Incident in Hawaii prompts review of state’s emergency alert systems
Q: Last month, a Hawaii emergency management worker accidentally sent local residents an alert that a ballistic missile was headed their way, sending many into a panic before a correction was issued more than a half-hour later. The incident has prompted discussion regarding the regulation of emergency alert systems. What regulatory efforts have been taken to ensure that false alerts, like the one issued in Hawaii, don’t occur going forward?
A: The state of Hawaii has addressed the specific weaknesses in its Wireless Emergency Alert (WEA) procedures that allowed for the false alert and the 38-minute delay to correct it. Beyond those specific defects, the incident has thrown the broader vulnerabilities of WEAs into sharp relief, causing the various agencies involved to take a hard look at the overall scheme. The U.S. Congress — which tasked these agencies with implementing WEAs — also has undertaken a review of the system. On Jan. 25, the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee held a hearing to investigate the current effectiveness of WEAs, and the comments from that hearing reveal that stakeholders seek not only remedial measures, but also proactive ones aimed at better integrating current technology to aid in emergency situations.
Q: What role do state and federal governments play in regulating and operating the Wireless Emergency Alert system?
A: Congress distributed responsibility across several entities, including federal agencies, state and local governments and wireless carriers. By involving this many actors, the scheme leverages multiple areas of expertise and localized knowledge. But this also results in an increased risk of deficient procedures and human error, as evidenced by the Hawaii incident. Though Congress tasked the Federal Communications Commission with developing the technical requirements for WEAs, the FCC doesn’t send alerts through the system. Authorized federal, state and local authorities may send emergency alerts to wireless carriers through the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Integrated Public Alert and Warning System. Wireless carriers then deliver the alerts, which appear as text messages, to mobile devices in the affected area. Because no one entity holds extensive regulatory power over this scheme, its overall effectiveness relies on the internal procedures of each entity involved — a rather tall order.
Q: How can the incident in Hawaii better prepare issuers of emergency alerts in Oklahoma?
A: All entities involved in relaying emergency alerts should view the Hawaii incident as a call to further refine their internal procedures. In Oklahoma, this implicates severe weather alerts, particularly during tornado season. Tornado alerts can come from many sources, including sirens, radio, television, the internet and mobile apps. Though Oklahomans never should rely on just one of these sources, it only takes a false alert from one source to spark panic and erode public confidence in the system. For example, a few days after the Hawaii incident, a Japanese broadcaster issued a false alert warning of an inbound missile to users of its mobile app. Of course, issuers of emergency alerts play a crucial role in our communities. And the 38 minutes of chaos in Hawaii serves as a stark reminder of the responsibility that comes with that role.