Many Latvians check cell broadcast alerts elsewhere before acting
A survey shows only 9.3% of Latvian residents act immediately on a cell broadcast alert. A Diena commentary argues that seeking more information is understandable, as the alerts are often vague.
Only 9.3% of Latvian residents act immediately as instructed after receiving a cell broadcast alert, according to a survey organised by the State Fire and Rescue Service (VUGD) and the research agency Norstat. More than 40% look for additional information before doing anything. Cell broadcast is a system that lets authorities send urgent warnings to mobile phones, including warnings about threats in the airspace.
VUGD believes the public should take such alerts more seriously. Service chief Mārtiņš Baltmanis says the message is official, reliable information from responsible institutions, and if it says to act at once, searching for more details may waste time needed for self-protection.
Commentary: situations differ
The author of a commentary in the newspaper Diena agrees in principle but notes that real-life circumstances vary. On the morning of 18 October, an alert about a possible airspace threat was issued for the Ogre, Aizkraukle and Bauska municipalities. It is unclear what to do for, say, drivers travelling from Riga toward central Vidzeme: turn back, look for shelter in a shop, petrol station or café, or continue the journey. On the night of 10–11 November, a warning was issued in several municipalities in Latgale, Vidzeme and Zemgale. Many people were then at home and could follow the "two walls principle", but during the day that would most likely not be possible.
The author considers VUGD's criticism unfair partly because the message about an airspace threat is vague. People logically want to find out whether a stray drone has entered the airspace, whether a military aircraft of an aggressor state has approached the border, or whether something else has happened.
Checking further is also justified because people receive misleading messages from financial fraudsters posing as state and municipal bodies, banks and even the police. The commentary expresses hope that fraudsters do not use the cell broadcast format, but recalls that the use of artificial intelligence to deceive people once also seemed implausible. The author concludes that wanting to verify notifications is not something to condemn.
