Slashdot Mirror
BART Defends Mobile Service Shutdown
itwbennett writes "In a filing to the FCC, Bay Area Rapid Transit general manager Grace Crunican defended last August's mobile shutdown, saying that 'a temporary disruption of cell phone service, under extreme circumstances where harm and destruction are imminent, is a necessary tool to protect passengers.' Taking the opposing position, digital rights groups, including Public Knowledge, Free Press, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Center for Democracy and Technology, told the FCC (PDF) that 'wireless interruption will necessarily prohibit the communications of completely innocent parties — precisely those parties closest to the site where the emergency is located or anticipated.'"
In the interest of the greater good...
sed 's/a temporary disruption of cell phone service, under extreme circumstances where harm and destruction are imminent/anything that could be bad PR/'
That action by BART was illegal, plain and simple. I can't wait to hear the amount of the fine they receive!
temporary disruption of cell phone service, under extreme circumstances where harm and destruction are imminent, is a necessary tool to protect passengers
Even if we accept that premise - who decides if "harm and destruction" is imminent? Oh, that's right, BART decides that. A completely unbiased reviewer, they are.
I don't know what the difference is. There is shitty, background service through about the Montgomery station, with blackout points down below the City (don't do that ride much), and MacArthur through Berkeley is a blackout. I know, bitching about spotty service, etc. but try to get anything done on the train. I just read and don't even bother.
If I use a personal jammer to silence that idiot yakking away at 120dB about who is sleeping with who and who has the funny sores on them, it's cool as long as I do it so that 'someone' doesn't kick his ass?
The real reason they shut off cell phone service was to disrupt the electronic communication of the organizers of the protest. If there was a 'safety' reason, it was to disrupt the protest in the interest of safety. Down that path lies the complete elimination of public assembly 'in the interest of safety'.
I could see their argument if say they had a credible threat of a cellphone-triggered bomb, but trying to disrupt a protest's electronic communication does NOT cut it.
What's their defense in shooting an unarmed and detained man?
Yeesh, whadda think people did before cell phones in an emergency? I believe they used to think, and act (and in that order) -- not just dial 911 and then stand there with a cell phone camera watching the poor bastard suffer. I, for one, wish they'd make the change permanent: Imagine riding public transportation without some obnoxious mouth breather yelling at his girlfriend the entire trip, while you're packed in like sardines with other passengers. It'd be better than Chuck Norris descending from heaven and cock punching every douchebag on the train.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Subway cars have dedicated telephony. If there's an emergency, and you think that you by yourself on your own cellphone can do you any good (like every other passenger on the train, compared with the authorities in place to deal with it), you're horribly naive (and probably a libertarian.) Cellphones do not have mandated reliability characteristics like landlines, so no rules are being broken here. In the event of an emergency, the passengers will likely clog any femtocells, full cells, or repeaters regardless.
If your subway car is on fire, what the heck is your cellphone going to do for you?
Not to sound harsh, as this is slashdot, but as soon as something is on your side of the tinfoil hat, it doesn't mean you can just give up all critical reasoning and adhere to the same computer science Stallmanism. This is a big world, with complex problems -- and not all of them can fit into the FOSS framework.
I'm not trying to be a troll here, but seriously guys? It used to be that everyone got along fine without cell phones and now they're a lifeblood -- to the degree that when they are taken away, nobody seems to know how to actually take care of themselves.
Whatever we do, it's in the name of your best interest. Leave you abandoned in the cold? It's to make you stronger! Raise you from cradle to grave? It's to keep you safe! You want to protect life? No abortions for anybody! You want to protect life? Abortions for some! Free birth control! And tiny flags for others!
--Signed, whatever government you want. We're here to help.
Wasn't this whole situation kinda like flying. During take off and landing you are required to turn off all electronic devices, including your cellphones. The reason for this is to prevent interference with the plane's electronics, which could be life threatening. If their goal was to prevent deadly riots I believe that they are within their rights to turn off a service.
If BART really wanted to they could end the contracts with the communication companies and then you wouldn't be able to use your cellphones down there anyways.
So for all transit operators out there, the apparent takeaway from all this is to not provide any form of cell service in weak areas. Offering a repeater that you can control, and disabling it can be considered a breech of freedoms and make you liable.
Better to just avoid the whole issue and not do anything that'll make your commuters happier. If they want cell service, they can lobby their cell carriers to point antennas directed into the tunnels themselves. And nevermind emergencies - there's always the emergency phones in the trains.
Anyone who wants to text and use their cellphone, can drive instead.
Have there been any studies of how effective mobile-blocking is in evacuating an area?
I suspect a lot of people would get downright uneasy about being without connection. Especially when surrounded by a lot of downright uneasy strangers plus apparently there's some sort of altercation going down. This might be good leverage against 'spectator mode', and time-wasted calling friends to share the excitement.
Like imagine if they tried telling everybody to stay put, plus cut mobile. People would bolt way faster than if they had mobile to check for info and give distraction. Blocking has real crowd-shaping effect, and there ought to been a few papers by now.
Next will be the forced wearing of peril sensitive sunglasses.
So what if harm is imminent? Suppose a train derails or a terrorist bombs it, how is turning the phone supposed to stop the casualties?
But hey I can help them I know first aid! Let's go through the DRSABCD steps.
D - check for Danger. .... does anyone have a working phone?
R - check for Response.
S - Send for help
In any major incident the emergency services would greatly appreciate having eyes and ears on the ground straight away which is exactly what their call centre provides.
My mobile never works on the London Underground, protest or no protest.
"XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, use more." - Anonymous Coward
Wither goes local government, wither goes the federal government.
Barring intervention from the supreme court.
Given the feckless state of our current federal legislature, this is why it's important to elect the right person to the presidency: They will pick the next batch to decide this sort of thing.
Corollary to Hanlon's razor: Any significantly advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from malice.
There's a disconnect between principle and practice here. Authorities should absolutely be able to disable communications in "extreme circumstances where harm and destruction are imminent". A cell-phone triggered bomb on the train, for example.
But what does that have to do with last August's shutdown? Harm and violence were not imminent in that case. You'd be hard-pressed to argue that violence was even *likely*.
We have given the authorities tools to use to stop mass violence -- everything from telecomms control to tear gas. But using those tools *before* the violence starts is always an abuse of power.
Living this close to the former iron curtain, I have heard and read that kind of apologies before. Every time there was an unrest in one of those countries, something like this would be sprouted. "For the safety", "to protect order", "to keep people from misusing tools" and "what could have happened if we didn't step in".
So far the difference is still that we don't get shot.
At least not yet.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
...is it weird that a lame simpsons joke hasn't appeared yet?
If BART can do this then the bad guys have half their work done for them, they simply need to get control of this process when they want to cause even more mayhem.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Ackshully, knowing BART:
http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/2011/07/bart-police-shoot-kill-man-platform-civic-center-station
There ya go.
AC
It would seem to me that a cellphone would be an incredibly useful thing to have in an emergency situation... Especially so loved ones could contact you and see if you are in said situation...
They don't want you to upload videos of unarmed, handcuffed Black males the BART Police have shot in the back before they have had a chance to confiscate your cell phone.
It boils down to what was the intent? BART Police have already indicated that the intent was to disrupt communications because they wanted to prevent an effective protest.
Is anyone else disappointed in a lack of Simpsons jokes in an article with Bart in the headline?
Paranoia is a serious medical condition. No jokes.
We do get shot. With beanbags. Causing brain damage.
...are mobile phones a constitutionally guaranteed right now?
When it comes time to decide if you deny someone communications (or any rights) the rule set should always be 'Allow first, Deny last' which is to say never deny unless you will do obvious, absolute and concrete good by doing so, and then only as a very last resort.
BART reversed this and so erred on the side of the devils.