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.'"
sed 's/a temporary disruption of cell phone service, under extreme circumstances where harm and destruction are imminent/anything that could be bad PR/'
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.
You know, I'm no fun of poor public decision-making but honestly turning off the data in underground public transportation seriously does not seem like that big of a deal to me.
Its increadibly inconviniant, and the airlines are starting to show how unnessessary it is. My own feeling is that they did that in an attempt to conceal the fact that BART was broken again. Had nothing to do with safety.
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
Why is this moderated funny?
Apparently someone already turned off the power to your sarcasm meter.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Exactly.
A contract dispute, a civil matter, and quite possibly not something under the FCC jurisdiction.
Maybe the Cell carriers sue BART for disruption of services by cutting power to their micro-cells or something.
But Bart would likely have been one party to the contract to provide power to the carrier's micro-cells, whereas Tortuous Interference pretty much requires action by a third party, not a party to the contracts.
Was there an "out" in Bart's contract with these carriers?
Were there even Carrier Contracts involved, or was BART using off the shelf Cellular repeaters that anyone can buy, which they would be fully within their right to turn off?
There are a lot of questions to be answered before some guy on slash dot can pronounce something illegal, plain and simple.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
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.
I certainly hope she doesn't have family and face the need of calling them to inform them about a situation they may run into.
I wonder if shutting all communications down in Manhattan in September 11 would had significantly helped as this person is claiming.
Temporarily turning off resources to contain mob behavior is not silencing political speech.
Unless the mob behaviour is protesting against the latest thing the government did but shouldn't have / didn't do but should have.
Or is it really to prevent Western Spring?
(Sorry, forgot to put my foil helmet on this morning)
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
If the limit is already in place, the need to shutdown the towers all together is?
You are only listening to the BART side of the story.
First, it's not just data that was shut down, but voice as well.
Second. Imagine if a fire broke out, or you had a heart attack, or somebody was being attacked; How would you report it without your phone working?
Third. The only reason BART shut it down was because they wanted to prevent any kind of protests against them (BART police shot a suspect at point blank range, while the suspect was pinned on the ground by multiple police officers).
Fourth. interfearing with communications are the acts of totalitarian governments around the world, and it is not compatible with Freedom.