The New York Times shares our concerns, expressed in the comments section to this post, over pending federal efforts to pass a bill expanding Amber Alerts:

...If used correctly, such systems seem to be useful tools for law enforcement. But given the very few cases of child abduction and the potential for vigilantism, the systems must be designed to ensure that they do more good than harm.

There is nothing wrong with coordinating information about missing children. But if done badly, there is the potential of promoting vigilantism by seeming to invite help in apprehending a suspected abductor. Also, if the wrong information is put out — an incorrect license plate or a bad physical description — posses of armed citizens could descend on innocent people, with tragic results.

The Senate passed legislation earlier this year to establish a nationwide Amber Alert network and to provide federal grants for, among other things, highway notifications. On a pure cost-benefit basis, the attention and financing do not really seem warranted. There are only about 100 abductions by strangers a year, making it a lesser threat to children than choking or bicycle accidents.

If Amber Alerts are going to become more widespread, law enforcement must be careful to screen out all but the most well-verified cases and to present the information in a way that encourages members of the public to watch for missing children without taking the law into their own hands.