OhMyGov!

CRS study looks at potential dangers associated with social media in emergencies

By Ohmygov.com's Alex Salta



A recently released study examines the benefits of social media in the areas of emergency preparedness and response. To those who have followed the online responses to recent disasters these benefits are well known and fairly obvious, but what the Congressional Research Service's report also examines is what is most interesting: the potential downsidesto using social media in an emergency.

The CRS report (PDF), "Social Media and Disasters: Current Uses, Future Options, and Policy Considerations," was authored by Bruce Lindsay and details the facts the longtime observers know well by now: social media has the potential to be an essential communications tool in a disaster scenario. The ability to disseminate information and send out warnings in realtime is not only ultra convenient, but it also has the potential to save lives. At this point, the benefits of platforms like Twitter in this kind of situation are pretty undeniable.

But the report takes things a step further and asks an important question: when used improperly, does this technology have the potential to do more harm than good?

The report identifies five key areas where social media can run into serious limitations when attempting to effectively communicate in an emergency: accurate information, malicious use, technological limitations, administrative cost considerations, and privacy issues.

The first point is an obvious one; information sent out via social media isn't going to be any help to anyone if it is woefully inaccurate.

The second point is an interesting, and rather unsettling, consideration however. As the Lindsay explains, "Some individuals or organizations might intentionally provide inaccurate information to confuse, disrupt, or otherwise thwart response efforts. Malicious use of social media during an incident could range from mischievous pranks to acts of terrorism."

This would appear to be more of a concern in some kind of manmade disaster as opposed to a natural one, but the report is right to point out that those using this technology do not necessarily have the greater good in mind. To some it may sound alarmist, but it needs to be considered.

The ideas of technological limitations and cost considerations are two things no one wants to think about when it comes to an emergency, but they are true. Sites like Twitter can crash, cell phone service can be disrupted, and not every state and local government agency has a team of tweeters manning the keyboards around the clock. These are practical problems that call for practical solutions (read: money), but they cannot be ignored.

Finally Lindsay acknowledges the role played by privacy concerns. Noting "the potential for the collection, retention, and data mining of personal information by the federal government with respect to its use of social media for disaster recovery purposes," Lindsay raises an interesting issue.

During an emergency people are more likely to willingly give up personal information they would otherwise balk at revealing, everything from phone numbers to addresses suddenly become public record once they are sent out over social media. Giving out this information could potentially lead to much needed assistance, but it does not exist in a vacuum and will still be out there long after the danger has passed.

The report is certainly an interesting and concise account of both the positives and negatives of social media in disaster scenarios. And while one does not want to always accentuate the negative, perhaps it is a good thing that it is acknowledged and examined long before disaster strikes and the tweets hit the fan.

www.ohmygov.com


Victims of last spring's Missouri tornado