New terror alert system for the US

[Skgoa]

New York (CNN) -- A new terrorism warning system will provide the public with information on specific threats, replacing the color-coded alerts put in place after the September 11, 2001, attacks, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said Wednesday.

In announcing the new system at New York City's Grand Central Terminal, commonly known as Grand Central Station, Napolitano said a main goal was to provide better understanding of the nature of the specific threat, what people should do in reaction to it and how they could help security officials in responding.

"It will provide alerts based on specific, credible information about potential terrorist activity," Napolitano said, adding that the alerts would contain "as many details as we can provide."

Right now, she said, there is no threat that would reach the level to warrant one of the new alerts, which will take effect on April 26.

Napolitano made the announcement in the city where more than 2,700 people were killed when two hijacked planes crashed into the World Trade Center's twin towers.

Terror alerts get more specific

She was joined by New York Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly and Republican Rep. Peter King of New York, the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, who both praised the new National Terrorism Advisory System as an upgrade that enhances current security efforts.

However, Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, the top Republican on the Senate Homeland Security Committee, cautioned that the new system must "effectively disseminate threat information in a timely manner and provide sound guidance to the public and affected homeland security partners on the actions they should take to protect themselves and the nation."

Collins urged Napolitano's department "to keep communication lines open with our state and local homeland security officials and with the private sector so that implementation of the system meets the vision" set by the secretary.

The new system has two levels of alerts, compared to the previous system's five levels, Napolitano said.

The two alert levels of the new system are "elevated threat," which "warns of a credible terrorist threat" to the United States; and "imminent threat," which "warns of a credible, specific and impending terrorist threat," according to a Department of Homeland Security statement.

Any alert will automatically expire after a two-week period, although they could be extended if new information shows a threat persists, DHS said.

Napolitano told reporters in a morning briefing that the alerts posted on a department website -- www.dhs.gov/alerts -- will provide details to show the nature, location and other information about terrorism threats. Therefore, she said, a specific warning may apply to a particular address, community, city or region, rather than the non-specific general warnings of the color-coded system.

Alerts also will be announced by her office and made public via traditional media such as television announcements and radio broadcasts, as well as social media, Napolitano said.

She conceded that the color-coded system "has faded in utility except for late-night comics," noting that the warning level at airports had been at orange since 2006.

"That's one of the reasons why people (stopped) paying attention to them," Napolitano said. Instead of a constant state of undefined warning, she said, the new system will react to actual threats.

"We don't want people to live in fear," she said. "We want people to live in a state of alert and awareness."

Her department is asking the public to be on alert for any suspicious activity, incorporating the New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority's trademark slogan "If You See Something, Say Something" into its alerts.

Evaluating the current threat for Wednesday under the old system, the Department of Homeland Security put it at yellow, or elevated. Under the new system, it does not warrant an alert.

source: http://edition.cnn.com/2011/TRAVEL/04/2 ... ry.system/

Overall, it seems to be a good idea, IF they stop abuse of terror warnings for political reasons.

[MarxII]

This is merely a first-glance reaction, but I would imagine having fewer categories of 'threat' as well more stringent guidelines regarding when and for how long such alerts can be issued to be a step very much in the right direction.

With any luck, a simplified (and yet, to think of it, somewhat less simplistic) warning system will encourage citizens to pay closer attention to alerts as they happen, and thereby lessen the brass of those responsible for hiking things up to Atomic Tangerine Alert two weeks before election time.

[Koolaidkirby]

well wasn't the old system at orange or yellow or whatever it was at for something like 5 years without change?

[Zed Snardbody]

well wasn't the old system at orange or yellow or whatever it was at for something like 5 years without change?

Nationally it was at Yellow, Transportation has been at Orange.

[Simon_Jester]

Right. Still absolutely useless as an "alert system," especially since the colors were never defined in meaningful terms. What does "high-orange" risk of terrorist attacks mean, in terms of what the government actually expects to happen? An average of one successful attack per month? Per year? Per century? Does it mean there is a "high" risk that I personally will be attacked by terrorists, that someone in the country will be attacked by terrorists? Again, how high is "high?"

An "alert" only works if people know what it means: tornado warnings are only issued when there is a meaningful chance of a tornado, and so on. And you can look up or calculate what the real risk is for a given warning. Bush never did that for terror alerts.

The new system might be better if it's used conscientiously: if it comes with awareness that yes, at some point whatever looming menace was coming along and made us go to condition red has passed, and we can blow the all-clear and let people stagger out of their bunkers again.

[Akhlut]

An "alert" only works if people know what it means: tornado warnings are only issued when there is a meaningful chance of a tornado, and so on. And you can look up or calculate what the real risk is for a given warning. Bush never did that for terror alerts.

Nitpick: tornado warnings are only issued when a funnel cloud has been spotted or there is an area of high rotation spotted on doppler radar. Tornado watches are issued when there are conditions favorable for tornado formation. Which it actually kind of seems like what they're using: an "elevated threat" for when conditions are favorable for terrorism as it were, and the "imminent threat" for when we know there is terrorist activity afoot.

The new system might be better if it's used conscientiously: if it comes with awareness that yes, at some point whatever looming menace was coming along and made us go to condition red has passed, and we can blow the all-clear and let people stagger out of their bunkers again.

Hopefully the 2-week expiration will keep things in check, as well as the public availability of the nature of the alert will keep it from being used in a political manner as the old color-coded system was.

[Simon_Jester]

An "alert" only works if people know what it means: tornado warnings are only issued when there is a meaningful chance of a tornado, and so on. And you can look up or calculate what the real risk is for a given warning. Bush never did that for terror alerts.

Nitpick: tornado warnings are only issued when a funnel cloud has been spotted or there is an area of high rotation spotted on doppler radar. Tornado watches are issued when there are conditions favorable for tornado formation.

Fair enough- but, again, they tell you what the "watch" and "warning" conditions mean, and they don't keep up the ridiculous pretense that "ohmigod there might be a tornado ANY SECOND!"

Moreover, these definitions: "elevated, high, severe..." what are they relative to? Does one terrorist attack a year count as "elevated, high, or severe?" What if it kills two or three people? And if one attack a year is "severe," then we need a whole new scale to talk about places like Ireland during the Troubles- would they invent an "infra-red" threat category if we found ourselves in a situation like that?

That's what bugs me: the color-alert system never conveyed useful information about the risk of terrorist attack, because the colors didn't correspond to anything that a rational citizen could use to base a decision on. When someone tells me there's been a tornado warning in my county, I know what it means- well actually, I just proved I don't, but you would.

When someone tells me there is an "elevated risk of terrorist attacks," I don't know what it means, and I have no choice but to cower in fear of terrorists who never show up, or to behave as if an "elevated risk" was a "zero risk..." which entirely defeats the purpose of even having 'green' and 'blue' on the scale at all.

The new system might be better if it's used conscientiously: if it comes with awareness that yes, at some point whatever looming menace was coming along and made us go to condition red has passed, and we can blow the all-clear and let people stagger out of their bunkers again.

Hopefully the 2-week expiration will keep things in check, as well as the public availability of the nature of the alert will keep it from being used in a political manner as the old color-coded system was.

That would be nice.

Again, our mental model for this should be something like air-raid or other disaster alerts: they cover specified areas based on specific evidence, not "the whole country" based on "well, we think this might be a good time for some hypothetical bunch of terrorists to attack." The threat level and alert system should factor in the actual chance that our real enemies are plotting a real attack, not just that our fantasy-enemy the "ten feet tall and can do anything" super-terrorist Islamic Menace could plot an attack.

[defanatic]

This discussion vaguely reminds me of my confusion when playing a game and trying to figure out what "green" or "orange" ping mean.

[Scottish Ninja]

For that matter, the color-coded alert system was a joke because the only people who would check the terror alert status daily would be terrorists themselves wanting to find out how intently people would be looking out for them that day.

Of course that doesn't matter when the alert level is continuously at Orange, because when Orange is the baseline (at least in airports, which is basically the only place most Americans encounter the thing anymore - correct me if I'm wrong) then the scale just becomes meaningless anyway. I see possibly the biggest issue is trying to use the system to tie guidelines for civilian action (be more vigilant!) to warnings of potential danger, which leads to the consequence of people only being told to watch for suspicious behavior when there is allegedly a heightened risk. Since the security apparatus finds it useful to continuously tell passengers to be aware of possible terrorists, the alert level stays up, because the alternative is to say, "there's no known threat! You may let your guard down now."

[aerius]

For that matter, the color-coded alert system was a joke because the only people who would check the terror alert status daily would be terrorists themselves wanting to find out how intently people would be looking out for them that day.

Pretty much. Hell, I work at an airport and I have a hard time remembering what the alert level is and I'll be damned if I can tell you what they mean.

This discussion vaguely reminds me of my confusion when playing a game and trying to figure out what "green" or "orange" ping mean.

You might as well replace the terrorist alert system with one that uses rubber duckies.

[Tanasinn]

The terror alert system has always been a non-tool deliberately created so the government could pretend to be doing something and to influence elections.