In case you are not aware, VicPolice sent (or caused to be sent) a SMS (text) message to somewhere between 1.5 and 5 million mobile phones yesterday. It reads
Extreme weather In Vic expected Mon night & Tues. High wind & fire risk. Listened to Local ABC radio for emergency updates. Do not reply to this msg.
I have been pondering my attitude to the VicPolice text message all day — and after discussing initial responses with other individuals, and reading a fair range of Web based public reaction, have arrived at at somewhat less inflammatory conclusion than what I had earlier today. But, my opinion perhaps is not as favorable, or forgiving as the “consensus”.
It would seem that the general consensus of opinion is that the message was, “a good thing”, or at least “not a bad thing”. This is based on the premise that it could only be good if more people were advised that there was an increased fire risk today and that it was a minor inconvenience if you already knew, or were not in a risk area.
However, a text message is directed to an individual, from an individual or organisation. Even if the message is “broadcast” to a large number of individuals, the message itself, arriving at a single mobile phone, is not a broadcast a message in the normal sense of the word. Therefore I conclude that, a personal message sent to people who have no exposure of risk, is unlikely to be effective.
It would be ridiculous to suggest that anyone living in high fire risk areas in Victoria was not aware of the risks they face and the need to monitor those risks. After all, the current risks are largely from the same fires that have already caused so much tragedy. So, the text message to them achieved nothing. And the text message to everyone else equally achieved nothing as the recipients were not at risk. Thus, the telecommunication companies who we are told were required to carry the cost of this exercise, simply wasted their time, bandwidth and money.
The underlying problem is of course is that it is virtually impossible to accurately predict a level of risk justifying that extreme measures be taken to advise the public. Equally, it is virtually impossible to identify exactly who is at risk. For example, today one could reasonably suggest that those most at risk were in fact non-Victorians visiting fire prone areas of Victoria. The shotgun approach of VicPolice apparently would not have reached many, if any of these at risk people.
Also, I would suggest that observations about lack of warnings on Black Saturday, by those who did suffer loss, did not relate to the general warnings before Saturday, but the apparent lack of specific warnings in relation to the nature and severity of the threat to individual towns and communities after the fires were raging.
In conclusion, without implying that the authorities were doing anything other than attempting to provide a service to the community, I doubt that the experiment could in any way be described as a success. And, in case you think this unreasonable, I am defining “success” as making a significant number of individuals who were unaware of the risk that they personally faced, take steps to protect themselves and their property.
