Questions RE: Emergency Public Notifications

AN ANALYSIS OF EMERGENCY COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, INITIATIVES, LEGISLATION, AND PROTOCOLS IN CANADA

AUGUST 14, 2006

Giles Gysel

City of Kamloops

Information Technology Division

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY………………………………………………………………………………………………3

EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGIES – OVERVIEW………………………………………….5

COMMUNITY NOTIFICATION SYSTEMS…………………………………………………………………………..5

ACQUIRING PERSONAL INFORMATION FOR EMERGENCY PUBLIC NOTIFICATIONS PURPOSES….5

BC PROVINCIAL LEGISLATION…………………………………………………………………………………….6

CANADIAN CITIES USING EMERGENCY NOTIFICATION SYSTEMS WITH VOLUNTARY SUBSCRIPTION LISTS………………………………………………………………………………………………..7

CNS AND ACCESS TO EMERGENCY 9-1-1 DATABASES……………………………………………………...7

EMERGENCY 9-1-1 INTEGRATED CNS – SYSTEMS ARCHITECTURE……………………………………….8

CNS, ILECs and the CRTC…………………………………………………………………………………………….9

CNS AND WIRELESS TECHNOLOGIES……………………………………………………………………………11

THE ALBERTA EMERGENCY PUBLIC WARNING SYSTEM AND CANALERT………………………………11

PRIORITY ACCESS DIALING…………………………………………………………………………………………12

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS…………………………………………………………………………….12

ANNOTATED SOURCE LISTING……………………………………………………………………………………..15

AN ANALYSIS OF EMERGENCY COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, INITIATIVES, LEGISLATION, AND PROTOCOLS IN CANADA

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The increased prevalence of national emergencies in Canada since the 1990’s has led topublic demands for emergency notification systems, services, and protocols. Warning systems fall into three broad categories: emergency broadcast systems providing blanket notifications over television, radio, internet, and cellular telephone network channels; priority access dialing and message notification for emergency staff; and automated telephony call-out warning systems (Community Notification Systems or CNS) that access Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier (ILEC) subscriber or other databasesand Geographic Information System (GIS) technologies to send messages to citizens in a defined geographic area.

Currently, emergency notification technologies are widely used in the United States and elsewhere, and there are several vendors providing products and services to emergency authority and government clients. In addition, the Canadian federal government, through Industry Canada, has spearheaded development of these through initiatives involving ILECs, local government authorities, technology firms, and other stakeholders. However, Canadian telecommunications companies are highly regulated under the Telecommunications Act, and must conform to the Terms of Service assigned by their governing body, the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC). Therefore, roadblocks to blanket implementation of emergency notification systems in Canada are more regulatory than technological at this time.

Under the federal Telecommunications Act, the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) and the BC Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIPPA), “white page” directory-listed telephone subscriber names, addresses, and telephone numbers are not confidentialand are accessible in emergency situations. However, white pages directories do not contain unlisted subscriber information, which is confidentialand cannot be disclosed except underlimited circumstances defined in the ILEC’s Terms of Service. Furthermore, white pages databases are only updated once a year. As such, the accuracy of white pages listings is estimated at less than 60%, an unacceptable figure to local government authorities implementing CNS.

Much more current and accurate is the ILEC’s Emergency 9-1-1 directory database which is updated daily, and contains listed and unlisted numbers as well as subscriber information from Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (CLECs) using ILEC infrastructure. The accuracy of an Emergency 9-1-1 directory is estimated at 95% or higher. However, access is severely restricted except in cases when subscribers waive their right to privacy by contacting 9-1-1, or at the ILEC’s discretion when a threat to an individual’s life, health, or property is imminent.

White pages listings could be enhanced by local government initiatives encouraging voluntary submission of contact information, as is done with the County of Essex, Ontario Emergency Management Department and the Alberta Northeast Region Community Awareness and Emergency Response (NR CAER) programs. These communities already use CNS technologies operated by their regional ILECs (BellCanada and Telus, respectively) without having Emergency 9-1-1 database access.

Information collected by the City for emergency contact purposeswould be subject to FOIPPA. Therefore, it can only be used for the purpose it was collected, and must be maintained according to FOIPPA dictates. Although BC Emergency Program Act Part 4 Section 26 has conditions to override all other provincial Acts, including FOIPPA, the pre-requisite declaration of an official local state of emergency assumes such overrides would only be implemented post-event, and FOIPPA legislation would still hold precedence for pre-event emergency notifications.

Under FOIPPA, personal information collected for other purposes (i.e. property taxes, program registration) cannot be used by the City for emergency contacts unless informed consent is given by that individual. It might be possible to get consent at time of collection to build a voluntary emergency contact database, although potential costs to the City in terms of maintenance, administration, and potential liability should information no longer be current, or if an in-house system fails to operate, would likely outweigh the benefits of collection[1].

Rather than managing an emergency notification system in-house, a more cost-effective and efficient solution is to use a hosted CNS solution provided by the ILEC whereby, using a secure web-based interface, a local government authority records an emergency broadcast message and accesses the ILEC’s GIS system to define coordinates for the emergency area. The GIS extracts information from the ILEC subscriber database to automatically contact area residents and deliver the message using an Interactive Voice Recognition (IVR) system. UsingILEC infrastructure means City implementation of parallel and redundant systems is not required, while the web interface ensures access is available anywhere with an internet connection.

Undoubtedly, aCNS accessingan ILEC Emergency 9-1-1 database provides the greatest accuracy. However, despite the involvement of Canadian ILECs in developing these technologies, requestsby municipal and emergency authorities to access ILEC Emergency 9-1-1 databases for CNShave been denied. ILECs cite privacy concerns, the fact that access for CNS notification is not covered under their CRTC Terms of Service, that CNS does not cover wireless or Voiceover Internet Protocol (VoIP) telephony technologies, and the overall lack of federal emergency notification standards, protocols, and regulations currently in place. This is presently at issue with the CRTC, under Telecom Public Notice 2005-7 (dated June 22, 2005). Given the fact that CRTC Public Notices generally take 1-2 years to complete, it is not unreasonable to expect a decision and corresponding Telecommunications Order to be issued in the next 3-6 months.

Although an Integrated Emergency 9-1-1 CNS is the most effective solution available for landline telephones, it is not effective for wireless technologies, as contacting wireless subscribers individually using Short Messaging Services (SMS) text messaging imposes a significant load on the cellular network and raises privacy issues. Instead, Cell Broadcasting, a function of cellular wireless networks where text messages are sent instantaneously within a defined broadcast area for the equivalent network load of a single SMS message, is a much more efficient method of emergency notification. Technologically, Cell Broadcasting notifications using an internet-based technology similar to CNS are possible, and currently the CRTC has a call for applications (CRTC 2005-38, April 22, 2005) to provide an All Channel Alert (ACA) service pending.

A Canadian All Channel Alert is the goal of CANALERT, a national standard emergency public alerting protocol initiative currently in development that will allow emergency management organizations to issue brief messages over media such as radio, TV, cellular telephones, and the internet. Telephony-based CNS protocols will likely be integrated under CANALERT once these are established.

The City should adopt a “wait-and-see” approach on implementing telephony-based emergency notification systems until the CRTC makes its decision on Public Notice 2005-7. It is not unreasonable to assume ILEC Terms of Service will be adjusted to allow Emergency 9-1-1 database access for CNS notification, given the fact that all stakeholders – including the ILECs, who stand to gain marketing opportunitiesfor new products based on infrastructure they are already obligated to maintain – are not adverse to the principle of CNS implementation to enhance public safety. Once the CRTC decision is made and corresponding Telecommunications Order issued, the City canbetter evaluate its own position regarding CNS implementation and the costs involved, as the CRTC Order will likely assign regulated service tariffs as well. Regardless of the CRTC decision’s outcome, the most efficient solutionis to use an ILEC-hosted solution rather than collect and manage emergency contact data in-house, unless an ILEC-hostedCNS is extremely cost-prohibitive. Any decision to implement an in-house CNS and/or a program of voluntary contact information collection should be based on these factors.

A wait-and-see approach on emergency broadcasting to wireless devices should also be taken until the outcome of CRTC ruling 2005-38 and the CANALERT national emergency broadcast protocol initiatives are known. Ideally, any emergency notification solution would integrate functionality for landline, wireless, and other communication technologies.

The City should take advantage of the federal Priority Access Dialing and Wireless Priority Services currently offered by the Industry Canada Emergency Telecommunications Data System (ETDS) to ensure critical staff is given priority access to landline and wireless networks during emergency situations.

A source listing of various initiatives, products and services is provided at the end of this document.

EMERGENCY COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES – OVERVIEW

1)Automated telephony call-out warning systems (Community Notification Systems or CNS) that access Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier (ILEC) subscriber and other databases and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) technologies to send messages via telephone to citizens in a defined geographic area.

2)Emergency broadcast systems providing blanket notifications over television, radio, internet, and cellular telephone network channels

3) Priority access dialing and message notification over telephone and wireless networks for authorized emergency staff

COMMUNITY NOTIFICATION SYSTEMS

Telephone Emergency Notification Systems (also referred to as Community Notification Systems or CNS) operate by accessing Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier (ILEC) or other database subscriber information in areas defined by geographic coordinates using Geographic Information System (GIS) technology. The GIS interfaces with the subscriber database to automatically dispatch multiple calls (minimum 1,500 calls per hour)[2] over Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) landlines in the defined emergency area.

Calls are pre-recorded messages sent by the emergency authority via an Interactive Voice Recognition (IVR) system, providing instructions and asking the call recipient to confirm receipt of the message by pressing a telephone key. Reports can be generated by the emergency authority as to the number of calls confirmed as answered/not answered to consider further action.

Emergency 9-1-1 Integrated CNS systems (also referred to as “Reverse 9-1-1” systems)[3] are already prevalent in the United States and elsewhere and there are several vendors offering these products. However, the U.S., under the Patriot Act, does not guarantee the same level of landline telephone subscriber privacy as Canada does. Furthermore, U.S. telecommunication companies are not regulated as strictly or thoroughly as Canadian ILECs, which fall under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) under the terms of the Telecommunications Act.

Therefore, in Canada the issue surrounding CNS implementation is more a regulatory/legal one than a technical one at this time.

ACQUIRING PERSONAL INFORMATION FOR EMERGENCY PUBLIC NOTIFICATIONS PURPOSES

In Canada, any disclosure of/access to information on ILEC databases are considered services provided by telecommunications companies. As such, these services fall under the jurisdiction of the Telecommunications Act, and therefore under the authority of the CRTC regulating body, which regulates telecommunication carrier tariffs and Terms of Service conditions. Under the Telecommunications Act, CRTC authority takes precedence over federal Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) and BC provincial Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIPPA) regulations, and in some instances these Acts are not completely harmonized [4].

Under the Telecommunications Act, PIPEDA, and FOIPPA, Names, Addresses, and Telephone Numbers of listed subscribers are not considered confidential, and can be obtained by accessing the ILEC “white pages” directory or other commercially available databases. However, white pages directories do not contain unlisted numbers, are only updated once a year, and often do not cover rural areas lacking addressing systems. In addition, subscribers to the Canadian Marketing Association’s “Do Not Solicit” list are not available. As such, the accuracy of white pages information is estimated at less than 60%[5]. There is also the danger of incorrectly notifying people who have changed addresses but maintained the same telephone number, potentially causing undue panic and confusion during emergency situations.

Personal information can be obtained through voluntary submission to a local government agency, which would then enter/store it in a database to contact subscribers during an emergency. However, collecting information in this manner does not guarantee full citizen participation and/or currency of the information once submitted. The agency has to incur the expense of purchasing, managing, operating, and maintaining the database. Voluntary submission may also create legal issues as the onus would be on the local government agency to ensure subscribers are contacted as promised and the in-house system functions properly during an emergency.

Some level of voluntary participation could be encouraged in conjunction with other City business when personal information is collected such as paying property taxes, renewing business licenses, or program registration, although it is unlikely the currency, accuracy, and blanket coverage required for an emergency notification system to operate effectively would be sufficient using voluntary collection methods.

BC PROVINCIAL LEGISLATION

Under normal circumstances, as a BC public body the City is subject to FOIPPA regulations for all personal information it collects, stores, and discloses. As a result,it must disclose information only for the purpose it is collected, or under the specific provisions defined in FOIPPA Part 3 Sections 26-36.

Local municipal emergency authorities in British Columbia are subject to the conditions of the provincial “Emergency Program Act” for their jurisdiction. Section 26 of the Emergency Program Act states:

“Unless otherwise provided for in a declaration of a state of emergency made under section 9 (1) [of this Act] or in an extension of the duration of a declaration under section 9 (4), if there is any conflict between this Act or the regulations made under this Act and any other Act or regulations, this Act and the regulations made under this Act prevail during the time that the declaration of a state of emergency is made under section 9 (1) and any extension of that declaration is in effect” [6].

As such, in British Columbia, the protection of privacy dictates under FOIPPA can be overridden should an official local state of emergency be declared according to the Emergency Program Act. Therefore, the local emergency authority could access City-controlled personal information without being constrained by FOIPPA. However, the pre-requisite declaration of an official state of local emergency assumes Emergency Program Act overrides to FOIPPA would only occur post-event, and FOIPPA legislation would still hold precedence for any pre-event emergency notifications unless a local state of emergency has already been declared.

Under FOIPPA, any personal information collected, stored, and disclosed by the City is subject tothe Canadian storage and access provisions under Section 30.1. As such, the City must take steps to ensure whatever emergency notification system solution (either hosted or in-house) it implements does not allow access, storage, transport, or disclosure of data outside Canada unless an individual’s informed consent is given, or under the conditions specified by FOIPPA.

CANADIAN CITIES USING EMERGENCY NOTIFICATION SYSTEMS WITH VOLUNTARY SUBSCRIPTION LISTS

Currently, the County of Essex, Ontario Emergency Management Department, and the communities of Fort Saskatchewan Lamont, Sturgeon, and Strathcona, AB (via the Northeast Region Community Awareness and Emergency Response or NR CAER) offer voluntary emergency response subscriber service lists.

The County of Essex’s volunteer registration form is available at:

The NR CAER volunteer registration form is available at:

The NR CAER also provides a 24-hour call update line whereby NR CAER-member companies and authorities in the region can report unusual situations. The public can also access information/updates via a toll-free number. The update line is associated with the NR CAER emergency call-out system, which automatically contacts residents by telephone in an emergency area, as per information provided from the link below:

The NR CAER CNS is a hosted system operated by Telus Geomatics, which recently tested its emergency notification system in Coquitlam, BC.[7]

Information provided for the County of Essex and NR CAER CNS is a combination of commercially available “white pages” information and volunteer submissions. Both the Essex and the NR CAER forms require applicants to submit information via fax directly to the agency.

If the City proceeds with a voluntary submission approach, a similar form could be posted to the City’s website, although there are potential negative staffing, data administration, legal, and FOIPPA impacts for keeping such a list. Furthermore, initial testing in Canada[8] has shown that an ILEC-hosted CNS solution using ILEC subscriber information is much more cost-effective than a City-operated and maintained system.

CNS AND ACCESS TO EMERGENCY 9-1-1 DATABASES

Contrasting the less than 60% accuracy of white pages information are ILEC Emergency 9-1-1 databases, which are maintained according to CRTC regulations. Emergency 9-1-1 databases contain listed and unlisted numbers for both ILEC and Competitive Local Exchange Carrier (CLEC)[9] subscribers, are updated daily to ensure currency and accuracy, and are geographically mapped and displayed using the ILEC’s Automatic Number Identification/Automatic Location Identification (ANI/ALI) system. Because of these attributes, information on Emergency 9-1-1 databases is estimated to be over 95% accurate[10].