Am I the only one who doesn't see a problem with this?
They provided a cel phone repeater as an amenity/courtesy to their passengers. It's not part of their charter to provide cel service.
Their goal is to keep their passengers moving efficiently. By no longer providing that cel service, they disrupted the wannabe disrupters.
Their freedom of assembly wasn't interfered with, they just didn't help it.
If the protesters relied on cel phone coverage to perform their demonstration, then their strategy failed, and they'll have to come up with another way.
They increased the presence of police in the area, so the "how will I call for an ambulance" concern is a bit melodramatic; there were emergency personal already on scene, with non-cel communication capabilities.
Personally, I feel the right to assemble/demonstrate has been extended too far into the area of "I demand the right to fuck up everyone else's day", and applaud BART for doing something about it.
In regards to the right to assemble/demonstrate, I personally believe that the public's idea (or at least perception) of what makes an effective (nonviolent) demonstration has changed.
"Unifying issues" seem to be somewhat of a thing of the past- it is rare you see tens or hundreds of thousands protesting anything anymore. As demonstrators grow more fringe (due to the lack of "unifying issues"- they protest things that interest only a small minority), their numbers have dwindled to the point a traditional protest is ineffective, and in an effort to secure results they have adopted more... radical techniques.
As an example, if the majority of the San Francisco Bay Area really cared about the issue at hand here, it would have been trivial to stage an effective protest. E.g., call for a boycott (effective, easy and captivating, but only if you have a large following). Pack the cars with protesters, so many that regular commuters can't get on, and refuse to get off. Protests are about demonstrating a majority, a plurality, or a very significant minority, not a tiny vocal minority.
On top of that, I have to wonder about the mindset of the protesters. If they protest, and cause an interruption or major inconvenience to me, then odds are I won't care what their cause is, I won't support them. That is no way for them to gain my support. Do something for charity, for the community, or in some other non-disruptive manner, and be respectful of others in the community.
It's like that band in California that caused the huge traffic jam as a publicity stunt. By doing what they did, they caused huge inconvenience to a lot of people, and got nothing but negative press out of it. They even ended up in court over it. Rightfully so.
If they feel that the only way to get any media attention out of their protest is under the headline of "thousands delayed for hours", then screw them and their cause.
I tend to believe that these disruptive tactics are more to get their name in the paper than to actually try and bring about change.
Freedom of speech implies the freedom to communicate. Given the era of technology has made it such that the communications infrastructure is fundamental to our speech and communication, it could be construed that removing this is violating our constitutional rights.
I don't think it means that there is a requirement to provide the most convenient method available. Cel phone service isn't even classified as an essential service. Never mind internet access.
They didn't stop communication, they made it less convenient. The protesters had to stay within range of a normal cel tower, rather that use the locally/BART provided repeaters. "Can you hear me now?" "No."
What's next? BART has to provide the paper and photocopying to the protesters for their pamphlets so they can communicate their issues?
Would you say that airlines are violating your right to free speech because they make you turn off your cell phones in flight?
What about all the subway tunnels that don't have cell service - is their lack of cell service unconstitutional, or is it just that once you offer someone cell service, you can never take it back?
It is not OK for the government to cut off citizen communications in times of civil unrest or any other time. BART, which has its own police force, must be held to constitutional standards. While they can prohibit assembly within their stations, disabling communications infrastructure violates people's basic rights.
in this case, legally it is a tricky issue and BART is probably and unfortunately in the clear on this.
BART cut power to the wireless sites in these/tunnels tations - they didn't ask the wireless providers to terminate their services. I suspect that since the wireless sites lease space and consume power from BART operated facilities, BART is well within their rights to terminate power and other services based on existing contractual agreements.
However, that doesn't make what BART did "right." It is downright disgusting and I hope that the wireless providers mount up and put some serious pressure on BART in response. Certainly the providers are paying serious money to BART to lease space to provide service to riders, and the optics of the loss of that will hurt BART far more than it will hurt the wireless providers. At the end of the day, loss of wireless lease would really be a punch in the gut to BART, not to mention the public safety issues.
I don't know that the technical details factor into this -- BART admitted that their intent was to prevent speech and to interfere with communications, therefore it's possible they ran afoul of the First Amendment and/or the FCC. I don't know that we'll find the answer unless someone takes it to trial.
"BART, which has its own police force, must be held to constitutional standards."
This sounds nice, but do you actually know what those Constitutional standards are?
First, as you seem to recognize, the area in which cell phone service was disrupted is what is considered a "nonpublic forum." The government has significant latitude to restrict speech in nonpublic forums, especially when the restriction is related to the function of that forum. Here, BART shut down cell phone service because it was informed that a group of "protesters", which had caused disruption to BART service in the past, was going to use cell phones to organize another disruption. According to reports, cell phones were to be used to communicate the locations of BART police officers to maximize the mob's ability to disrupt service.
Second, not all speech is due protection under the First Amendment. There is protected speech, and unprotected speech.Speech designed to incite violence or create a breach of the peace is not protected. There is substantial case law on this. Here, based on tweets like "We are going to show BART (@SFBART) how to prevent a riot #OpBART" and the past actions of this particular group of "protesters", it is clear that BART had a compelling reason to temporarily shut down cell phone service in its stations.
Finally, in this case, BART did not prevent this group of "protesters" from expressing ideas. It simply restricted, temporarily, a particular mode of delivery.
What about those who weren't planning to use their cell phones to incite a riot? Again, there is more latitude to restrict speech in nonpublic forums, and any restrictions here were content-neutral, narrowly drawn in terms of time, place and manner, and were for a compelling purpose (protecting public safety).
Bottom line: this is only a Constitutional issue if you have no understanding of the Constitution and First Amendment case law.
This is why government should not be in the cell phone (or tower, or repeater) business. Just as they should not be involved in the newspaper, news reporting or any other business not related to actual governing. Giving any government the power to shut down communication is a nasty, slippery slope. Once it's OK to quash communication in the subway, then it's OK to quash it just outside the subway; then for one block around the subway; then for 10 blocks around the subway ad infinitum.
The big problem is that the governing authorities assumed that everyone around BART that day was there for nefarious cause and treated everyone as a suspect, thereby shutting down potential criminal activity, yet depriving law-abiding citizens the ability to communicate freely. If the governing authorities were interested in preserving security, then they should use the means granted to them by the citizens; namely, police officers.
What's funny about all this is that cutting off communication stops people from calling in emergency, thus preventing life saving services from arriving at the scene in a timely manner. "shutdown the cellphone service for the safety of everyone". Sounds reminiscent of President Hosni Mubarak's plan of stopping the protest by shutting down cellphone and internet.
We need to hurry up and give our government the ability to have an Internet off switch, you know, for the safety of everyone.
If I buy a cellphone jammer and run it on my property near a government building because there is a protest going on... for the safety of everyone. I would be immediately arrested upon discovery of what I was doing.
What if, while the cell sites were powered down, a crazed lunatic with a knife started stabbing people on a BART platform or train? How could anyone call for help?
From the article:
"In addition, numerous BART police officers and other BART personnel were present during the planned protest, and train intercoms and white courtesy telephones remained available for customers seeking assistance or reporting suspicious activity."
So, to answer your question, BART police would have detained him, or someone would have used one of those phones to call for help.
Regarding your first question, what are you implying was their motive for doing this, if not for safety?
They address the safety of people on the platform, but what about people that didn't have a few dozen cops nearby?
I have ill family members, and need to be able to be on a plane in a few hours notice. Avoiding some bad PR photos justifies missing that important inbound phone call?
People have used subways for over 100 years and dealt with "crazed lunatics with knifes" without cell phones for all but the past 10 of those years. Cell phone != safety
Having worked in emergency services as well as lived in countries without such services, services like 9-1-1 have absolutely increased the safety and security in developed countries. Just because people dealt with things in a less-than-optimal way before is no justification to return to those times.
As a frequent public transit rider in SF, and the developer of a popular Muni iPhone app, let me say: If you told anyone in SF thought that there was intentionally functioning cell service in the subway tunnels, they would LAUGH.
My application is supposed to tell you when the train is coming, and it doesn't work once you walk down to the platform due to complete lack of cell service.
I chuckle at the ludicrous idea of "disrupting" something that doesn't actually work to begin with. If it worked, perhaps my app would be more useful.
Really just seems like they're adding fuel to the fire. Its kind of a boneheaded move, as people will just organize the old fashioned way the next time around.
When it does succeed while BART is doing this, affected riders will be w/o rail AND cell service.
And many of them will be angry @ BART for disabling their ability to contact friends / family during delay, look up status and alternate routes on the web, etc.
You can simply walk upstairs where there's normal cellphone reception, and you're good to go.
Now if you're stuck on a train in a tunnel because protesters are causing the system to shut down, that's a different situation, but still not decidedly evil or foolish for BART to turn off its cell service. In BART's defense, they did tell everyone earlier in the day to make alternate plans and prepare for delays.
Was it the underground cell repeaters? Or the cell towers on BART property --for which they lease out the land to telecom providers?
If it's the underground repeaters, that's their business. If it was the towers on Bart property but property of telecoms, then that's problematic -as it interrupts service to non-Bart users.
They are asserting it's the underground repeaters. Apparently, they approached the telcos and the telcos wouldn't play.
We need to find out who is repsonsible for this. We need public personal accountability for organizational decisions, particularly in the case of public and government services.
I believe just the underground repeaters - probably just in San Francisco proper. I had one bar on the east end of the embarcadero station (Verizon), probably from outside, but I couldn't successfully send a text or call. After getting on the train, I figured out they'd shut down the cell service on the platforms/tunnel (no signal until I got above ground at 24th). This was around 4:30pm.
I'm guessing the AT&T customers just figured it was service as usual in SF. :)
Yeah, on AT&T I pretty much give up on using my phone once the train starts moving, even though we're supposed to have service from Civic Center all the way to the Oakland end of the transbay tube.
with BART saying they were within their legal right to shut down the cell service. However, the Electronic Frontier Foundation had this to say:
“It’s outrageous that the authorities would resort to the same tactics of the repressive Mubarak regime,” said Kevin Bankston, a lawyer for the Electronic Frontier Foundation. “The fact that it was motivated by a desire to stifle free speech raises serious First Amendment problems.”
Isn't it against FCC regs to intentionally cause cell phones to stop working? I remember some prisons wanted to buy cell jammers to prevent inmates from using smuggled phones, but it's illegal.
"Jamming" wireless transmissions does indeed run afoul of FCC regulation; but that's not what they did here.
They disabled the power to the base stations which were deployed in specific locations (locations which are not public property). I assume they argue that they are not under any obligation to provide access to these base stations. I also assume that the base stations in question are either owned by them, or provided by the telcos.
Technically, one of the wireless providers could probably raise a stink that this action made their service look bad, but I seriously doubt they are going to take a stand in this regard.
It's actually potentially more interesting than that.
AM/FM radio stations on licensed frequencies are required to be transmitting. Dead air has to be reported and justified to the FCC, or they can face fines.
I wonder if that sort of thing applies to CDMA/GSM radio towers and repeaters.
BART exists to transport people safely and efficiently. I think they do a fantastic job of it. They manage to make BART travel reliable, fast and safe. The presence of a strong and armed police force is necessary and fundamentally a good thing. If disrupting cell service protects riders, then it is the right course of action.
Or would you all prefer BART to protect people's right to tweet at the cost of lives and injuries?
BART rides trough some extremely violent neighborhoods, and carries all kinds of people, rich and poor. The fact that it works as smoothly as it does is a miracle already. Compare it with some of the trashier public transport options out there. Even some MUNI lines have some really creepy things going on on them.
The ability to organize protestations live via cell phones is becoming more popular all around the world.
In response, cell comms are disrupted, of course, by the powers in place.
It is easy to see what the response to _that_ will be... Anonymus showed it brillantly recently at Defcon. Eventually, we will have human-carried miniaturized cell tower repeaters amongst the protesters, insuring local cell coverage.
The issue isn't access, it's injustice. Don't let the topic change to some bland consumer access issue -- Why does BART mandate its officers carry lethal force?
Most of the “freedoms” people speak of are really freedoms from government interference. For example, “freedom of speech” doesn’t apply to a symphony hall that requires its patrons to be silent during performances, but it may restrict a government’s ability to enact anti-hate crime legislation.
In this case the more interesting issue is that a private entity disrupted telecommunications on its property without notice or warning. In addition to making it difficult for protesters to coördinate their actions, it also made it difficult for people to make unrelated calls, to report crimes, call 911, and so forth.
It might be legal, but I admit I find the idea very unsettling.
Is BART a private entity, or are they state funded/run?
I've never been clear on this in most places I've been; I don't know if New York's MTA is part of the city, or if it's a private corporation entrusted with a public utility - and if it is, what are the ramifications?
I've only lived in SF for 2 weeks, so I wasn't sure if the BART/Muni stuff was public or privately owned.
Good point though about unrelated calls, 911, crimes, etc. Had something bad happened during that time I imagine they'd be in some (more) hot water right now.
Paid areas of BART stations are reserved for ticketed passengers who are boarding, exiting or waiting for BART cars and trains, or for authorized BART personnel. No person shall conduct or participate in assemblies or demonstrations or engage in other expressive activities in the paid areas of BART stations, including BART cars and trains and BART station platforms.
The notion that BART areas are not public and subject to the First Amendment ("right to peaceably assemble...") is absurd on its face and in detail.
Of course it's public space. That's where the public is!
And, BART is financed by public money and operated by an agency that reports directly to regional government.
What qualifies as an expressive activity? Saying "I love my friends!" is an expressive activity, and so is saying "BART police shouldn't shoot people who don't deserve to be shot!"
You should definitely be able to "assemble" peaceably and say whatever you want to say.
BART should be within its rights to remove people who actively disrupt the service by blocking platforms or cars or ticket booths, but going beyond that (i.e. removing someone from a train because they were critical of BART or its policies) is too far. If that's what this release is indeed implying...
The justification being that the area isn't "public" so the right to public assembly doesn't apply? I find it really interesting that they have that sort of macro-control on the cell broadcast antennas in the BART stations in order to turn service on and off...that implies a system to control or coordinate wireless broadcast access throughout the system...
I had a feeling BART was up to some BS when my phone just did not work at Civic Center yesterday. It was also nice to share the platform with police fully decked out in riot gear.
The only positive thing was that the trains were empty because of all the hullabaloo
I think that when cell-jammers first became available, the FCC said that they were illegal regardless of whether private citizens used them or municipalities. The FCC is the regulatory body that has the last word on radio technology, and since it is a federal agency the whole area is under federal authority; it isn't an area states and cities can enter into.
This has nothing to do with cell-jammers. BART normally offers cell phone service underground as signal usually can't travel there. They just flipped the switch.
Am I the only one who doesn't see a problem with this?
They provided a cel phone repeater as an amenity/courtesy to their passengers. It's not part of their charter to provide cel service.
Their goal is to keep their passengers moving efficiently. By no longer providing that cel service, they disrupted the wannabe disrupters.
Their freedom of assembly wasn't interfered with, they just didn't help it.
If the protesters relied on cel phone coverage to perform their demonstration, then their strategy failed, and they'll have to come up with another way.
They increased the presence of police in the area, so the "how will I call for an ambulance" concern is a bit melodramatic; there were emergency personal already on scene, with non-cel communication capabilities.
Personally, I feel the right to assemble/demonstrate has been extended too far into the area of "I demand the right to fuck up everyone else's day", and applaud BART for doing something about it.
It was kind of lame that I couldn't read LessWrong on my commute home. I really enjoy that part of my day.
Otherwise, yeah. The comparisons to Egypt are a little over the top. It's awesome that cell phones work in the Bart tunnels at all.
It's awesome that cell phones work in the Bart tunnels at all
Upvote this man (and give me some downvotes if it balances things out for you). Too few see the world this way.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r1CZTLk-Gk
In regards to the right to assemble/demonstrate, I personally believe that the public's idea (or at least perception) of what makes an effective (nonviolent) demonstration has changed.
"Unifying issues" seem to be somewhat of a thing of the past- it is rare you see tens or hundreds of thousands protesting anything anymore. As demonstrators grow more fringe (due to the lack of "unifying issues"- they protest things that interest only a small minority), their numbers have dwindled to the point a traditional protest is ineffective, and in an effort to secure results they have adopted more... radical techniques.
As an example, if the majority of the San Francisco Bay Area really cared about the issue at hand here, it would have been trivial to stage an effective protest. E.g., call for a boycott (effective, easy and captivating, but only if you have a large following). Pack the cars with protesters, so many that regular commuters can't get on, and refuse to get off. Protests are about demonstrating a majority, a plurality, or a very significant minority, not a tiny vocal minority.
On top of that, I have to wonder about the mindset of the protesters. If they protest, and cause an interruption or major inconvenience to me, then odds are I won't care what their cause is, I won't support them. That is no way for them to gain my support. Do something for charity, for the community, or in some other non-disruptive manner, and be respectful of others in the community.
It's like that band in California that caused the huge traffic jam as a publicity stunt. By doing what they did, they caused huge inconvenience to a lot of people, and got nothing but negative press out of it. They even ended up in court over it. Rightfully so.
If they feel that the only way to get any media attention out of their protest is under the headline of "thousands delayed for hours", then screw them and their cause.
I tend to believe that these disruptive tactics are more to get their name in the paper than to actually try and bring about change.
1 reply →
Freedom of speech implies the freedom to communicate. Given the era of technology has made it such that the communications infrastructure is fundamental to our speech and communication, it could be construed that removing this is violating our constitutional rights.
Does it MEAN that, or simply imply it?
I don't think it means that there is a requirement to provide the most convenient method available. Cel phone service isn't even classified as an essential service. Never mind internet access.
They didn't stop communication, they made it less convenient. The protesters had to stay within range of a normal cel tower, rather that use the locally/BART provided repeaters. "Can you hear me now?" "No."
What's next? BART has to provide the paper and photocopying to the protesters for their pamphlets so they can communicate their issues?
5 replies →
Would you say that airlines are violating your right to free speech because they make you turn off your cell phones in flight?
What about all the subway tunnels that don't have cell service - is their lack of cell service unconstitutional, or is it just that once you offer someone cell service, you can never take it back?
8 replies →
An interesting thought: Constitutional rights cannot be violated by private enterprise. They are only protections from government.
Is BART government?
1 reply →
It is not OK for the government to cut off citizen communications in times of civil unrest or any other time. BART, which has its own police force, must be held to constitutional standards. While they can prohibit assembly within their stations, disabling communications infrastructure violates people's basic rights.
in this case, legally it is a tricky issue and BART is probably and unfortunately in the clear on this.
BART cut power to the wireless sites in these/tunnels tations - they didn't ask the wireless providers to terminate their services. I suspect that since the wireless sites lease space and consume power from BART operated facilities, BART is well within their rights to terminate power and other services based on existing contractual agreements.
However, that doesn't make what BART did "right." It is downright disgusting and I hope that the wireless providers mount up and put some serious pressure on BART in response. Certainly the providers are paying serious money to BART to lease space to provide service to riders, and the optics of the loss of that will hurt BART far more than it will hurt the wireless providers. At the end of the day, loss of wireless lease would really be a punch in the gut to BART, not to mention the public safety issues.
I don't know that the technical details factor into this -- BART admitted that their intent was to prevent speech and to interfere with communications, therefore it's possible they ran afoul of the First Amendment and/or the FCC. I don't know that we'll find the answer unless someone takes it to trial.
4 replies →
As is often pointed out around here, there's legal, and then there's right.
They don't have battery backups?
Pressure, or perhaps just UPS/battery installations...
1 reply →
"BART, which has its own police force, must be held to constitutional standards."
This sounds nice, but do you actually know what those Constitutional standards are?
First, as you seem to recognize, the area in which cell phone service was disrupted is what is considered a "nonpublic forum." The government has significant latitude to restrict speech in nonpublic forums, especially when the restriction is related to the function of that forum. Here, BART shut down cell phone service because it was informed that a group of "protesters", which had caused disruption to BART service in the past, was going to use cell phones to organize another disruption. According to reports, cell phones were to be used to communicate the locations of BART police officers to maximize the mob's ability to disrupt service.
Second, not all speech is due protection under the First Amendment. There is protected speech, and unprotected speech.Speech designed to incite violence or create a breach of the peace is not protected. There is substantial case law on this. Here, based on tweets like "We are going to show BART (@SFBART) how to prevent a riot #OpBART" and the past actions of this particular group of "protesters", it is clear that BART had a compelling reason to temporarily shut down cell phone service in its stations.
Finally, in this case, BART did not prevent this group of "protesters" from expressing ideas. It simply restricted, temporarily, a particular mode of delivery.
What about those who weren't planning to use their cell phones to incite a riot? Again, there is more latitude to restrict speech in nonpublic forums, and any restrictions here were content-neutral, narrowly drawn in terms of time, place and manner, and were for a compelling purpose (protecting public safety).
Bottom line: this is only a Constitutional issue if you have no understanding of the Constitution and First Amendment case law.
The best part is the idea was originally suggested by BART's public relations department. They are of course in full backpedal mode on that statement.
This is why government should not be in the cell phone (or tower, or repeater) business. Just as they should not be involved in the newspaper, news reporting or any other business not related to actual governing. Giving any government the power to shut down communication is a nasty, slippery slope. Once it's OK to quash communication in the subway, then it's OK to quash it just outside the subway; then for one block around the subway; then for 10 blocks around the subway ad infinitum.
The big problem is that the governing authorities assumed that everyone around BART that day was there for nefarious cause and treated everyone as a suspect, thereby shutting down potential criminal activity, yet depriving law-abiding citizens the ability to communicate freely. If the governing authorities were interested in preserving security, then they should use the means granted to them by the citizens; namely, police officers.
What basic right is that?
Some states seem to have laws preventing this sort of thing since it would interfere with 911 calls. http://www.cga.ct.gov/2002/rpt/2002-R-0891.htm
Not sure about California.
1 reply →
Didn't you hear? Amendment 28, which establishes cell phone service as a basic human right.
5 replies →
What's funny about all this is that cutting off communication stops people from calling in emergency, thus preventing life saving services from arriving at the scene in a timely manner. "shutdown the cellphone service for the safety of everyone". Sounds reminiscent of President Hosni Mubarak's plan of stopping the protest by shutting down cellphone and internet.
We need to hurry up and give our government the ability to have an Internet off switch, you know, for the safety of everyone.
If I buy a cellphone jammer and run it on my property near a government building because there is a protest going on... for the safety of everyone. I would be immediately arrested upon discovery of what I was doing.
The tricky part here is, BART shut off the communications, and told everyone else after the fact.
Didn't Obama recently sign a bill giving him and any future president power to shut off nationwide internet during times of "crisis'?
No.
Are they really concerned about public safety?
What if, while the cell sites were powered down, a crazed lunatic with a knife started stabbing people on a BART platform or train? How could anyone call for help?
This is lunacy.
From the article: "In addition, numerous BART police officers and other BART personnel were present during the planned protest, and train intercoms and white courtesy telephones remained available for customers seeking assistance or reporting suspicious activity."
So, to answer your question, BART police would have detained him, or someone would have used one of those phones to call for help.
Regarding your first question, what are you implying was their motive for doing this, if not for safety?
>Regarding your first question, what are you implying was their motive for doing this, if not for safety?
Disrupting protest would be an obvious motivation. The less effective the protest, the less bad press for the transit authority.
4 replies →
Claiming it's for safety is what we in the business call "bullshit".
They address the safety of people on the platform, but what about people that didn't have a few dozen cops nearby?
I have ill family members, and need to be able to be on a plane in a few hours notice. Avoiding some bad PR photos justifies missing that important inbound phone call?
5 replies →
People have used subways for over 100 years and dealt with "crazed lunatics with knifes" without cell phones for all but the past 10 of those years. Cell phone != safety
Having worked in emergency services as well as lived in countries without such services, services like 9-1-1 have absolutely increased the safety and security in developed countries. Just because people dealt with things in a less-than-optimal way before is no justification to return to those times.
Cars didn't have airbags and safety belts for a long time, too.
As a frequent public transit rider in SF, and the developer of a popular Muni iPhone app, let me say: If you told anyone in SF thought that there was intentionally functioning cell service in the subway tunnels, they would LAUGH.
My application is supposed to tell you when the train is coming, and it doesn't work once you walk down to the platform due to complete lack of cell service.
I chuckle at the ludicrous idea of "disrupting" something that doesn't actually work to begin with. If it worked, perhaps my app would be more useful.
Really just seems like they're adding fuel to the fire. Its kind of a boneheaded move, as people will just organize the old fashioned way the next time around.
Just silly.
When it does succeed while BART is doing this, affected riders will be w/o rail AND cell service.
And many of them will be angry @ BART for disabling their ability to contact friends / family during delay, look up status and alternate routes on the web, etc.
wide ripple to heavy-handed tactics.
You can simply walk upstairs where there's normal cellphone reception, and you're good to go.
Now if you're stuck on a train in a tunnel because protesters are causing the system to shut down, that's a different situation, but still not decidedly evil or foolish for BART to turn off its cell service. In BART's defense, they did tell everyone earlier in the day to make alternate plans and prepare for delays.
Yes, now I know about it, and I would never have heard about it otherwise.
I'm sure that more flowery rhetoric could be said about the whole business, but I'm going to go with:
Bad BART. Bad. Don't do it ever again.
Was it the underground cell repeaters? Or the cell towers on BART property --for which they lease out the land to telecom providers?
If it's the underground repeaters, that's their business. If it was the towers on Bart property but property of telecoms, then that's problematic -as it interrupts service to non-Bart users.
They are asserting it's the underground repeaters. Apparently, they approached the telcos and the telcos wouldn't play.
We need to find out who is repsonsible for this. We need public personal accountability for organizational decisions, particularly in the case of public and government services.
I believe just the underground repeaters - probably just in San Francisco proper. I had one bar on the east end of the embarcadero station (Verizon), probably from outside, but I couldn't successfully send a text or call. After getting on the train, I figured out they'd shut down the cell service on the platforms/tunnel (no signal until I got above ground at 24th). This was around 4:30pm.
I'm guessing the AT&T customers just figured it was service as usual in SF. :)
Yeah, on AT&T I pretty much give up on using my phone once the train starts moving, even though we're supposed to have service from Civic Center all the way to the Oakland end of the transbay tube.
Additional details on the matter are reported here:
http://www.baycitizen.org/bart-police-shooting/story/bart-ce...
with BART saying they were within their legal right to shut down the cell service. However, the Electronic Frontier Foundation had this to say:
“It’s outrageous that the authorities would resort to the same tactics of the repressive Mubarak regime,” said Kevin Bankston, a lawyer for the Electronic Frontier Foundation. “The fact that it was motivated by a desire to stifle free speech raises serious First Amendment problems.”
Isn't it against FCC regs to intentionally cause cell phones to stop working? I remember some prisons wanted to buy cell jammers to prevent inmates from using smuggled phones, but it's illegal.
"Jamming" wireless transmissions does indeed run afoul of FCC regulation; but that's not what they did here.
They disabled the power to the base stations which were deployed in specific locations (locations which are not public property). I assume they argue that they are not under any obligation to provide access to these base stations. I also assume that the base stations in question are either owned by them, or provided by the telcos.
Technically, one of the wireless providers could probably raise a stink that this action made their service look bad, but I seriously doubt they are going to take a stand in this regard.
It's actually potentially more interesting than that. AM/FM radio stations on licensed frequencies are required to be transmitting. Dead air has to be reported and justified to the FCC, or they can face fines. I wonder if that sort of thing applies to CDMA/GSM radio towers and repeaters.
1 reply →
BART exists to transport people safely and efficiently. I think they do a fantastic job of it. They manage to make BART travel reliable, fast and safe. The presence of a strong and armed police force is necessary and fundamentally a good thing. If disrupting cell service protects riders, then it is the right course of action.
Or would you all prefer BART to protect people's right to tweet at the cost of lives and injuries?
BART rides trough some extremely violent neighborhoods, and carries all kinds of people, rich and poor. The fact that it works as smoothly as it does is a miracle already. Compare it with some of the trashier public transport options out there. Even some MUNI lines have some really creepy things going on on them.
The ability to organize protestations live via cell phones is becoming more popular all around the world.
In response, cell comms are disrupted, of course, by the powers in place.
It is easy to see what the response to _that_ will be... Anonymus showed it brillantly recently at Defcon. Eventually, we will have human-carried miniaturized cell tower repeaters amongst the protesters, insuring local cell coverage.
We live in interesting times...
This is why cell phones need the ability to create a transparent mesh network.
The issue isn't access, it's injustice. Don't let the topic change to some bland consumer access issue -- Why does BART mandate its officers carry lethal force?
>Meanwhile, they also released a digital flyer with the words "muBARTek," "Mystery of Lulz,"<
Article misquotes. It said "ministry of lulz".
I'm laughing at the fact that BART thinks they can effectively control people with this. This will only make things worse.
I'm speechless. This is insane and I fear it will only get worse.
Apparently the USA is once again taking notes from China and the middle-east.
Wouldn't this effectively be violating freedom of assembly?
Most of the “freedoms” people speak of are really freedoms from government interference. For example, “freedom of speech” doesn’t apply to a symphony hall that requires its patrons to be silent during performances, but it may restrict a government’s ability to enact anti-hate crime legislation.
In this case the more interesting issue is that a private entity disrupted telecommunications on its property without notice or warning. In addition to making it difficult for protesters to coördinate their actions, it also made it difficult for people to make unrelated calls, to report crimes, call 911, and so forth.
It might be legal, but I admit I find the idea very unsettling.
BART isn't a private entity, though, it's a government agency.
ETA a link to BART's discussion of its formation: http://bart.gov/about/history/index.aspx
Is BART a private entity, or are they state funded/run?
I've never been clear on this in most places I've been; I don't know if New York's MTA is part of the city, or if it's a private corporation entrusted with a public utility - and if it is, what are the ramifications?
3 replies →
I've only lived in SF for 2 weeks, so I wasn't sure if the BART/Muni stuff was public or privately owned.
Good point though about unrelated calls, 911, crimes, etc. Had something bad happened during that time I imagine they'd be in some (more) hot water right now.
BART's initial statement includes the following:
Paid areas of BART stations are reserved for ticketed passengers who are boarding, exiting or waiting for BART cars and trains, or for authorized BART personnel. No person shall conduct or participate in assemblies or demonstrations or engage in other expressive activities in the paid areas of BART stations, including BART cars and trains and BART station platforms.
Source: http://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2011/news20110812.aspx
The notion that BART areas are not public and subject to the First Amendment ("right to peaceably assemble...") is absurd on its face and in detail.
Of course it's public space. That's where the public is!
And, BART is financed by public money and operated by an agency that reports directly to regional government.
What qualifies as an expressive activity? Saying "I love my friends!" is an expressive activity, and so is saying "BART police shouldn't shoot people who don't deserve to be shot!"
You should definitely be able to "assemble" peaceably and say whatever you want to say.
BART should be within its rights to remove people who actively disrupt the service by blocking platforms or cars or ticket booths, but going beyond that (i.e. removing someone from a train because they were critical of BART or its policies) is too far. If that's what this release is indeed implying...
1 reply →
The justification being that the area isn't "public" so the right to public assembly doesn't apply? I find it really interesting that they have that sort of macro-control on the cell broadcast antennas in the BART stations in order to turn service on and off...that implies a system to control or coordinate wireless broadcast access throughout the system...
9 replies →
News.com still exists?
It's amazing to me how my primary read for years and years has been totally and utterly eaten alive by tech blogs.
I had a feeling BART was up to some BS when my phone just did not work at Civic Center yesterday. It was also nice to share the platform with police fully decked out in riot gear.
The only positive thing was that the trains were empty because of all the hullabaloo
I think that when cell-jammers first became available, the FCC said that they were illegal regardless of whether private citizens used them or municipalities. The FCC is the regulatory body that has the last word on radio technology, and since it is a federal agency the whole area is under federal authority; it isn't an area states and cities can enter into.
This has nothing to do with cell-jammers. BART normally offers cell phone service underground as signal usually can't travel there. They just flipped the switch.