5 ms·

I have very negative feelings about the whole AMBER alert idea. Maybe I'm a callous bastard, but what is so special about child abductions that they require an

by sho 18y ago

I have very negative feelings about the whole AMBER alert idea. Maybe I'm a callous bastard, but what is so special about child abductions that they require an entire separate national infrastructure to "alert" the citizens in the (incredibly unlikely) event they occur? According to wikipedia the AMBER alert system has helped in the the recovery of 27 children; even this is disputed. Sounds impressive until you remember that thousands of children drown in backyard swimming pools every year. It's absolutely nothing, not even a blip. Sorry, I know it sounds heartless, but facts are facts. There's a sinister aspect too - by making such a big deal about this essentially dead crime, which isn't even a rounding error on child death statistics, I get a nasty feeling that "the powers that be" are trying to unite the public - united with the govt, of course - against this "pedophile child kidnapper" bogeyman. Again, the numbers suggest this creature is almost, if not completely, non-existent. "But they must be everywhere, right? That's why we had to have AMBER alerts!" Encouraging paranoia, manipulating groups to unite against faceless and unlikely enemies .. I don't like it one bit. Saved 27 children since inception. All this righteous fuss. Meanwhile, in Africa, 8 children die every minute from preventable diseases. Where's their alert? Where's their iPhone application? Selective caring. Couldn't give a shit about the thousands of swimming pool deaths. Couldn't care less about childhood obesity or dropping educational standards or manufactured food or childhood deaths in Africa from trivially preventable diseases or child labour in Vietnam which you buy off the shelf at wal-mart but OMG PEDOPHILES APPROVE MY IPHONE APP NOW OR YOU ARE KILLING CHILDREN! I don't really know how to express my loathing for such people but basically I think they're hypocritical, self-righteous douchebags. I hope and expect Apple to ignore this nonsense. (updated to reflect the fact that I couldn't cite a good reference for the 55,000 annual swimming pool deaths I originally wrote - replaced with "thousands", which should definitely be safe.)

anamax 18y ago
> Sounds impressive until you remember that 55,000 children drown in backyard swimming pools every year. Where? Not in the US - the total number of drownings (including adults and other bodies of water) is under 4k/year. http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalSafety/Water-Safety/waterinjuries-factsheet.htm http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalSafety/Water-Safety/wa... I agree with the sentiment expressed - I'm just quibbling with the numbers used to support it.
- sho 18y ago
  Hm. I distinctly remember that number from a talk but I can't find a reference. The closest I found is this: http://www.lifesaving.com/issues/articles/13swimming_pool_drownings.html http://www.lifesaving.com/issues/articles/13swimming_pool_dr... .. which has the high number but is hard to interpret and doesn't cite its own sources. It does sound surprisingly high, though, I'll change my comment to "thousands", which I hope you'll agree is "safe".
  - andrewljohnson 18y ago
    You remember that number from Freakanomics I bet. Levitt cited that when talking about gun deaths in the US, though I'm not sure if you have the figure right.
    - sho 18y ago
      Ah! That is almost certainly it. I think from his TED talk actually. Thanks, that had been driving me nuts.
comatose_kid 18y ago
While you bring up a great point, I think that loathing the guy and calling him a douchebag is a little extreme. It's not like the guy is killing puppies... Anyways, his larger point is dead on - Apple's opaque and lengthy approval process adds unnecessary business risk for prospective developers.
DaniFong 18y ago
You're comparing the magnitude of success for amber alerts - a solution to a problem, to the magnitude of problems themselves. It's not mere callousness, it's poor analysis. Whether you want to think about it or not, child sexual abuse is no dead crime. It's alarmingly common. It effects at least 20% of those closest to me - and this only for cases that I know of. From national surveys of adults, (www.unh.edu/ccrc/factsheet/pdf/CSA-FS20.pdf) it's estimated that 9-32% of women and 5-10% of men were subject to sexual abuse during their childhoods (though statistics for criminal reported cases are much lower -- about 1.2 per 1,000 children). Who is to say that were the law enforcement less vigilant, such abuse wouldn't escalate. In many countries, it does. Particularly in South-East Asia and Eastern Europe, the sex trade is rampant -- Unicef estimates put it at 1 million young sold into the trade per year (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/1707763.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/1707763.stm). The amber alert is but one deterrent; the combined effect is likely quite effective. Who among those arguing for AMBER alerts are campaigning against charity programs to Africa? What instead we have are law enforcement agencies partnering up to work against child abductions and sexual abuse effectively. Effectively? It is even, by many standards, economical. The economic loss of 27 children would almost certainly exceed the $30 million in funds nationally allocated to it. The biggest tax you pay is in attention, and even there you've already given to it in reaction more attention than it demands. Is there a school program, obesity program, or swimming pool program that would do the same? There may be more immediately successful uses for said attention and funding abroad. But do those fighting child abductions and absurd donate less money and time to charitable concerns abroad. It is only my impression, but in my corner of the world apparently not. Those concerned with and directly involved in advancing social good are rarely concerned with just one part of it. Do not, then, begrudge people of the interest in the safety of their children and community, of their charitable work, and of their fears. To do so is not only to deny to human nature some of the most powerful forces for good, but to deny the self-interest that drives our society, without which we would wither.
- CWuestefeld 18y ago
  You're confusing "sexual abuse" with abduction. While there is overlap, we're talking about two different crimes. No one is claiming that no one should worry about abductions. But investing significant resources here CAUSES problems because of the opportunity cost -- greater amounts of good could be done by directing the resources to addressing greater risks. That's the big problem with the "if it saves just one child" thing. There's a finite amount of resources available, so we must prioritize and spend it on the places that will do the most good. Child abductions and Amber Alerts make good news copy, but addressing the more mundane dangers will give a better bang-for-the-buck, and save more people.
snorkel 18y ago
Spoken like a true non-parent. And yes you are a callous bastard too.
- jerf 18y ago
  I am now a parent, and I still feel that way. Worrying about unlikely threats and neglecting real threats does not make you holy. It is evil. When lives are at stake, anything less than full rationality is costing lives, and no amount of irrational kvetching or socially-approved attacks trying to convince people to stop worrying about reality and instead worry about fiction can change that. You may not be callous, but aren't you the true "bastard" here?
  - snorkel 18y ago
    Most buildings don't catch on fire. So is requiring fire alarms in buildings evil too?
    - silencio 18y ago
      For 2007. Amber alert: 227 amber alerts issued involving 278 children with 188 recoveries and 48 as a direct result of the alert being issued (see http://www.amberalert.gov/pdfs/07_amber_report.pdf http://www.amberalert.gov/pdfs/07_amber_report.pdf) Intentionally set structure fires: 32,500 fires, 295 deaths, $733 million in damage (http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/statistics/arson/index.shtm http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/statistics/arson/index.shtm) Overall fire statistics: 3430 dead, 17675 injured, 118 firefighters killed on duty, 1.6 million fires (see http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/statistics/quickstats/index.shtm http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/statistics/quickstats/index.shtm). I think the statistics speak for themselves.
      - snorkel 18y ago
        Wow, Amber Alert is evil. Never thought of it that way. How about lifeguards at the beach? Also evil?
        18y ago
joe_the_user 18y ago
Bravo, someone has to say it! It is great to see that folks are beginning to realize that child abuse has become the scoundrels' moral panic mobilized of choice. Auto accidents were first on the list of preventable forms of death for most ages last I checked (ten years ago) and they indeed don't get the OMG treatment.
eggnet 18y ago
I don't understand what your point is. Are you suggesting that since AMBER alerts are a waste of time and are a tool for "the man" to control us the app should be denied? What about google's app where you are sending your voice to google? Or maps where you send your position, or search where you send your desires (maps too)? Or loopt? Or countless games that don't save any children? I'm sure the delay is related to the decision to filter app submissions at all. They probably haven't looked at it yet or are still trying to determine the network impact of running it or who knows. Maybe for potentially popular apps they do a code audit.

by sho 18y ago

anamax 18y ago

> Sounds impressive until you remember that 55,000 children drown in backyard swimming pools every year. Where? Not in the US - the total number of drownings (including adults and other bodies of water) is under 4k/year. http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalSafety/Water-Safety/waterinjuries-factsheet.htm http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalSafety/Water-Safety/wa... I agree with the sentiment expressed - I'm just quibbling with the numbers used to support it.

sho 18y ago
Hm. I distinctly remember that number from a talk but I can't find a reference. The closest I found is this: http://www.lifesaving.com/issues/articles/13swimming_pool_drownings.html http://www.lifesaving.com/issues/articles/13swimming_pool_dr... .. which has the high number but is hard to interpret and doesn't cite its own sources. It does sound surprisingly high, though, I'll change my comment to "thousands", which I hope you'll agree is "safe".
- andrewljohnson 18y ago
  You remember that number from Freakanomics I bet. Levitt cited that when talking about gun deaths in the US, though I'm not sure if you have the figure right.
  - sho 18y ago
    Ah! That is almost certainly it. I think from his TED talk actually. Thanks, that had been driving me nuts.

comatose_kid 18y ago

While you bring up a great point, I think that loathing the guy and calling him a douchebag is a little extreme. It's not like the guy is killing puppies... Anyways, his larger point is dead on - Apple's opaque and lengthy approval process adds unnecessary business risk for prospective developers.

DaniFong 18y ago

You're comparing the magnitude of success for amber alerts - a solution to a problem, to the magnitude of problems themselves. It's not mere callousness, it's poor analysis. Whether you want to think about it or not, child sexual abuse is no dead crime. It's alarmingly common. It effects at least 20% of those closest to me - and this only for cases that I know of. From national surveys of adults, (www.unh.edu/ccrc/factsheet/pdf/CSA-FS20.pdf) it's estimated that 9-32% of women and 5-10% of men were subject to sexual abuse during their childhoods (though statistics for criminal reported cases are much lower -- about 1.2 per 1,000 children). Who is to say that were the law enforcement less vigilant, such abuse wouldn't escalate. In many countries, it does. Particularly in South-East Asia and Eastern Europe, the sex trade is rampant -- Unicef estimates put it at 1 million young sold into the trade per year (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/1707763.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/1707763.stm). The amber alert is but one deterrent; the combined effect is likely quite effective. Who among those arguing for AMBER alerts are campaigning against charity programs to Africa? What instead we have are law enforcement agencies partnering up to work against child abductions and sexual abuse effectively. Effectively? It is even, by many standards, economical. The economic loss of 27 children would almost certainly exceed the $30 million in funds nationally allocated to it. The biggest tax you pay is in attention, and even there you've already given to it in reaction more attention than it demands. Is there a school program, obesity program, or swimming pool program that would do the same? There may be more immediately successful uses for said attention and funding abroad. But do those fighting child abductions and absurd donate less money and time to charitable concerns abroad. It is only my impression, but in my corner of the world apparently not. Those concerned with and directly involved in advancing social good are rarely concerned with just one part of it. Do not, then, begrudge people of the interest in the safety of their children and community, of their charitable work, and of their fears. To do so is not only to deny to human nature some of the most powerful forces for good, but to deny the self-interest that drives our society, without which we would wither.

CWuestefeld 18y ago
You're confusing "sexual abuse" with abduction. While there is overlap, we're talking about two different crimes. No one is claiming that no one should worry about abductions. But investing significant resources here CAUSES problems because of the opportunity cost -- greater amounts of good could be done by directing the resources to addressing greater risks. That's the big problem with the "if it saves just one child" thing. There's a finite amount of resources available, so we must prioritize and spend it on the places that will do the most good. Child abductions and Amber Alerts make good news copy, but addressing the more mundane dangers will give a better bang-for-the-buck, and save more people.

snorkel 18y ago

Spoken like a true non-parent. And yes you are a callous bastard too.

jerf 18y ago
I am now a parent, and I still feel that way. Worrying about unlikely threats and neglecting real threats does not make you holy. It is evil. When lives are at stake, anything less than full rationality is costing lives, and no amount of irrational kvetching or socially-approved attacks trying to convince people to stop worrying about reality and instead worry about fiction can change that. You may not be callous, but aren't you the true "bastard" here?
- snorkel 18y ago
  Most buildings don't catch on fire. So is requiring fire alarms in buildings evil too?
  - silencio 18y ago
    For 2007. Amber alert: 227 amber alerts issued involving 278 children with 188 recoveries and 48 as a direct result of the alert being issued (see http://www.amberalert.gov/pdfs/07_amber_report.pdf http://www.amberalert.gov/pdfs/07_amber_report.pdf) Intentionally set structure fires: 32,500 fires, 295 deaths, $733 million in damage (http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/statistics/arson/index.shtm http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/statistics/arson/index.shtm) Overall fire statistics: 3430 dead, 17675 injured, 118 firefighters killed on duty, 1.6 million fires (see http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/statistics/quickstats/index.shtm http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/statistics/quickstats/index.shtm). I think the statistics speak for themselves.
    - snorkel 18y ago
      Wow, Amber Alert is evil. Never thought of it that way. How about lifeguards at the beach? Also evil?
      - 18y ago

joe_the_user 18y ago

Bravo, someone has to say it! It is great to see that folks are beginning to realize that child abuse has become the scoundrels' moral panic mobilized of choice. Auto accidents were first on the list of preventable forms of death for most ages last I checked (ten years ago) and they indeed don't get the OMG treatment.

eggnet 18y ago

I don't understand what your point is. Are you suggesting that since AMBER alerts are a waste of time and are a tool for "the man" to control us the app should be denied? What about google's app where you are sending your voice to google? Or maps where you send your position, or search where you send your desires (maps too)? Or loopt? Or countless games that don't save any children? I'm sure the delay is related to the decision to filter app submissions at all. They probably haven't looked at it yet or are still trying to determine the network impact of running it or who knows. Maybe for potentially popular apps they do a code audit.