Hawaii Scare

Wally said:

In reply to GameboyRMH :

I don’t see why this is surprising.  Governments constantly have to try and save money where they can so there’s a good chance this was just tacked on to an existing Amber Alert/Silver Alert system when someone decided it was needed rather than invest in an entire different program.

That makes a sad amount of sense.

Well, it's probably mostly a good design with just an extra signoff missed.

Build a system to do emergency broadcasts? We should be able to test it... For the test, should we make it a totally different workflow, or should we make it as realistic as possible? Well, realism wins. 

But maybe entering your password one extra time for the real one would be prudent.

Somehow I don't think it was an accident as in pressed a wrong button.  I know around here the emergency management system does not work that way.  It's a bit more complicated than pressing a wrong button.  I'd say if it was an accident, it had more to do with someone telling someone else what to select, them asking if that is what you indeed wanted to do, and party number one confirming that his choices are always correct.  HA  Someone actually had to make the wrong choice I think more than once.  At least locally you have to make that choice I think two or three times in terms of issuing warnings for tornados or other types of civil defense alerts.  I somehow do not buy this.

Also, if it were a drill, there would have been a lot more people in the know, with maybe press releases to local media alerting them to the possible "news worthy" actions taking place.  Who knows if we will ever find out, but there is more here than meets the eye.

GameboyRMH said:

Turns out the options to conduct a system test and the actual real-life warning were right next to each other on a dropdown menu:

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/01/15/hawaiian_missile_warning/

I figured you'd at least have to uncover a switch that would turn on red warning lights to activate the real thing.

In a real world situation. In a panic it's better to hit the test than nothing. Hopefully people on the receiving end of the message develop a sense of urgency and vigilance looking for the next sign/warning. 

Really though,

Anyway for a foreign missile to make impact on Hawaii would have to be fired from a submarine, that is lurking very close to Hawaii. Even though they fudged it the other day, I promise our EWS and space missile defense is top notch. Especially against any threats originating from that side of the world. Plus we have strategic systems placed all over that giant moat we call the Pacific Ocean. 

The better question here would be if anyone say Matthew Broderick or Ally Sheedy there?  

It all seems plausible to me during a test at work of a similar system for employees only. The test simulation actually simulated the sending of messages to try and flesh out any bugs or bottlenecks. The second or third test accidentally went out to the real world. 

It stated there was an attack on our hq and that all remote stations should transition to their continuation of operations plans. The test team didn't catch that the data was real distribution info vs simulation data. So around 10pm some station leaders are driving to their secured communication rooms near their station. Took about 3 hours to stand everyone down. The bug was researched, crushed and sealed. Code was added to announce the comm status was simulated or not after the first 5-8 seconds from activation. 

Can't progress without failing some tests. 

From what I could find on line, the lack of general panic and mayhem was notable.

"Mr. McKittrick, after very careful consideration, sir, I've come to the conclusion that your new defense system sucks. "

It was those pesky drop-down menus. You know, you pull it down, highlight what you want and the wrong damn thing jumps up and gets selected.

Update: Turns out the guy didn't choose the wrong dropdown option, he mistook a drill for the real thing and intentionally chose to send the real warning. Because his supervisor sent out both the drill message and the not-a-drill real-deal message during the drill. It's not clear if this was their usual practice, but it seems risky:

https://www.engadget.com/2018/01/30/fcc-preliminary-report-on-hawaii-false-missile-alert/

I would have known nothing about this if this thread didn't exist. 

GameboyRMH said:

Update: Turns out the guy didn't choose the wrong dropdown option, he mistook a drill for the real thing and intentionally chose to send the real warning. Because his supervisor sent out both the drill message and the not-a-drill real-deal message during the drill. It's not clear if this was their usual practice, but it seems risky:

https://www.engadget.com/2018/01/30/fcc-preliminary-report-on-hawaii-false-missile-alert/

The story I read (somewhere on internet from a relatively mainstream newsource--i.e. NYT or CNN or NPR or similar) said that the normal drill protocol was not followed prior to this person releasing the alert. 

This article suggests that it is indeed normal to state "this is not a drill" when executing the drill:

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/01/30/us/hawaii-false-alarm-investigation/index.html

So instead of immediately changing this procedure, they've fired the lowest-level employee involved, thus solving the problem once and for all!

In reply to GameboyRMH :

that's a pretty serious UI flaw. Not even an "Are you sure?" button.

And the guy was fired.

I knew there had to be more to this story.  From what I read the person involved had issues before.  He probably shouldn't have been in that position.