I have very negative feelings about the whole AMBER alert idea. Maybe I'm a callous bastard, but what is so special about child abductions that they require an entire separate national infrastructure to "alert" the citizens in the (incredibly unlikely) event they occur?
According to wikipedia the AMBER alert system has helped in the the recovery of 27 children; even this is disputed. Sounds impressive until you remember that thousands of children drown in backyard swimming pools every year. It's absolutely nothing, not even a blip. Sorry, I know it sounds heartless, but facts are facts.
There's a sinister aspect too - by making such a big deal about this essentially dead crime, which isn't even a rounding error on child death statistics, I get a nasty feeling that "the powers that be" are trying to unite the public - united with the govt, of course - against this "pedophile child kidnapper" bogeyman. Again, the numbers suggest this creature is almost, if not completely, non-existent. "But they must be everywhere, right? That's why we had to have AMBER alerts!" Encouraging paranoia, manipulating groups to unite against faceless and unlikely enemies .. I don't like it one bit.
Saved 27 children since inception. All this righteous fuss. Meanwhile, in Africa, 8 children die every minute from preventable diseases. Where's their alert? Where's their iPhone application?
Selective caring. Couldn't give a shit about the thousands of swimming pool deaths. Couldn't care less about childhood obesity or dropping educational standards or manufactured food or childhood deaths in Africa from trivially preventable diseases or child labour in Vietnam which you buy off the shelf at wal-mart but OMG PEDOPHILES APPROVE MY IPHONE APP NOW OR YOU ARE KILLING CHILDREN!
I don't really know how to express my loathing for such people but basically I think they're hypocritical, self-righteous douchebags. I hope and expect Apple to ignore this nonsense.
(updated to reflect the fact that I couldn't cite a good reference for the 55,000 annual swimming pool deaths I originally wrote - replaced with "thousands", which should definitely be safe.)
.. which has the high number but is hard to interpret and doesn't cite its own sources. It does sound surprisingly high, though, I'll change my comment to "thousands", which I hope you'll agree is "safe".
While you bring up a great point, I think that loathing the guy and calling him a douchebag is a little extreme. It's not like the guy is killing puppies...
Anyways, his larger point is dead on - Apple's opaque and lengthy approval process adds unnecessary business risk for prospective developers.
You're comparing the magnitude of success for amber alerts - a solution to a problem, to the magnitude of problems themselves. It's not mere callousness, it's poor analysis.
Whether you want to think about it or not, child sexual abuse is no dead crime. It's alarmingly common. It effects at least 20% of those closest to me - and this only for cases that I know of. From national surveys of adults, (www.unh.edu/ccrc/factsheet/pdf/CSA-FS20.pdf) it's estimated that 9-32% of women and 5-10% of men were subject to sexual abuse during their childhoods (though statistics for criminal reported cases are much lower -- about 1.2
per 1,000 children).
Who is to say that were the law enforcement less vigilant, such abuse wouldn't escalate. In many countries, it does. Particularly in South-East Asia and Eastern Europe, the sex trade is rampant -- Unicef estimates put it at 1 million young sold into the trade per year (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/1707763.stm). The amber alert is but one deterrent; the combined effect is likely quite effective.
Who among those arguing for AMBER alerts are campaigning against charity programs to Africa? What instead we have are law enforcement agencies partnering up to work against child abductions and sexual abuse effectively.
Effectively? It is even, by many standards, economical. The economic loss of 27 children would almost certainly exceed the $30 million in funds nationally allocated to it. The biggest tax you pay is in attention, and even there you've already given to it in reaction more attention than it demands. Is there a school program, obesity program, or swimming pool program that would do the same?
There may be more immediately successful uses for said attention and funding abroad. But do those fighting child abductions and absurd donate less money and time to charitable concerns abroad. It is only my impression, but in my corner of the world apparently not. Those concerned with and directly involved in advancing social good are rarely concerned with just one part of it.
Do not, then, begrudge people of the interest in the safety of their children and community, of their charitable work, and of their fears. To do so is not only to deny to human nature some of the most powerful forces for good, but to deny the self-interest that drives our society, without which we would wither.
You're confusing "sexual abuse" with abduction. While there is overlap, we're talking about two different crimes.
No one is claiming that no one should worry about abductions. But investing significant resources here CAUSES problems because of the opportunity cost -- greater amounts of good could be done by directing the resources to addressing greater risks.
That's the big problem with the "if it saves just one child" thing. There's a finite amount of resources available, so we must prioritize and spend it on the places that will do the most good. Child abductions and Amber Alerts make good news copy, but addressing the more mundane dangers will give a better bang-for-the-buck, and save more people.
I'm not confusing the two. Part of my point was sexual abuse can escalate into more serous abductions. By acting as a deterrent, it may have an effect far greater than the 27 children saved would imply. As evidence in countries without such strict systems, abduction, or at least sex slavery, can run rampant.
My argument, more generally, is that the amber may be a good bang for the buck. I am not against triage. But the very issue being critized, the media attention and cognitive stickiness of child abduction stories, are valuable in that they deter offenses, and that they raise awareness.
You may not be "confusing" the two - because you're doing it consciously - but you're conflating them. From what I know, most sexual abuse is committed by friends and family, not strangers. The AMBER alerts seemed to be targeted at abductions by strangers. Put another way, AMBER alerts are targeted at the minority of sexual abuses, not the majority.
You're missing an important piece of the puzzle. A significant amount of the child sexual abuse in the US is perpetrated by families and close family friends. That's totally different from abductions and the sex trade, which you bring up in different countries. Certainly stopping those is a priority, but stronger law enforcement will not solve the whole problem.
> Those concerned with and directly involved in advancing social good are rarely concerned with just one part of it.
Now that you've confirmed that you're being deliberately patronizing and holier than thou, it's fair to point out that folks who are "concerned with and directly involved in social good" have a tendency to be wrong and mindbogglingly destructive.
And no, "they meant well" isn't an excuse. It's actually an insult.
DaniFong, I could write a book in response to your comment, but let me single out three parts for refutation:
"Those concerned with and directly involved in advancing social good are rarely concerned with just one part of it."
Whatever gives you the impression I am not concerned with "advancing social good"? I am fucking obsessed with that cause, there is nothing more important in this world. The question is how you go about it - by rational measurement, analysis, and action for the greatest good for the greatest number, or by cheap fearmongering, scarecrow-raising, and appeals to nebulous sentimentality and doubtful external enemies?
"it's estimated that 9-32% of women and 5-10% of men were subject to sexual abuse during their childhoods"
If these statistics are accurate, then either we as a society are absolutely fucked, or the negative effects of child sexual abuse are grossly overstated. One in three women? Really?
"Do not, then, begrudge people of the interest in the safety of their children and community, of their charitable work, and of their fears."
Here you have inadvertently stumbled across the real thrust of the issue: "and of their fears". No, no, one thousand times NO! Their fears are irrelevant. What matters is facts, baby, numbers. Anything else and you are embarking on a superstition-fueled witch hunt.
You need to rethink your beliefs. Sorry to get personal, but I can sense that you care, and I want you to understand why I disagree. Let's look at these two statements of yours:
"Effectively? It is even, by many standards, economical. The economic loss of 27 children would almost certainly exceed the $30 million in funds nationally allocated to it."
and
"Particularly in South-East Asia and Eastern Europe, the sex trade is rampant -- Unicef estimates put it at 1 million young sold into the trade per year"
In one sentence you set the value of a child's life at $1m US dollars. Actually, the $30m is just the federal contribution, the states match it, so the value is actually higher - but for the sake of argument let's assume $1m.
How much are those children sold into slavery for? With the same amount, how many could you save? Off the top of my head I'd guess $1000 each for those kids. Research suggests less - much less - but let's assume $1k. So you can buy 30,000 lives for the cost of the amber alert program. That cool? One American kid roughly equates to 1,000 foreigners? Is that justice?
Yes, I'm oversimplifying here. It's not America's responsibility to take care of every basket case 3rd world country's unwanted young. But if we're going to get all moral and talk about saving lives, we have to admit that lives do have price tags on them. The amber alert price tag is way too high. The risk premise is irrational. It preys on nigh-unfounded populist fears. It encourages the wrong sort of thinking in the population. If you want to do good, there's lower hanging fruit everywhere. Hell, the fruit is lying right there on the ground! The price in some places isn't $1k, it's $100. I'd be buying them up myself if I could figure out what the hell to do with them. Oh for an "Illustrated Primer" and some ships. But the root cause is poverty .. like I said, this could turn into a book.
Your ghoulish calculus could take into account some of the other ways the country decides to spend its money. Saving 27 children seems like a better use of $30M compared to spending it on half of a failed banking executive's exit bonus.
Time for a more studied response eludes me. But I should first like to say a few things.
Firstly, though I am not an author of that statistical study, I have seen nothing to contradict those numbers. The proportion could be as high as one in three. It has effected my friends and family.
Secondly, I agree that fearmongering is a questionable tactic. However, as. Seterent for crimes, it can be effective.
Third, I am not Mod Flanders. I am a physicist. I rely on quantitative analysis and triage.
Finally, I did not stumble into anything. My words are deliberate. Fears are powerful, pervasive, human, and in this case, can be a force for good.
It is great to see that folks are beginning to realize that child abuse has become the scoundrels' moral panic mobilized of choice.
Auto accidents were first on the list of preventable forms of death for most ages last I checked (ten years ago) and they indeed don't get the OMG treatment.
I don't understand what your point is. Are you suggesting that since AMBER alerts are a waste of time and are a tool for "the man" to control us the app should be denied?
What about google's app where you are sending your voice to google? Or maps where you send your position, or search where you send your desires (maps too)? Or loopt? Or countless games that don't save any children?
I'm sure the delay is related to the decision to filter app submissions at all. They probably haven't looked at it yet or are still trying to determine the network impact of running it or who knows. Maybe for potentially popular apps they do a code audit.
Worrying about unlikely threats and neglecting real threats does not make you holy. It is evil.
When lives are at stake, anything less than full rationality is costing lives, and no amount of irrational kvetching or socially-approved attacks trying to convince people to stop worrying about reality and instead worry about fiction can change that.
You may not be callous, but aren't you the true "bastard" here?
More statistics: 3582 fatal unintentional drownings in 2005, more than one in four a child 14 or younger. Then for every child who died, there's 4 children that needed medical attention for a near drowning. (http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalSafety/Water-Safety/wa...)
Plus, I don't know where you're getting this "evil" thing. I didn't mention that anything is evil, more of a "do Amber Alerts actually work and how big of an impact do they have compared with the questions asked by this one person on HN?" I don't really have an opinion going either way on Amber alerts at the moment, I'm just giving you the numbers...the numbers taking into account fire alarms, firefighters responding, building safety codes, lifeguards, good samaritans, and more.
Just because Amber alerts are one way to approach the issue of child abductions doesn't mean it's the best way, doesn't mean it necessarily works, and doesn't mean that we should just go "oh look children are in danger you're evil if you don't support it!". It certainly does not mean we should be ignoring other dangers as well, such as fires and drowning and car accidents and more - what are those, the top three leading causes of accidental death in children? To do so is to be grossly irresponsible.
Another statistic: The CDC thinks using car seats and booster seats appropriately could halve the number of car related injuries, fatal and nonfatal, in children in the United States. This estimated number in one year may actually be larger than the number of children safely recovered thanks to an amber alert in more than the decade that has passed since the program started.
Last one, I promise: I don't dispute thousands of children do go missing every day, but even NCMEC's statistics are not grim: many children who do go missing are found again (http://www.ncmec.org/en_US/documents/Statistics.pdf). That is a testament to the wonderful work being done by NCMEC and law enforcement and people everywhere. Still doesn't mean Amber alerts can't be questioned for their effectiveness.
Mostly to try to snap snorkel out of his self-righteous irrational haze, but it doesn't seem to have worked.
Choosing bad priorities means you get sub-optimal results. snorkel, you can strawman and spin all you like, but silencio's statistics don't go away, and the simple and obvious fact that we do not rationally portion out our attention to the things that really kill children while focusing on the Hollywood threats kills hundreds or thousands a year. You keep trying to paint us as wrong, but you're the one standing on the side with the net corpse count. That you happen to be standing there with most of the rest of society is no virtue.
And your examples merely prove that you don't get my point in the slightest. If you think I'm against fire alarms, you need to stop emoting and start reading more carefully, and actually put some rational thought into it.
According to wikipedia the AMBER alert system has helped in the the recovery of 27 children; even this is disputed. Sounds impressive until you remember that thousands of children drown in backyard swimming pools every year. It's absolutely nothing, not even a blip. Sorry, I know it sounds heartless, but facts are facts.
There's a sinister aspect too - by making such a big deal about this essentially dead crime, which isn't even a rounding error on child death statistics, I get a nasty feeling that "the powers that be" are trying to unite the public - united with the govt, of course - against this "pedophile child kidnapper" bogeyman. Again, the numbers suggest this creature is almost, if not completely, non-existent. "But they must be everywhere, right? That's why we had to have AMBER alerts!" Encouraging paranoia, manipulating groups to unite against faceless and unlikely enemies .. I don't like it one bit.
Saved 27 children since inception. All this righteous fuss. Meanwhile, in Africa, 8 children die every minute from preventable diseases. Where's their alert? Where's their iPhone application?
Selective caring. Couldn't give a shit about the thousands of swimming pool deaths. Couldn't care less about childhood obesity or dropping educational standards or manufactured food or childhood deaths in Africa from trivially preventable diseases or child labour in Vietnam which you buy off the shelf at wal-mart but OMG PEDOPHILES APPROVE MY IPHONE APP NOW OR YOU ARE KILLING CHILDREN!
I don't really know how to express my loathing for such people but basically I think they're hypocritical, self-righteous douchebags. I hope and expect Apple to ignore this nonsense.
(updated to reflect the fact that I couldn't cite a good reference for the 55,000 annual swimming pool deaths I originally wrote - replaced with "thousands", which should definitely be safe.)