Social media and death?

Posted on May 2, 2012 by Lucien Canton | Posted in Weblogs2 Comments on Social media and death?

I'm constantly amazed at the things that the government seems to have time to think about. Thanks to the good folks over at the Consumerist blogsite, I am now in a position to advise you on your need for a social media will. It seems someone over at USA.gov took time out from solving the nation's problems to deal with this weighty issue.

According to the article on USA.gov, you should:

1. Review the privacy policies of your hosting site
2. Write down how you want the sites handled (take down, turn into a memorial, etc…)
3. Get yourself a social media executor and provide him or her with your list of sites and passwords
4. Make sure your will stipulates that your social media executor receives a copy of your death certificate 

Clearly the person that wrote this is not too clear on the concept. I have friends who could die and you wouldn't know it from their social media sites. They post to their blog maybe once every two or three years, tweet to their five friends, and limit Facebook to their immediate family. And what about the security of passwords? We constantly advise folks to change them regularly, make them complex and (wait for it) NEVER WRITE THEM DOWN!

Don't get me wrong. Estate planning is something requiring serious attention from everyone, particularly if you have a family to protect. In fairness, USA.gov does have a page on estate planning that discusses advanced medical directives and wills (but not powers of attorney, oddly). But a social media will? I think my family will have more pressing concerns when I die than whether my newsletter gets published on time.

Security theater: those dangerous laptops

Posted on April 24, 2012 by Lucien Canton | Posted in WeblogsLeave a Comment on Security theater: those dangerous laptops

Over the years I've posted a number of blogs on "security theater", the use of security measures that serve no purpose other than to make the public think an agency is actually doing something. The Transportation Security Administration has raised this to a fine art with its Byzantine passenger screening protocols.

Case in point is a recent article by New York Times reporter Matt Richtel regarding the apparent contradiction in screening electronic devices. TSA requires that laptops be removed from your bag for screening but does not require this special procedure for other devices such as computer tablets or smart phones. Richtel attempted to find the reasoning behind this requirement by talking with TSA and a variety of security experts. The conclusion: more security theater.

It's one more example of TSA being reactive and not proactive. There is certainly a possibility that explosives could be concealed in a laptop, particularly in the early models. However, this is also possible with some models of tablet computers. And this doesn't even consider the possibility of electronic jamming devices. As one of Richtel's experts points out: "If the government really wanted to cover the dangers posed by electronics…it would need to carefully inspect all manner of electronics, from phones to netbooks to tablets, to look for increasingly small and sophisticated weapons."

Like the ban on liquids (what, you can't get several of bad guys to combine their allowances?) and vicious weapons such as nail clippers, the requirement for separate screening for laptops really serves no purpose other than to make the public feel safer. There are much better ways of providing security than by deceiving the public.

Phoenix rising

Posted on April 18, 2012 by Lucien Canton | Posted in WeblogsLeave a Comment on Phoenix rising

April 18, 1906 – it's a date that holds special meaning for us here in San Francisco. This year is the 106th anniversary of the earthquake and fires that destroyed much of the city, killed thousands, and displaced over a quarter of a million people.

But our our modest commemorations aren't concerned with the disaster itself. Instead we pay homage each year to those who remained and rebuilt the city. Our city seal bears the Phoenix, the mythical bird that rises from the ashes more gloriously than before, in token of that achievement.

In this we are not unique in San Francisco. All great cities have similar stories: Chicago after the Great Fire in 1871, Lisbon after the earthquake, tsunami, and fire in 1799, London after the Great Fire in 1666 to name but a few. In each case, people came together to rebuild and to carry on. It speaks to the resilience of the human spirit.

I believe that the highest duty emergency managers owe to those we serve is to build resilient communities. I always find this a good day to reflect on that duty.

Emergency Warning: We really, really mean it

Posted on April 5, 2012 by Lucien Canton | Posted in Weblogs2 Comments on Emergency Warning: We really, really mean it

There's an interesting experiment being conducted by the National Weather Service. Five weather stations in Kansas and Missouri will be using plain terminology to warn people of impending hurricanes.

One of the interesting phenomena we see in emergency management is that people do not respond to warnings immediately but seek verification before acting. They tend to look out the window, consult friends, check in with social media – in short anything but take the public warning at  face value. This is particularly true where authorities have to err on the side of caution and issue warnings for events that seldom occur.

To counter this, the weather stations will be couching their warnings in serious, straight-sounding language. Instead, "a tornado watch has been issued for the towns of…" residents will hear something along the lines of: 

THIS IS AN EXTREMELY DANGEROUS TORNADO WITH COMPLETE DEVASTATION LIKELY. … SEEK SHELTER NOW! … MOBILE HOMES AND OUTBUILDINGS WILL OFFER NO SHELTER FROM THIS TORNADO — ABANDON THEM IMMEDIATELY."

I'm not sure how well this will work. It's incredibly difficult to shock people out of their complacency, especially if these warnings have the same limited likelihood of occurrence as previous ones. But trying to communicate actual risk to people is always a good thing and a much better approach than a warning that just says a tornado of unspecified magnitude might occur. I'll be very interested to see the results of this experiment.

Pink slime: a media-generated crisis?

Posted on April 3, 2012 by Lucien Canton | Posted in WeblogsLeave a Comment on Pink slime: a media-generated crisis?

"Pink slime" – sounds disgusting, doesn't it? And yet Americans have been eating it for some time. If you've been following the media buzz lately, you'll be aware that "pink slime" is a derogatory term coined by a USDA microbiologist in 2002 (that's right, 2002 – pink slime was approved for use in 2001) to refer to the filler made from beef scraps and connective tissue. The recovered product is  heated, processed, and treated with ammonia gas to kill contaminating organisms before being ground, pressed into blocks and flash frozen. The product is considered safe for use by the USDA, although other countries such as Canada and the United Kingdom don't allow it.

The controversy seems to have begun with a series of news broadcasts by ABC last month that featured a "whistle-blower" and "shocking revelations". The public outcry was so great that almost immediately major grocery stores such as Safeway and Vons and fast food outlets such as Taco Bell and MacDonald's announced that they were discontinuing the use of the additive. The result was that in a matter of weeks the manufacturer of the filler, Beef Products, Inc. announced that it was suspending operations at three of its four plants but would continue to pay workers for 60 days. Yesterday, AFA, one of the largest beef processors in the US filed for bankruptcy.

So what's going on here? I'm not debating the merits of this particular additive but rather looking at this from a crisis management perspective. The use of "lean, finely textured beef" has been going on for more than ten years, with estimates that over 70% of the ground beef sold in US supermarkets contain the additive. The product is made from beef, admittedly of low quality, and, one could argue, makes more efficient use of the meat. It can only make up 15% of the product. Ammonia, which seems to make people cringe, is a naturally-occurring product and found in beef. As early as April of 2011, celebrity chef Jamie Oliver premiered his second season of Food Revolution with an expose on pink slime. So why now?

I think there are several reasons for the immediate and savage public outcry. First, there's what I call the "ick" factor – this just sounds plain disgusting to the average American. (One can but hope that they never do an expose on sausage making.) The term "pink slime" contributes to this sense of this somehow being something unsafe for human consumption. It's catchy and it resonates. Secondly, you have a major network breaking the story and keeping the focus on in it for several weeks. Third, there is the whiff of scandal – the USDA undersecretary who approved the use of the filler left to join the board at BPI and made over a million dollars during her tenure there. Finally, there was no labeling and this is probably the worst thing for the average American – we don't like to feel like we've been cheated.

One wonders, though, if we'd still be eating pink slime if the USDA had required "lean, finely textured beef" to be noted on product labeling.

Social media and court of public opinion

Posted on March 29, 2012 by Lucien Canton | Posted in WeblogsLeave a Comment on Social media and court of public opinion

In my last blog, I spoke about the court of public opinion and how your constitutional rights tend to vanish when you're in the limelight. We're seeing another case study being played out in the recent shooting incident in Florida.

The public concern here is that the shooting was racially motivated and that the local police seem to be giving the shooter a pass under Florida's self-defense law. Since the suspect is not being tried in a court of law, he is now being tried in the court of public opinion.

What makes this interesting from a crisis management perspective is the way social media has been used to fuel public outrage. I first heard of the incident not on the news but on Facebook and each day brings more information about what people are doing to express their concern for justice. It is a reminder of the power of social media to mobilize communities and a reminder that you need to counter a social media campaign immediately.

Unfortunately, the facts of the case as reported in the media are not as straight forward as these various groups would have you believe. There is physical evidence and several eyewitnesses that suggest that an altercation might have taken place. It may well be the case that there are insufficient grounds to prosecute the shooter, who is, of course, innocent until proven guilty.

However, constitutional rights are irrelevant here. The local police were unable to convince the public that they had done a thorough investigation and that there was insufficient evidence to charge the shooter thereby sparking the social media campaign. The use of the hoodie provides a strong visual image that is resonating across the country.

The court of public opinion has already decided that the shooter must stand trial, regardless of any evidence to the contrary. This public outcry has already sparked two separate investigations and we may yet see the shooter brought to trial.

It will be interesting to see what happens if the investigations reach the same conclusions as the local police.

 

Crisis management: guilty until proven innocent?

Posted on March 27, 2012 by Lucien Canton | Posted in WeblogsLeave a Comment on Crisis management: guilty until proven innocent?

"Your lawyers may be giving you sensible advice, to stay quiet and not make a move. That will work in court. But it will kill you with the public."

This quote is from a recent article by my former boss, Willie L. Brown, Jr., who is, among his many other talents, a weekly columnist for the San Francisco Chronicle. Mayor Brown was speaking in reference to the case of our recently-elected Sheriff who has pled guilty to a misdemeanor charge of false imprisonment and now faces removal from office. Brown's point is that if you're in the public eye, the rules are different. Brown reminds us, "when…you stand accused in the court of public opinion, all your constitutional rights go out the window."

Willie Brown is no stranger to controversy, having served for eighteen years in our State legislature and as Mayor of San Francisco for two four-year terms. One of the many lessons I learned from him as his Director of Emergency Services is that you have to counter controversy immediately and truthfully. If you screwed up, you will be found out and the story will no longer be about the screw up but about your attempts to cover it up. You're always better off coming clean immediately by providing the facts and what you plan to do to correct the problem. This is counter to the advice you usually get from your attorney.

When you're dealing with crisis, the rules are different and what normally works for you in court or in public information briefings may not work in crisis situations. All the more reason to have a crisis communications plan that pre-identifies your team of advisers. You're going to need them.

 

Emergency Planning: The impact is relative

Posted on March 6, 2012 by Lucien Canton | Posted in WeblogsLeave a Comment on Emergency Planning: The impact is relative

We spend a lot of time trying to define the differences between emergencies, disasters and catastrophes and with good reason. We know that there are qualitative differences between events that influence how we respond. But that's the big picture – the strategic level. It's easy to forget that at the victim level, disasters are relative. It's all about how it affects me, the victim.

I was reminded of this yesterday. We had a couple of minor earthquakes in the Bay Area along the very active Hayward fault. The temblors occurred early in the morning and only minor damage was reported. I slept through most of it.

Later that evening, we had a minor power interruption in San Francisco that affected 6000+ customers for an hour. Which do you think had the most impact on those people in the outage zone? Everyone was talking about the earthquake but this minor outage probably affected more people directly.

So the point to remember is that there are no "minor" emergencies from the victim's perspective. We need to watch how we refer to events and make sure that our response is driven by need and not just magnitude.

Tsunami warning budget cuts a false economy

Posted on February 29, 2012 by Lucien Canton | Posted in Weblogs1 Comment on Tsunami warning budget cuts a false economy

The San Jose Mercury News reports that the White House is proposing to hit the National National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) with a $4.6 million cut to tsunami programs put in place after the Indian Ocean tsunami in 2004. The cuts include a $1 million reduction to the system of buoys that provide early warning of tsunamis. We are assured that this reduction won't affect public safety as most of the system will still operate. It just means that repairs will be a bit slower.

Following the 2004 tsunami, the warning system was increased from 6 buoys to 39 in acknowledgement of the risk tsunamis posed to coastal communities in the United States. Currently 10 of the bouys are out of service and NOAA says they will "do their best" after the budget cuts to make sure that no more than 11 are ever out of service at any given time.

Is someone unclear on the concept here? Would we accept it if 25% of a building's fire alarms were inoperable? What about the warning systems on nuclear power plants? What if that annoying "check engine" light on you car only worked 75% of the time?

It's a pretty simple concept: early warning saves lives.  The better the data, the more accurate the prediction. The more accurate the prediction, the better we do at safeguarding lives. Knowing that something is heading your way gives you time to prepare and, if necessary, evacuate at-risk populations.

Over the past few years we've send a severe deterioration in our natural hazards warning systems. NOAA has had to make significant cuts to the US Geological Survey, which deals with earthquake predictions, and to the National Weather Service, which provides early warning for storms, floods, tornadoes, and hurricanes.

What's particularly galling about this latest cut is that it's a false economy that is totally unnecessary in budget terms. Rounding errors in the national budget probably exceed a million dollars. It's chump change. Hell, you could probably find it in the seat cushions in the White House.

Give our experience last year with damage to the West Coast from the Japanese tsunami, degrading our early warning system is just plain dumb.

Drought, climate change, and slow-onset disasters

Posted on February 14, 2012 by Lucien Canton | Posted in WeblogsLeave a Comment on Drought, climate change, and slow-onset disasters

We spend a lot of our time planning for the sudden, unexpected event. These are the events that leave you in little doubt that they are significant – major floods, earthquakes, fires, etc. But what about the slow-onset events that sneak up on you? These are less easy to identify. It's hard to recognize the point at which a problem becomes an emergency and then crosses the line into disaster.

The problem with slow-onset disasters is that they usually slip under the emergency services radar. They typically begin as someone else's problem and emergency services are not engaged until the situation becomes a crisis. Consequently, we spend a lot of time determining who owns the problem and who should head the crisis management team.

Case in point is the worsening drought situation in the United States. The most recent US Drought Monitor shows roughly half of the United States in a state of drought and almost a third in the highest category, exceptional drought.

The problem is not confined to the United States. A  2010 study by the National Center for Atmospheric Research showed worsening conditions worldwide over the next 30 years. The author of the study, Aiguo Dai, says:

“We are facing the possibility of widespread drought in the coming decades, but this has yet to be fully recognized by both the public and the climate change research community. If the projections in this study come even close to being realized, the consequences for society worldwide will be enormous.”

Drought is the classic slow-onset disaster and mitigating its effects require measures that take time to put in place. If we are to be effective planners, we need to start thinking about this problem now in strategic, long-range terms. Drought does not require first responders until the situation has truly deteriorated to a crisis. And by then it will be too little, too late.