no matter how well intended. If you suffer from (C)PTSD, and these alerts trigger flooding, they actually make everything worse. If this were to happen while you are driving, you might even cause an accident. The world is sadly too complex for simple solutions that assume something to be always good or helpful. Which is why I believe it's important for the user to eventually control his device.
  - t0bia_s 4y ago
    If there is emergency, I'm sure you'll find out very soon that something is happening. We are usually not living in lone solitudies.
    - em-bee 4y ago
      the same applies when the device is off, or i left it at home. unless there is a law that requires me to carry a functioning, powered device to receive emergency alerts at all times, there is no reason why a device should be required to receive alerts just because it is capable of receiving them. if i turn of alerts on my device, then it's no different from a device that doesn't have the capability to receive alerts.

by isodev 4y ago

bjt2n3904 4y ago

Gotcha. I'll just draft a law saying all devices must automatically unencrypt themselves when they enter my country's borders. Hey, it's the law! You must comply, and for your convenience, your phone will do that automatically for you! Good grief.

warkdarrior 4y ago
If you do not like the regulation, fight to change it. Do not expect your devices to do the fighting for you.
- TreeRingCounter 4y ago
  My devices should absolutely work on my behalf, and only my behalf, i.e. "do the fighting for me".
- kelnos 4y ago
  A better response to these laws would be that the device should just stop working if the settings I have selected conflict with local law. The cell towers are free to refuse to allow my phone to connect. They should send some sort of message to me to tell me what I'd need to do in order to comply with local law and be allowed on the network. But of course, that wouldn't be convenient, and a lot of people would be confused, and that would generate costly support calls, so they'd rather just violate the sanctity of the things we apparently don't really own and put intrusive hooks into "our" hardware and software. In the case of this particular requirement -- that wireless alerts be enabled -- I would almost certainly just enable them and go about my day. But reaching into my device and changing things without my consent crosses a line.
  - MichaelZuo 4y ago
    You can do that now with nearly all of the big carriers around the world. You just need to sign a service level agreement along with paying for them to develop that feature and deploy it on your phone.
- oarsinsync 4y ago
  Given that the fight is between megacorps, megastates and ~mega~individuals, it feels like a slightly uneven fight. The people who have the power to make the phones vs the people who have the power to make laws and prevent the makers from selling, vs a few individuals who actually care and a large majority who do not have the time to care. I’d love to vote with my wallet, but I live in a country that 90%+ votes against me, so my vote is meaningless.
Wowfunhappy 4y ago
If you are in fact the monarch of a sovereign nation, you can indeed give companies a choice: "either design your products to automatically decrypt themselves when they enter my territory, or don't do business in my country." Companies will then be forced to make a decision based on the market size of your country. Or they will break the law, and you will have to deal with enforcement. Most companies would like to do business in the EU.
- mschuster91 4y ago
  > Companies will then, of course, be forced to make a decision based on the market size of your country. And as we've seen time and time again, China can get away with a lot of bullshit with demands anywhere from tech to culture (e.g. MCU films that ended up censored). At least now, Apple has woken up and begun moving off production to Vietnam, and Marvel has decided to ignore Chinese demands after all.

TreeRingCounter 4y ago

My device should serve me, not the EU. If I choose to violate EU emergency alert laws, that's on me.

isodev 4y ago
For other use cases, I'd probably agree with you. But you being startled and confused during an emergency because you didn't see the instructions on time can be very dangerous for everyone around you. It's not just on you.
- TreeRingCounter 4y ago
  The marginal upside to everyone else is not even close to worth the marginal downside to me. It's my choice to make. If a government wants to force messages on me so badly, they can set up something like an air raid siren (and they typically do, for actual emergencies).
- brainchild-adam 4y ago
  For people suffering from certain mental health issues, the alert itself can cause significant problems for them and others. If you suffer from panic attacks, for example, and these alerts trigger them, they do not help you, no matter how well intended. If you suffer from (C)PTSD, and these alerts trigger flooding, they actually make everything worse. If this were to happen while you are driving, you might even cause an accident. The world is sadly too complex for simple solutions that assume something to be always good or helpful. Which is why I believe it's important for the user to eventually control his device.
- t0bia_s 4y ago
  If there is emergency, I'm sure you'll find out very soon that something is happening. We are usually not living in lone solitudies.
  - em-bee 4y ago
    the same applies when the device is off, or i left it at home. unless there is a law that requires me to carry a functioning, powered device to receive emergency alerts at all times, there is no reason why a device should be required to receive alerts just because it is capable of receiving them. if i turn of alerts on my device, then it's no different from a device that doesn't have the capability to receive alerts.