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/'
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.
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.
That action by BART was illegal, plain and simple. I can't wait to hear the amount of the fine they receive!
Apparently its illegal to jam cell phone transmitters, but not technically illegal to unplug them.
Its entirely possible the FCC will find itself powerless in this fight, because there is no mandatory "must operate" regulations in place.
It may come down to who actually owns the cell/wifi transmitters in the underground stations where commercial services can't reach without the transit authority's assistance. It may end up being similar to cutting off the water to a coffee vendor in the stations - purely a contract dispute.
If you are going to rush in and pronounce something "illegal, plain and simple" please provide your credentials, and what year you were appointed to the bench.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
"...where the tortfeasor disrupts the ability of one party to perform his obligations under the contract, thereby preventing the plaintiff from receiving the performance promised"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference
It would be interesting to see an analysis of whether civil rights laws were violated.
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.
Heck, BART didn't even have cell phone service in many parts of their system up until a couple of years ago. Especially in the East Bay.
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.
Apparently its illegal to jam cell phone transmitters
A felony if I'm not mistaken.
but not technically illegal to unplug them. Its entirely possible the FCC will find itself powerless in this fight, because there is no mandatory "must operate" regulations in place.
Uh, no. Cell phone operators [and telcos] are common carriers, subject to Title II regulations, under the Communications Act of 1934. Common carriers [by definition] are prohibited from discriminating service, based on the content of messages (e.g. voice, data). The FCC has complete authority to regulate this matter [from this Act].
If you are going to rush in and pronounce something "illegal, plain and simple" please provide your credentials, and what year you were appointed to the bench.
Et tu, Brute?
Like a good neighbor, fsck is there
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.
It has yet to be established that the cell service in the subway was common carrier.
It may have been simple off the shelf cell repeaters operated by Bart itself.
After all, you don't find Verizon suing Bart do you?
And further, there was no discrimination. Simply a system wide outage.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
I'm surprised at the lack of outrage. BART is a governmental agency, with devolved powers from the State of California, its own police force, and a charter. If a city or county cut off wireless communication to prevent a protest, it would fly in the face of our incorporated first amendment rights to speech and assembly. From a legal standpoint, BART is held to the same standard.
As a government agency, shouldn't their first priority be to maintain order and prevent riots?
I find it very odd this story is posted today of all days. THIS is exactly what Bart was trying to avoid.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
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
There was no jamming of any transmissions, stop trying to change the facts of the situation.
Uh, no. Cell phone operators [and telcos] are common carriers, subject to Title II regulations, under the Communications Act of 1934. Common carriers [by definition] are prohibited from discriminating service, based on the content of messages (e.g. voice, data).
The BART isn't a cell phone operator, telco, or in any other fashion a "common carrier". And even if they were, shutting down a transmitter is not illegal and does not discriminate based on service type as it affects ALL functions. Even then, a signal relay between you and the tower probably doesn't really qualify as a service disruption as the tower is essentially the "demarck" point, not the signal booster.
Seriously, either go get an education or stop acting like you know what you're talking about, because you don't.
I'm not sure where the constitution, bill of rights or anything else mentions tweeting. Care to enlighten us?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
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.
By that logic it's quite acceptable to cut gas, water, power and a lot of other things to any place you might wish (provided you're the government), for no other reason than "I wanna", because humanity survived for ages without any of those. Don't like that blogger? Snip his wire!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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.
Nobody shut down a cellular site.
Bart shut down THEIR OWN repeaters in the subway. The street level commercial services were not affected.
Now don't you feel stupid for not reading TFA.?
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
...is it weird that a lame simpsons joke hasn't appeared yet?
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.
Sure. But what we can do is pronounce it immoral and a societally destructive abuse of power. And spare me the claims of BART being a private enterprise - they operate at the will of the public even if they have wrapped themselves in fine print and legalese to try to shirk their responsibilities.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
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.
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...
"prevent riots" or prevent assembly, which is a constitutional right?
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
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.
I'm not sure where the constitution, bill of rights or anything else mentions tweeting. Care to enlighten us?
I believe the first amendment covers that.
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
no that was pre 9/11
the first amendment now only covers advertising.
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.
This.
Hard to imagine noble intent from the same group of people that pinned a guy to the ground and shot him in the back, in front of a crowd of people who recorded their crime.
Disrupting the comm system gives them plenty of time to round up all those pesky cell phones before the video can be uploaded. After all, anything in the name of "security," right?
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Sure. But what we can do is pronounce it immoral and a societally destructive abuse of power.
You can pronounce it anything you want. It doesn't make it anything more than your personal opinion. Society is not obligated to enable you to foist your opinions on others as if they were facts.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
You seem to have edited the constitution. I believe the phrase is "peaceable assembly".
Look at the LATimes link above for an instructive example of what happens when people edit out key words in the constitution.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
You can pronounce it anything you want. It doesn't make it anything more than your personal opinion. Society is not obligated to enable you to foist your opinions on others as if they were facts.
Lol. There are no facts. Everything is opinion. Just some opinions are better supported than others.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
What logic? I stated a fact. But as long as we're talking about logic, I invite you to read about sweeping generalization, hasty generalization, weak analogy, appeal to consequences, and slippery slope before you lecture anyone about the topic.
I think plaintiffs have a strong case, and I hope they win, but the debate isn't enhanced by hysterical claims about how this is "illegal, plain and simple" by people whose grasp of the law is little better than a herring's, or by flawed analogies, or by comparisons to various mid-twentieth-century dictators. Let's maintain some perspective and a basic grasp of common sense, folks!
It has yet to be established that the cell service in the subway was common carrier.
If you provide these services to the general public [which BART did], it is common carrier. Not even BART is disputing this. Their argument is more along the line of the circumstances justified an exception to the rules.
It may have been simple off the shelf cell repeaters operated by Bart itself.
It is illegal for individuals and businesses to install/use cell repeaters. Only a licensed carrier may do this. That is, if you're a business/individual, the carrier/licensee must install/maintain the repeater for you. A rogue repeater subjects the owner to possible equipment forfeiture, fines, and/or imprisonment.
After all, you don't find Verizon suing Bart do you?
That's because [in all probability] Verizon set up the repeater system for BART.
And further, there was no discrimination. Simply a system wide outage.
An outage due to technical reasons/failure is vastly different. Deliberately pulling the plug [because of the potential speech/content] violates basic rules for common carriers.
The reason for this is that common carriers enjoy a "safe harbor" from the actions of their users. That is, if person X decides to kill person Y and uses BART to travel to Y's residence, BART enjoys immunity. Without such immunity, BART would an accomplice before the fact. In exchange for such safe harbor immunity, BART may not discriminate. If it does, it risks losing its common carrier status and exposes it to all sorts of liability.
However, in the above example, if a person Z (rather than BART) transports X to Y's place, Z is an accomplice [because Z is not a common carrier].
This safe harbor is also true for telecommunication carriers [common carriers]. If X uses the carrier's network to discuss/plan the murder of Y with Z, the carrier is not liable for their actions.
Like a good neighbor, fsck is there
You are not a common carrier simply because you install a cell repeater to serve your own customers in your own premises. They aren't disputing being a common carrier because nobody said they were such.
Cell repeaters are not illegal, and you can go here and buy one for yourself:
http://www.repeaterstore.com/applications/small-building.html
read the FAQ here http://www.repeaterstore.com/support/faq/
They are very common in underground facilities and other places where cell reception is difficult.
Once I got this far, I realized you don't have a clue what you are talking about and lost interest.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
You are not a common carrier simply because you install a cell repeater to serve your own customers in your own premises. They aren't disputing being a common carrier because nobody said they were such.
BART is a common carrier. You're confusing it with a private business. They're not disputing it because they want to be one to get the safe harbor provisions [which I mentioned in my last message, but you chose not to read].
Cell repeaters are not illegal, and you can go here and buy one for yourself:
It's not illegal to buy one. It is illegal to use one unless you have a license. Particularly, if you've set it up incorrectly [and are causing interference], you'll have a representative from your local cell phone company showing up on your doorstep. You must have the consent of the licensee.
The FAQ you cited [cleverly] omitted any reference to legality of operation. You got bamboozled into thinking that just because you can buy one, it's legal to use it. It's also legal to buy a cell phone jammer but it is not legal to use it.
Once I got this far, I realized you don't have a clue what you are talking about and lost interest
Absolutely I do know what I'm talking about and everything I've said is verifiable on the web if you had taken the time to check it yourself [using a source that is a tad more credible than a site whose sole purpose is to sell you something].
Like a good neighbor, fsck is there
The FAQ you cited [cleverly] omitted any reference to legality of operation. You got bamboozled into thinking that just because you can buy one, it's legal to use it. It's also legal to buy a cell phone jammer but it is not legal to use it.
These are fully FCC approved units, just like your wifi router. No license required.
You know, simply stating your ridiculous opinion without bothering to check any facts makes you loo like a total idiot.
Everything on that page is a consumer device approved for installation in the home with no additional license. The FCC id is shown on each product.
Check your facts. They are completely legal.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
It is sad when so many are so ignorant. BART did NOT jam the signal! as a convenience to it's riders BART operates a repeater. This is what gets the cell phone signals underground, without it there is NO cell service. All BART did is turn off the repeater. There is no legal requirement for them to operate it. Ignorant people jump to stupid conclusions. Understand the issue before making an ass of ones self.
It's not illegal plain and simple, but if I got you right, your argument was that there wasn't a cell service in the area until recently, so what's the deal? Correct me if I am wrong.
The problem is that it is a service that people rely on. Similar to how we rely on the grocery store having groceries and us not having to stock up on food because they might not. We got used to going there and buying food in case our fridge gets empty. If you take that away, people get into a situation that can be dangerous because they are not prepared for this kind of problem.
Cell phones have similarly become a tool that we rely on. If you have an emergency while out of the house, you grab your cell and dial 911. You expect that to work, and you have reason to, at least where I live (our cell providers have to ensure emergency calls not only get priority over any other calls but also that they are able to keep at the very least an emergency service up and running 24/7. Failure to do so can cost you your license!). Also, (again, at least where I live) phone booths have become nearly extinct since the cell boom. Not being able to call an ambulance is a very real problem when your cell stops working (and asking someone to call the doc for you doeesn't work either).
If they let emergency services running, I wouldn't complain at all. They're a privately owned company, they can shut down whatever part they please (might be subject to civil suit in case it was a service promised to their customers and they paid but didn't get the service they paid for), but emergency services should be kept up, no matter what.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
It's not illegal plain and simple, but if I got you right, your argument was that there wasn't a cell service in the area until recently, so what's the deal? Correct me if I am wrong.
It wasn't an argument, it was an observation. Another observation I can make is that the overwhelming majority of BART track is above ground, where cell service works fine.
You can draw what conclusions you want--in fact, you can conclude that because people were accustomed to the lack of underground phone service (and the fact that service was still available on most of BART), that the rioters were less likely to be affected than normal riders, so BART's actions did more harm than good. But I wasn't posting to draw conclusions; I was posting to help promote informed debate. Something that's all too rare on slashdot.
Perhaps Bart wanted a share of the revenue for calls occurring in their premises.
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada