Content deleted Content added
Fixed formatting. This article seems like markiting hype, so maybe the language needs tidying. |
Shanedidona (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 1:
The '''Common Alerting Protocol''' (CAP) is a simple but general format for exchanging allhazard emergency alerts and public warnings over all kinds of networks. CAP allows a consistent warning message to be disseminated simultaneously over many different warning systems, thus increasing warning effectiveness while simplifying the warning task. CAP also facilitates the detection of emerging patterns in local warnings of various kinds, such as might indicate an undetected hazard or hostile act. And CAP provides a template for effective warning messages based on best practices identified in academic research and real-world experience.
Advances in technology, and higher expectations by the public have significantly complicated alert and warning procedures. There is a vast array of systems and equipment being fielded by a multitude of agencies. Unfortunately, these systems and technologies are generally developed without regard for how other related systems and equipment function. As a result, emergency managers and decision makers are faced with the task of operating several different warning systems nearly simultaneously. The alert message is generated separately in each system, often by different people or agencies. This results in the community receiving, at minimum, inconsistently worded messages and in the worst case, conflicting warning messages. The Common Alerting Protocol (CAP) was defined as a basic protocol for all warning systems. This is the first step in developing a truly integrated and seamless alert and warning system Current Users of the CAP Protocol:
Line 5:
== A Call to Action ==
The [[National Science and Technology Council]] (NSTC) report on “Effective Disaster Warnings” ([[November]], [[2000]]) recommended that “a standard method should be developed to collect and relay instantaneously and automatically all types of hazard warnings and reports locally, regionally and nationally for input into a wide variety of dissemination systems4.”
The NSTC’s recommendation is reinforced by the results of a survey conducted by Pew Internet and American Life in association with Federal Computer Week magazine about emergencies and the internet5. The report states "Everything we've seen in our research suggests that Americans want every channel of communication fired up when there are emergencies," says Lee Rainie, director of the Pew Internet & American Life Project. "They want horns sounding, radios blaring, TV screens alight with the latest information, pagers buzzing, emails sent, and Web pages updated on the fly. They don't want to have to rely on just one communications method and they don't want one channel to have special privileges over others. They want each one of them used when all hell is breaking loose." (Italics added)
Line 11:
== Establishing the roadmap for improvement ==
The “Baby Boomer” generation grew up listening to routine tests of attack warning sirens. The use of electro-mechanical sirens was the primary mean of warning the public of a nuclear attack against the nation. In some jurisdictions, the systems were also used to issue warnings of severe weather (tornados, floods, etc.). As radio and television systems coverage grew, people immediately tuned to their local stations for more information. In order to take advantage of this mass media system, the federal government developed the [[Emergency Broadcast System]] (EBS). As digital systems were developed and fielded, it provided an opportunity to code warnings to specific states and counties. In order to take advantage of this capability, a new national warning system was developed. The [[Emergency Alert System]] (EAS) replaced EBS and provided a significant improvement in warning. We continue to see almost explosive development of technologies that can be used to broadcast emergency warnings. Sirens activated via digital signals transmitted via radio. Telephone notification systems designed call all phones in a specific area. Cellular telephones, wireless digital devices, text-based pagers are in use everywhere.
Emergency management officials are being asked to send alert and warning messages over multiple systems, most of which use different coding schemes and activation methods. This often results in the end user receiving different messages based on what type of system is being used. It also significantly increases the workload on the individual(s) activating the various systems. As a result, at the one point in an emergency when speed and accuracy are critical, the system is designed to create multiple failure opportunities. How then, do we simplify the alert and warning tasks for emergency response officials and ensure that each recipient receives the same warning message? We develop and implement a Common Alerting Protocol (CAP).
Line 17:
== What is the Common Alerting Protocol? ==
In its simplest form, CAP is an open, non-proprietary digital format for all types of alert and notifications. It’s written in [[Extensible Markup Language]] (XML) which is compatible across all operating systems. The CAP format is fully compatible with existing formats including the Specific Area Message Encoding (SAME) used for NOAA Weather Radio and the Emergency Alert System, while offering enhanced capabilities that include:
* Flexible geographic targeting using latitude/longitude “boxes” and other geospatial representations in three dimensions;
| |||