2,2 (emergency text alerts, opt-in notification, twitter, wireless carriers)

II.     Ways it could happen:
       
        A.    intentional misuse of a campus text alert system, opt-in notification system, official             twitter feed, wireless carrier

From February 2012 to April of 2012, the University of Pittsburgh experienced what can only be termed a bomb threat epidemic.  The university's final count of bomb threats was 52, targeting 160 buildings that lead to 136 evacuations.  The climate of continuous bomb threat disruptions severely impacted campus life and operations.  The University of Pittsburgh's use of the word "bomb" on their official twitter feed and campus text alert emergency system became routine and commonplace.

Has every major university been properly briefed about the potential danger associated with transmitting a bomb threat evacuation notice while up to 100,000 individuals are in a confined setting?  On their campus text emergency alert system?  On their twitter feed?  Twitter is a powerful social media format and with the simple press of a button, a message can be spread exponentially in a split second.  The entire notion of Twitter is centered around the idea of instantaneous, widespread distribution of small pieces of information.  It does not factor in content, let alone, intent.  And with brief messages and abbreviations, there's also a lot of room for misinterpretation.  Consider your mental reaction to the following message.

The FBI has issued an immediate evacuation of Heinz Field.
The FBI has issued an immediate evacuation of Heinz Field?

Just one character, a question mark, directly impacts ones interpretation and potentially their split second decision making.

One of the most publicized trials of 2012 was the Jerry Sandusky case.  Penn State's official twitter feed made the precise verdict, 45 guilty counts out of 48, available roughly 2 minutes in the twittersphere before the major media outlets announced the verdict.  The entire business model of twitter revolves around dispensing small pieces of information in the quickest amount of time.  Accuracy or verifiability are not tantamount issues of concern.  Sounds like it could be a recipe for disaster.  You've heard the expression "good news travels fast."  I would suggest that bad news travels even faster. 

I receive messages from the Steelers Smash Alert system while their games are in progress.  Usually it's just the halftime score.  I've grown accustomed to the fact that it's accurate information.  I'm sure others who get Smash alerts would agree with this sentiment.  But what if this message said something radically different instead of a routine scoring or injury status update?  How many people in the stadium could this impact?   Consider the reaction of individuals who aren't in the stadium, but have family or friends they know to be present.  Would every one of these people be able to instantly comprehend the consequences of their actions, even if they were seemingly well-intentioned?

What if the message originated from a wireless carrier?  Dec. 12, 2011 Verizon "Civil Emergency in this area until 1:24 PM EST Take Shelter Now U.S. Govern" alert in central New Jersey.  (Still photo of SMS).  No admission of responsibility.  No accountability.  Oh well, someone must have screwed up.  Could it have been a "malicious hoax" as termed by the Monmouth County Sheriff or was it just a mistake?  Will there ever be an investigation?  I don't know.  You tell me. Interesting side note - The 911 emergency system was overloaded as this incident played itself out.  How would this impact peoples reliance on standard emergency operating systems?  Existing systems would be severely compromised.

Whatever you wish to call it, Personal Localized Alert Network or Wireless Emergency Alert System... if you implement a policy to directly and efficiently contact U.S. citizens you have an obligation to discuss the potential downside.

government alerts, imminent threat alerts, extreme weather alerts, AMBER alerts, presidential-level alerts.

It strikes me as painfully obvious that if the U.S. govt. is going to use these systems to "protect" its citizens, they have a moral obligation to explain that there are very specific situations where these same platforms could be used to reek havoc.