palmscenter

The issue is the phones to be served by the Box, not the Box itself which can easily run on the Pi.

The main problem with these projects - which was not much of an issue when the projects started - is that mobile phones of today seek access to web servers at vendors, including the OS source and possibly others such as the phone manufacturer and ISP. The phones balk if they don't connect to those servers. PirateBox and LibraryBox are not just captive portals to Internet connections, they are local content and app servers and don't need the Internet.

So when you connect to a Box via Wi-Fi your phone demands to connect to Internet hosts even though this is unnecessary for this use case. This behavior is confusing to the user. Some early solutions involved trying to spoof Apple servers for example, but the names and IPs of these servers kept changing and this kluge became ineffective.

The only solution I am aware of is to pre-inform users of a local IP address to browse to once their Wi-Fi is connected to the Box. But depending on the occasion and venue, getting such instructions to the audience and having them follow it, can be its own problem.

> Is there a way to broadcast on the radio or tv without getting into such contract that limits what you can broadcast?

Not in the US. Even if your station or device does not require an individual license, you are still subject to US law and must comply with FCC rules based on that law (the Communications Act). There is no free speech right to broadcast by radio.

Wireless Emergency Alerts use the same tones, but didn’t exist on 9/11. EAS did exist, but the alerts are supposed to include the protective action to be taken. What protective action would you have recommended the public take? And since broadcast news widely covered the attacks, what contribution would an EAS alert make?

“The FCC document references the 18 Fox owned stations and says nothing about the 200+ affiliate stations.”

Im fact the FCC mentions the affiliates several times. One example: “Therefore, we find FOX responsible for broadcasting the Promotional Segment containing the EAS Tones on 18 of its owned-and-operated broadcast stations, transmitting the Promotional Segment to 190 of its network-affiliated television broadcast stations, and causing the transmission of the Promotional Segment on Fox Sports Radio and the Fox Sports on XM channel.”

> Are those stations culpable if they also broadcast Fox produced content that was in violation of EAS rules?

Station licensees are responsible for the content they broadcast. In this case at least the FCC went after the content source, which is itself also a licensee.

What is your point - that the alerting agency is evil and wanted to disturb more people than necessary?

It has nothing to do with Wi-Fi. If people leave their phones on, not in Airplane Mode, while in the cabin they could well receive the alert from any cellular service area they are flying over. And it doesn't have to be an Amber alert, it could be a wireless emergency alert for anything.

A child was abducted, and in some cases - as happened just a few days ago - the noncustodial parent threatens to kill the child. And does. The fact that the abduction involves a custody dispute is only one of the factors that goes into the decision to send an alert.

Many abductions are vehicle thefts where the thief takes off without noticing or caring that there is a child in the car.

In one recent case, the thief threw the baby out the window into a ditch. Citizens who received the Amber alert found the child.

Title 47 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Section 10.500(h) requires the alert to be preserved "in a consumer-accessible format and location for at least 24 hours or until deleted by the subscriber."

Canada doesn't have a president, but until it passes a law that requires phones sold in Canada to have Canada-specific features in the alert display, it will say what it says in the USA. And in USA the Presidential Alert is switching to National Alert.

I know of no state in the USA where a child not returning on time is enough to trigger an Amber alert.

It doesn't matter whether the cause is a custody dispute or something else. Custody disputes of themselves do not meet the criteria for AMBER alerts. Danger to the child and criminal activity are among the criteria that have to be met for the alert to be sent.

States vary as to how effectively they run their alerting systems, and how well they follow best practices, but that is ultimately an issue for the voters.

There is nothing automated about originating those alerts. The actual procedure for transmitting the alert is manual. The incident has to meet state criteria including likelihood of harm to the child, criminal activity, information about the vehicle and other facts.

A missing child in a custody dispute alone is rarely enough to trigger an alert.

One of the leading types of child abductions leading to alerts is vehicle theft with a child in the vehicle. Not a custody dispute.

That shelter-in-place alert did not follow well-established practices that require more details in the content and more geographically limited alerts. The agency that sent this alert got an earful afterwards and presumably will update their training.

The two instances where alerts are typically sent statewide are Blue and Amber. The theory in both is that the perp may be many miles away from where the incident took place. And that is often the case, especially with child abductions.

Some states will not send alerts overnight and others will; it is a matter of state policy - and ultimately an issue for the ballot box.

Experimental Radio News: https://experimradio.substack.com