To hell with Amber Alerts (because no one wants to fix it)
There are a lot of things in this hyper-modern world and day and age that gets shoved in your face and down your throat. Cell phone notifications. Personalized advertising. Donald Takeadump's tweets. And Amber Alerts.
It used to be that Amber Alerts are something you only hear about when you tune in the news, or maybe even on a highway digital sign (as if we need more driving distractions). Now with advancing mobile technology you can not just have a TV or radio broadcast interrupted with an obnoxious buzzing noise to alert the whole world of a missing child along with a horrible electronic voice reading the alert message, you get them shoved straight through your smartphone. Not everyone likes the latter idea when they see how terribly it is executed.
Whatever happened to missing child posters on milk cartons? (To be honest, I have never in my life encountered a missing child poster on a milk carton, this is something I only seen on TV.)
I don't know if Amber Alerts are something other countries besides Canada and the US have. And as a matter of fact, the "Amber" in Amber Alert is an acronym for "America's Missing: Emergency Response Transmission," although it is also named after a kid from Texas whose abduction and murder somehow inspired this idea of issuing emergency alerts in the event of a child abduction. Which makes me wonder why it's called Amber Alert in Canada, other than because we like to borrow and adopt so much from the Americans to match what they are doing—at least we do not capitalize all the letters ("AMBER Alert") like they do in the States.
I sure do not want to have something like this named after me.
But going back to the main point of this: having Amber Alerts pushed onto everyone's mobile devices not only means everyone is force-fed the messages with no opt-out as per government order, which comes with a very obnoxious buzzing noise, they get pushed at all sorts of times. Even in the middle of the night when many people are in a deep sleep and have their phones still on. Which meant a lot of people got pissed they were rudely awoken to the news of a missing child. Some of those folks called 911 to complain about it. The authorities then have to go on the news to defend the practice of push-notification Amber Alerts.
Ever since sometime in 2018 when Canada implemented the practice of mobile Amber Alerts, we've had at least 5 of these push-notification incidents in Ontario alone. One of these cases tragically the girl was found dead and her non-custodial father was charged with her murder. The rest I believe the child was found safe, including one where the father picked his daughter from school as usual and ends up being treated as a child abductor but released without charges, and most recently with two boys and their grandfather, as if the granddad is the abductor (turns out he was quite confused). Like, wonderful, right? Let's all pat ourselves in the back and masturbate to each successful Amber Alert, whoopie-fucking-do.
The implementation of these mass force-fed alerts in its current form begs a lot of questions to be asked about its nature. One of these Alerts concerned a missing child from Thunder Bay, where people as far away as Toronto got phone alerts for. Why are people in Toronto being force-fed an Amber Alert regarding a kid thousands of kilometres away? What do you expect the average person to do, head over to the airport with pitchforks waiting for a flight from Thunder Bay to land so we can save a child, capture the abductor and be the fucking hero? That is, even assuming they would be flying to Toronto, as if that's what an abductor would be doing.
Hell no. Let's be realistic here. If I was consciously abducting a kid, and wanting to fly far out of town, I'd get the hell out of the country quickly even if it meant leaving everything behind! I know what I am doing is wrong and I do not want to be caught by national authorities, am I right?
There are other questions that need to be asked about the mass force-fed approach to Ambert Alerts and the concept itself. Like, why in fuck's name are people receiving alerts in the early morning hours? Who is the fucking retard who think it is appropriate and effective to issue an push-notification Amber Alert at 3 in the morning? (Oh don't tell me an algorithm is behind that!) If these alerts are intended for a general public audience, why would anyone think 3AM is an okay time to send an alert out? Who is responsible for getting these alerts out and how it is done? Why are Amber Alerts (at least in Canada) being treated with the same level of "presidental level" alertness on your smartphone as something that is a big major apocalyptic national threat, like a nuclear bomb heading our way?
These incidents of direct-to-phone Amber Alert messages have quickly established a pattern of where news stories about people calling 911 to complain about being disturbed by the alerts quickly accompany the incident itself. It's to the point of a predictable cyclical script, just like how mass shooting incidents in the States have become a script. And it goes like this: an Amber Alert is issued, child is found (or not), endless news reports of people complaining to 911 makes the rounds as authorities justify the system and remind people not to clog 911 with complaints, wash rinse and repeat.
We can all agree we should not call 911 to bitch about an Amber Alert. Absolutely not in the middle of an active Ambert Alert when authorities want the 911 lines free to be able to collect tips on the fact. You want to fine people who take up valuable 911 time with their anger? Go ahead. But then where should we voice our frustrations? Facebook and Twitter? They're great for bitching about anything, terrible at being heard with the goal of getting something accomplished. Heck, if you read these articles about the complaints, you'll notice no one ever says anything about where more appropriate to leave a complaint. It's like they do not want to hear them, and that is probably the case, that the authorities behind the Amber Alert schema are content with the way they have it set up.
But the complainers do perhaps have a valid point. Why on fucking earth are people being awoken by an ill-timed Amber Alert on their phones? What do you expect people to be doing once awake, run out in their pyjamas and roam the neighbourhood looking for a missing child in a half-asleep stupor, going only on a vague text description of the child? "Amber, Amber, where are you?" Or why are we getting alerts about a kid who is so far away as to be of little concern?
I get that each missing child case needs to be evaluated by police before they resort to publicizing a missing child, or even issuing an Amber Alert. After someone first reports them missing, cops have to make sure the kid is truly unaccounted for, that they are not somewhere lost in school or at a friends or relative's place. They have to quickly investigate reports that someone else may be behind their disappearance. By that time, it's possible that several hours has passed, it's possible the child in question is far away from town. By the time an Amber Alert goes out, it is possible indeed, as with the case of Riya Rajkumar, the subject child is dead. Yet we still credit the Amber Alert a success because it brought in attention and tips that helped locate the deceased child. The system works again.
Gotta admire the blind optimism of the pro-Amber Alert folks.
Or why is EVERYONE being forced to receive these alerts? This is something I surely did not agree to nor signed up for. Why is this responsibility—a civic duty, perhaps?—being shoved and downloaded to us all? What do they expect us the general public to do in these cases? Seriously though, no one has ever explained to us what to do or equipped us with necessary skills in the event of an Amber Alert. What do you want me to do, seriously? You may think it's "obvious," that is to keep an eye out for the kid and report to police, but it's not that simple (will get to that later on).
It is pathetic on the part of S-ociety as a whole that no criticism of the current system will be entertained. In fact, critics and whiners are quickly villified by defenders of the Amber Alert as heartless horrible selfish narrow-minded assholes. They think it's sad and unfortunate many others feel differently about mass Amber Alerts than they do. News agencies entertain themselves much with such punditry and op-ed pieces in response to the 911 complaining phenomenon in support of our holy Amber Alert system. "Shame on you," writes one person in a half-assed column (as if anything in the world has ever gotten accomplished by screaming the statement, "shame on you"—the truth is: no). And apparently we need to "be more educated" about these force-fed alerts. One guy on the website of a New Jersey radio station even writes, "Suck it up."
Suck it up? FUCK YOU! How would you like it if you were rudely waken up in the middle of the night by an Amber Alert? Maybe I should have you locked up in a room and be tortured with that distinctive Ambert Alert buzzing noise (they really could not have chosen a less obnoxious tone?) over and over, see how you like it.
And that is the thing with authorities and supporters including the mass media (who always love a good missing child story to sensationalize): they are clearly incredulous and in denial of any problems with the way Amber Alerts are currently deployed. They beat the drums of the party line with their rhetoric, always congratulating themselves and proclaiming the Amber Alert a success because it works once again as expected, always pulling the "what if it was your child" card. They are so full of themselves, they do not see anything wrong with mass force-fed Amber Alerts in the middle of the night, refusing to see the absurdity and ineffectiveness of such a scenario from the perspective of the opposition. They are content with the status quo, everyone else be damned. Nobody wants to acknowledge a problem exists.
"Wake Me Up Everytime!," proclaims the title of one news opinion piece in support of late-night Amber Alerts. Such joy!! It really is as if the defenders and supporters have never ever been in the experience of being awoken by a 3am Amber Alert. It seriously makes me wonder what those people who don't see an issue with 3am Amber Alerts would really do when they themselves are rudely awoken by a 3am Amber Alert. Look at their phones and then fall back asleep? That would be ironic and just as useless as those who make angry 911 calls about this when a child is supposedly out there in danger. Of course there are people out there already awake at 0300h for whatever reason (graveyard shift jobs, travelling around, just left the bar after last call, etc.), but most people are like deep asleep, and expecting the sleeping majority to be able to act upon a late night Amber Alert is seriously retardedly delusional, let's be real here.
A conclusion can be made of all this: criticizing and suggesting improvements to the Amber Alert system is a new social taboo. Even in this so-called democracy of ours with freedom of speech and all that jazz, we are only allowed only one approved opinion of many issues, even something as petty as the way the Amber Alerts currently work. So much for freedom. And that is troubling. And unacceptable. And backwards. Taboos and stigmas are retarded social concepts/mechanisms anyhow and has no place in a modern sophisticated society that likes to regard itself as advanced and progressive.
I have no tolerance for mass stupidity. I have even less than zero tolerance for willful ignorance. It is sad that a topic like Amber Alerts manages to combine the two: the stupids who complain via 911, and the willfully arrogantly ignorant defenders of the system who themselves get angry over the idea that others don't want to be subjected to Amber Alerts. That combined with the emotionally driven irrational logics that informs the subject and how it is being shoved in our faces without consent, really makes it hard to accept being on-board the scheme.
It really should not be taboo to suggest that Canada's current mobile phone Amber Alert schema needs adjustment, nor should people feel ashamed to suggest they have the right to opt out of receiving direct Amber Alerts. The latter idea sadly is surely to invite much the same opinionated disgust from Amber Alert supporters who believe alerts MUST be pushed onto every single person on earth and that it will not be effective without that stipulation. Just another way S-ociety shoves itself into us all.
Let's face it: 99.99% of the world population, or even 99.99% of a city, are in NO position to be able to do anything about an Amber Alert. They are too far from anywhere, too busy to be allowed a chance to act, asleep(!), etc. Just receiving a message about a missing child and thus knowing there's a missing child out there somewhere is good to know, but it accomplishes nothing. There are those who do care enough to take the trouble to keep an eye out and report when they think they see something matching the alert description. Good for them. The rest of us however, we should be able to not be subjected to such alerts if we do not want them. Since when the fuck did Amber Alerts become a social obligation?
What evidence exists to suggest mass alerts are effective anyways? Besides, force-feeding Amber Alerts onto everyone's faces and ears is asking too much of us all, especially considering that much of S-ociety is full of stupid people. Much of us are too lazy to properly toss an empty soda can into the recycling bin instead of the trash pile, and yet we're expected to help find a missing child at a moment's call? (These are the same dumbasses who call 911 to bitch and whine about Amber Alerts, after all.) I know all this sounds heartless, especially to the pro-Amber Alert crowd, but that is the reality that perhaps they do not want to accept. Lest to join the Donald Takeadump parade and make up your own "alternative facts" on the matter, I guess.
People behind force-fed Amber Alerts are concerned that the public's annoyance to these alerts will nurture a dismissive "boy who cry wolf" situation where we all learn to ignore them. You damn bet that concern is real. It's like car alarms: they are most often false alarms triggered by mundane events like someone bumping onto a car and suddenly the whole neighbourhood is disturbed by an obnoxious blaring noise that won't shut up, such that we have learned to ignore them and do nothing because we all have figured no one is really trying to steal a vehicle (and car alarm makers have done nothing about improving their products). When you shove Amber Alerts onto the phones of literally everybody, with a disturbing loud blaring noise, and these alerts are of no concern to most of us, you damn shall bet we will learn to do nothing except be annoyed by yet another new modern society nuisance. Besides once again, what the hell can we do?
I can appreciate why the Amber Alert scheme exist, no really I do. If I had a child and my kid went missing one day, of course I would want all the resources available to have my child return home safely. But personally I would not want to subject literally everyone to the search effort. That honestly seems selfish to me. Pro-Amber Alert peoples like to argue that those bitching about unwanted Amber Alerts are selfish, but I like to spin that around. Frankly, why is one kid in one moment considered that much more valuable than everyone else? Why does that not sound selfish?
Which leads me to want to take this opportunity to discuss another thing about Amber Alerts and child abductions cases in general at a more deeper sociological kind of level, generating even more questions and thoughts no one else has the balls to openly present and discuss. Likewise, seems like nobody else in the world thinks and see the way I do on this topic in my typically socially cynical nature; I really do feel lonely about it.
S-ociety's preoccupation with missing children is a uniquely capital-W Western obsession. I don't think there are other societies in this planet that cares so much about missing children as does Western nations. I have a friend from another country who is perplexed with all these Amber Alerts, commenting that where he is from, missing children is a common occurance, that they wouldn't be able to have an Amber Alert system. Indeed, there are plenty of countries out there where kids go missing all the time, where child abductions happens more often than not, and the authorities do not have the resources to go after every case, or even care at all. So yes indeed Western society should really count its blessings and consider itself lucky in this regards that it has the resources to even obsess over missing children and come up with something like Amber Alerts. You may even want to think of this as a "first world problem."
And why obsess over missing children anyways? To me, Amber Alerts is a product of western society's child innocencism, which is what I refer to this idea or myth that children are inheriently innocent and thus must be protected at all costs from all harms of the world, real and perceived and ficticious. Innocentizing children contributes to their objectification in S-ociety. Children lack agency, for the inexplicable reason why they are referred to as minors and are treated as objects—chattel, essentially—in child custody cases, where usually the children have no say whatsoever on the matter, that someone else—the courts, lawyers—is making critical decisions on what's best for them on behalf of the children. We speak of children in objectifying terms, treat them as if they belong to someone like any other property. When missing children cases make the news, it's easy to feel like they are not persons, but rather characters in an ongoing story.
The mass media LOVES missing children cases, it's no wonder why they latch on quickly with Amber Alerts. Cases involving abductions and even murder at the hands of complete strangers—the Elizabeth Smarts, Tori Straffords, Jonbenet Ramseys, etc etc.—are very sellable and engaging to a very dumbass audience, and the press are happy to sensationalize these stories to death. (You think people who follow these stories closely are going to do anything about helping to solve the cases? Hell no!) It is to the point to dangerous exaggeration, of making people think stranger abductions are a common threat in western society, which in turn reinforces our mass preoccupation with missing children, justifies Amber Alerts and other such measures, and pumps up moral panics and fears that our precious innocent children are always in danger.
Stranger danger is overrated. In fact stranger abductions are very statistically rare. A kid in western society is much more likely to be abducted by someone within their own family, usually a non-custodial parent. It should not be a surprise that most, if not almost all Amber Alerts involve a parent or other relative of the subject child. Which now begs the question of whether a kid at the centre of an Amber Alert is truly literally always in danger. The recent Riya Rajkumar case was an exception (and if convicted, seriously the father should be given the death penalty, but we don't have that in Canada anymore). I mean, why would a parent kidnap their own child and then kill them? It is a very difficult question to answer as the motive is unique to every case. But statistically I would doubt that a kid is in any alarming danger. In most cases I bet the non-custodial parent snatches their own kid simply to have that kid to themselves. They care for the kid just as much but do not trust the other parent, don't care what the custody agreement says because it's not in their favour, let's get out of here. It's still kidnapping, but should we really be exaggerating the danger factor of the situation?
(Heck, it's pretty pathetic how exaggerated any fears concerning children is. We fear the stranger pedophiles and equally sensationalize sellable news stories of arrested pedophiles. However likewise, a child is more likely to be sexually abused by someone within their own family than by anyone else—or by R. Kelly for that matter. Sad but true, but we don't much about that in the news right?)
Child abduction/disappearance cases conditions the populace to fear the worst every time. Another thing I have a problem with regarding Amber Alerts and missing children cases: it lacks perspective. The topic is so irrational and emotionally driven, facts and data have no place when all you care about is the safe return of a child no matter what. Nobody wants to listen to anything else. The lack of perspective easily leads to why there is such a quickly developing institutionalized bias against naysayers of the current Amber Alert implementation—those in support are so full of themselves on the topic, so emotionally driven, that they shut out any facts and arguments, pulling guilt trips and drawing rebuttals that are only about visceral emotions. Amber Alerts have become a polarized topic, institutionally rooted in "think of the children!" mentalities.
I'd like to as well question who gets to be granted the Amber Alert treatment, because it is quite telling about the nature of our obsession with missing children, and also because no one else seems to be asking or seeing it my way. People like to say that missing children are in danger, thus why we need Amber Alerts. Okay then, why is it that only certain cases of people gone missing gets the Amber Alert treatment? If an old lady with advanced dementia wanders out of her house and doesn't find her way back, do I get awoken at night by an Amber Alert? NO. Should we? Is my example lost old lady not just as in danger as an abducted child? Or how about this: a young kid barely wearing much clothing, somehow wanders outside in the cold winter. Does this child get the Amber Alert treatment? NO as well. Even though this kid is just as much in danger—of possibly freezing to death, never mind being snatched by a stranger on the streets heaven forbid—the most we the public will hear about this kid is a breaking concerning local news story of plenty, but not an official Amber Alert. These two examples do not pass the main criteria of an Amber Alert, which is that they are not a child who is possibly abducted.
Or how about this: recently we had the case of Wanzhen Lu, some Chinese guy who was kidnapped by some thugs from the parking garage of his Markham condo, and found days later in the Muskoka region. That incident, perhaps because of the high level of unusualness and shock, generated a lot of media attention throughout Toronto and even the whole of Ontario, along with the usual appeal to the public to keep an eye out for him. But it surely didn't generate an Amber Alert. Why? Because Lu is a grown man, not a child. What if he got hurt and murdered by the disguised thugs? Sure was a real threat, but apparently he is not as worthy as an innocent child for a kind of Amber Alert treatment.
Why is it only certain kinds of missing people—kidnapped children—gets the Amber Alert treatment, even though we may as a society genuinely be concerned for all kinds of missing people? Why is it that we think all missing children are precious and at risk, and only a certain kind of them get the Amber Alert treatment? We may be absolutely concerned for the well-being and safety of a kid who wanders off in the dead of winter, but our phones do not go off making noises and receiving messages about such a kid. It is to me unfair, and honestly borders on hypocrisy, because it is as if we only value certain kinds of missing kids more than others, enough to warrant an Amber Alert. Why is one kid more deserving of our attention than others in this heightened, exaggerated manner? The social values we ascribe to missing children and Amber Alerts needs to be questioned.
Anyways, it frustrates me that S-ociety as a whole is in denial that the Amber Alert system we have now established in Canada is flawed and needs improvements. I can understand why you would want to have an Amber Alert scheme in place, but when you subject these alerts to literally the whole population at the most intimate level—ie. through their personal mobile devices—you better expect some backlash and critiques. If Alerts are getting pumped out in the middle of the night as if there is nothing wrong with that, you better stand back and evaluate the process and effectiveness thereof. It is NOT wrong to suggest we can make this system better.
Equally it should not be a taboo to insist we have the right to opt out of getting force-fed Amber Alerts. What is wrong with that? Did I or you consent to these types of "emergency" push alerts that we are told concerns us all even if it really doesn't? Amber Alert maniac defenders like to make you think you are heartless for wanting to not receive Alerts, that the system only works best if EVERYONE gets them. Bullshit. One theme that keeps coming up when reading these articles and columns on the Alert backlash, is that we should all know that there is a kidnapped child out there in immediate danger, even if we cannot do anything about it and it's 3 in the morning. What do you expect us all to do, fucking thoughts and prayers? What good will that do? Honestly, knowing there is a missing child out there is just as good as doing nothing, which of course both is not helping the situation at all. Knowing there is a kid out there doesn't mean much to many of us, any more than having to hear about traffic reports that do not affect us at all. Again, 99.99% of people are in no position to be able to assist in any way. It is counterproductive to cast a very wide net to catch a needle in a haystack, to evoke two Western cliches in one. I honestly cannot be bothered to keep an eye out for license plates or a kid that matches the vague description of the Alert, this is asking too much of us all. Those who do believe we all ought to make an effort to act on an Amber Alert even when it's late out as if it's an obligatory civic duty, I will place at an incredibly high standard, that is to say I expect those who believe we all ought to make an effort to act on an Amber Alert to themselves better be out there looking for the damned kid. You want to save on receiving angry 911 calls? Make it possible to opt out of Amber Alerts. Those who do care about Amber Alerts are free to preoccupy themselves and act accordingly, just don't force this onto everybody. There's nothing wrong with not having to give a shit about a situation that you cannot do anything about.
If there is one thing society/civilization/humanity likes to do, is impose itself onto everyone else and the world around it in whatever ways. And quite frankly it pisses me off when S-ociety forces everyone to concern themselves with matters that don't concern or affect them or may not be in their own interest (amongst other imposed upon social norms like being told how to eat, what to do, what to think, what goals to have, how to look like, etc., all of which pisses me off—S-ociety itself pisses me off), imposing upon everyone an expectation of being able to relate to the situation, especially in irrational ways where mass emotional tugging and guilt-tripping are exploited, to the point where I honestly don't give a shit about missing children. Besides, Amber Alerts is a mass Western anxiety/panic I can do without. It contributes to the exaggerated nature of how we irrationally interpret cases of missing people, and the disenfranchisement of children and youth in S-ociety due to its preoccupation with child innocence myths.
