Government Asks When It Can Shut Down Wireless Communications

Fluffeh writes "Around nine months ago, BART Police asked to have wireless communications disabled (PDF) between Trans Bay Tube Portal and the Balboa Park Station. That was because they knew a public protest was to take place there — and the service to the underground communication system was disabled. This affected not only cellphone signals, but also the radio systems of Police, Fire and Ambulance crews (PDF) within the underground. This led to an even larger protest at a BART station and many folks filed complaints along with the American Civil Liberties Union and Electronic Frontier Foundation. The FCC responded by launching a probe into the incident. The results were a mixed bag of 'To protect citizens!' and 'Only in extreme cases,' not to mention the classic 'Terrorists use wireless communications!' But even if the probe doesn't lead to a full proceeding and formal order, the findings may well be used as a guide for many years to come."

Comments

"Whenever you ask," say the telcos, of course

[crazyjj]

it's clear that the big wireless companies are willing to shut down service—but they want the government to offer some direction. "Verizon Wireless understands that there may be some cases where shutting down wireless service to an area is necessary," the company wrote to the FCC on May 1. "In such cases, wireless carriers need a process for ensuring that the decision to shut down the network has been appropriately vetted and that the request comes from a single, reliable source."

In other words, as long as it comes from a recognized government official, we'll be happy to comply.

I think that's the same policy telcos have in Egypt and Syria, no?

Re:"Whenever you ask," say the telcos, of course

[interkin3tic]

I think that's the same policy telcos have in Egypt and Syria, no?

I assume the new government in Egypt has not done anything to distinguish itself from Mubarak in that regard aside from maybe cross-their-heart, hope-to-die promising not shut down the Internet and cell phone service unless it's really really super-duper important?

Re:"Whenever you ask," say the telcos, of course

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it's more along the lines of "If there is due process of law, then we will be happy to comply, but currently there isn't any."

In Egypt in Syria it was more "The guy with the guns told us to shut down. Yeah, we'll do that."

Re:"Whenever you ask," say the telcos, of course

[crazyjj]

Yeah, I didn't see anything in their response about any "due process of law." Sounds like they just want to make sure the request comes from a recognized government official or office (presumably so they can blame it all on them if there's a PR backlash).

Re:"Whenever you ask," say the telcos, of course

[squiggleslash]

Well, that depends on the government official now doesn't it!

Look at Verizon's wording again:

"In such cases, wireless carriers need a process for ensuring that the decision to shut down the network has been appropriately vetted and that the request comes from a single, reliable source."

Pre-911, that wording meant one thing and ONE THING only. A judge.

Re:"Whenever you ask," say the telcos, of course

[AK Marc]

In other words, as long as it comes from a recognized government official, we'll be happy to comply.

The simpler answer is to not absolve the wireless carriers of liability if they comply. The fear of lawsuits will keep them from making such a decision lightly, official request or not.

Re:"Whenever you ask," say the telcos, of course

[Anonymous Coward]

"Verizon Wireless understands that there may be some cases where shutting down wireless service to an area is necessary," the company wrote to the FCC on May 1. "In such cases, wireless carriers need a process for ensuring that the decision to shut down the network has been appropriately vetted and that the request comes from a single, reliable source."

Emphasis mine.

Re:"Whenever you ask," say the telcos, of course

[Anonymous Coward]

Reading the messages down below, it is obvious that there is a serious lack of reading comprehension among the /. crowd. What BART did was to shut down THEIR repeaters in underground areas that otherwise couldn't get service, it had nothing to do with the wireless carriers.
I doubt that the repeaters have any intelligence to them and are acting as a remote antenna for the BART customers.
In order for a person to be on the platform, they must purchase a ticket which carries TOS on it.
for all the idiots who think that the first amendment gives you the right to spout off where ever you want, do it on my front porch and see what happens.
If the FCC comes down on BART, I'd say pull the repeaters out and tell your customers your sorry but the service became a liability to them and had to be discontinued.

Re:"Whenever you ask," say the telcos, of course

[akboss]

it's clear that the big wireless companies are willing to shut down service—but they want the government to offer some direction. "

In other words, as long as it comes from a recognized government official, we'll be happy to comply.

I think that's the same policy telcos have in Egypt and Syria, no?

What it comes down to is that the major telcos want immunity for doing this.

Re:"Whenever you ask," say the telcos, of course

[crazyjj]

"Has been appropriately vetted" can mean anything. "Due process of law" suggests the involvement of the courts or a judge.

Re:"Whenever you ask," say the telcos, of course

[Anonymous Coward]

it's clear that the big wireless companies are willing to shut down service—but they want the government to offer some direction. "Verizon Wireless understands that there may be some cases where shutting down wireless service to an area is necessary," the company wrote to the FCC on May 1. "In such cases, wireless carriers need a process for ensuring that the decision to shut down the network has been appropriately vetted and that the request comes from a single, reliable source."

In other words, as long as it comes from a recognized government official, we'll be happy to comply.

I think that's the same policy telcos have in Egypt and Syria, no?

Here is something that nearly no one in power wants to hear, think about, or make public. We might want to consider that anyone with an ounce of brain power and approximately $10,000.00 can easily jam, disrupt, or block any from of wireless communication in areas the size of Manhattan. This means anyone, including the FBI, CIA, NSA, Military, Police Departments, as well as TERRIORISTS! This is what none of the near monopoly wireless communications carriers or large government powers want the public to know or think about. Let’s consider this scenarioA group of terrorists or common thugs and criminals decide to engage in some evil act in a major city anywhere in the world. In order to create maximum confusion and disruption they jam cell and law enforcement communications from multiple mobile and stationary locations... whilst they carry out their evil plot and make good their escape. In the meantime tens of thousands of people panic and cause unimaginable chaos and panic simply because they lost their ability to contact their relatives and loved ones in the face of great catastrophe. Of course disrupting wireless communications is illegal! But then so is crashing airplanes into buildings or blowing up subway trains! Perhaps we should not be willing to give up our landlines just yet. Wireless is a great advance in communications technologyuntil its not!

Re:"Whenever you ask," say the telcos, of course

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't live in an area likely to be subject to any shutdown of wireless service, but I am fully against this.

What if there is an emergency and you're unable to call for help because your only phone is cellular? Okay, so, the police are called from a land line, but the nearest officer (a couple blocks away) can not be reached to help a woman being raped, or a man being beat to death, because the police radios are not functioning.

This is a *public safety risk* and I think the risk assessment department took the day off when this decision was made. It is a violation of both our speech and safety; and why are these steps being taken against a legal protest, anyway? That's like shooting tires out on a car because you assume it may speed later. Due process, out the window, once again. Stop treating us like criminals because we don't agree with you.

Never?

[WrongSizeGlass]

It's easy to say "never", but we all could come up with scenarios where it might save lives to cut off service. The big question is "will they ever know about a threat far enough in advance to stop it by cutting cell service?" Probably not.

Re:Never?

[Moheeheeko]

Because terrorists will always decide to go home and not blow up a DIFFERENT group of random people instead of the intended group of random people because they dont know where to go due to no cell service.

There is no justifiable reason to shut this service off, ever.

Re:Never?

[betterunixthanunix]

we all could come up with scenarios where it might save lives to cut off service

The only one I can think of is a situation where a bomb will be triggered by a cell phone receiving a call. Except that a bomb could just as easily be triggered by a cell phone call ending, so shutting the network down would only really work once or twice.

Of course, that is not the situation that we saw in the BART case. The point of shutting down the phone network there was to stifle protest. Since the government will always claim that protesters are terrorists, the short answer is that the government should never have the right to shut down out communication systems, and that if the government will start doing so we will need to deploy networks with a less centralized topology.

Re:Never?

[Marillion]

Why are you trying to bring a well reasoned and nuanced ideas into Slashdot?
While I cannot think of a scenario that would warrant wireless service shutdown I'm sure there are some. I'm also pretty sure that those situations would be severe enough that they should also probably shut down passenger service as well.

Re:Never?

[WrongSizeGlass]

Why are you trying to bring a well reasoned and nuanced ideas into Slashdot?

I apologize. I started drinking early today and it appears to have affected my posts ;-)

Re:Never?

[YodasEvilTwin]

"We could all come up with scenarios" is not an argument. If it's so easy, then post an actual situation! I challenge anyone to come up with one that is remotely realistic. "The terrorists are using it to coordinate their efforts" falls down on a number of points: If you know that, you've intercepted the calls, and can just block or track the individuals! If you know their plans, you're one step ahead of where you would be if you shut down the network and have no idea about their fallbacks. If you cut the networks, emergency response is massively hindered. Etc., etc., etc.

Re:Never?

[betterunixthanunix]

How about, the terrorists are using a cell phone as a trigger for a bomb i.e. a bomb will explode when a call is received? That really happens in some countries, though those countries do not respond by shutting down the cell system.

Of course, a bomb can also be triggered by a call ending, so either we stop having cell phones or else we acknowledge that there is no legitimate reason for the government to cut off service.

Re:Never?

[squiggleslash]

I can think of a very obvious case where shutting down a cellphone would save lives: when, if the bastard answers the fucking thing one more time, I'm going to climb over the three rows of cinema seats in front of me and beat him to death with it.

Re:Never?

[X0563511]

and that if the government will start doing so we will need to deploy networks with a less centralized topology

Shortly followed up with them actively jamming. Believe me, they won't have the power restrictions the rest of us have, so there would be no way to get through that jamming.

Re:Never?

[Beardo the Bearded]

It's not to stifle process, it's to stop people from live-streaming evidence of police brutality or uploading videos to YouTube before they confiscate and erase / lose / impound your memory card.

You have to remember where this stems from -- someone filmed 5 RCMP officers engaging in premeditated murder against a Polish Immigrant. If not for the pesky video, the police would have been able to stick to their story since it was the word of 5 police vs one dead guy (or perhaps a handful of "confused, non-expert witnesses") Admittedly, they didn't go to jail, but there was an inquiry and odds are they will end up civilly liable for the death.

We can all cite at least one other example where video evidence directly contradicts what the police are saying. Filming the police and making sure the videos can't be destroyed takes away their power. They can't have that.

Re:Never?

[silas_moeckel]

Yup and we could save lives by only letting truckers and buss drivers on the roads. Life is a risk accept that. Now I am all behind the existing system were the government can prioritize there own wireless traffic in an emergency.

Re:Never?

[Anonymous Coward]

no mod points, so ill just say, LOL'd my face off.

Re:Never?

[SilentStaid]

I don't agree with ever shutting down communications, ever.

That being said, there are a number of examples where explosives have been detonated by cellphone. Imagine what a neat and tidy solution that would be if cell service was shut down on a grid where a bomb was placed, thereby negating the detonator... it's wishful thinking at best, sure -- you and I know that -- but we do need to at least attempt to acknowledge this kind of scenario in order to properly combat the arguments of people in favor of this.

Re:Never?

[vlm]

How, exactly, do you know they work that way? That makes no sense to me. One intelligent design is every time the phone rx a txt message, the reset button on a 5 minute timer is pushed. So 5 minutes after they decide to stop sending texts, or 5 minutes after the phone network is shut down, boom. Seems blindingly obvious to a programmer type. No reason the boom can't be a "OR" function of the txt timer OR a plain ole phone call.

All I can say is cellphone telemarketers must be a headache for people who design and deploy the real thing...

Re:Never?

[Requiem18th]

A bomb can be triggered by a call starting, ending or not being attempted withing a time lapse and combinations.

Re:Never?

[spire3661]

The entierty of the idea tha shutting down the cellular network will stop a bomb from going off is retarded. If you are already wiring up a bomb with a cellphone trigger, its trivial to add in other deadman's switch mechanisms. In short the whole argument falls flat on its face.

Re:Never?

[spire3661]

Thank you. The entire 'shut down cellphones to stop a remote trigger' argument rests on an OR function..

Re:Never?

[Nidi62]

"We could all come up with scenarios" is not an argument. If it's so easy, then post an actual situation! I challenge anyone to come up with one that is remotely realistic.

How about all the rioting and all that that took place in England back in 2011? Rioting seems to me a logical time to shut down cellular communication, as rioters could use cell phones to communicate between groups and avoid police crackdowns, move to new areas, or form new groups/get more people to join. I'm not talking Occupy protests, or what happened in Tahrir Square. I mean when you have major property damage, violence, and injuries. At the very least it would make it that much harder for the riots to spread.

Re:Never?

[Hentes]

we all could come up with scenarios where it might save lives to cut off service

Then come up with some if it's so easy. You made a bold statement without anything to back it up. As for me, I can't imagine that cutting communications could be helpful in any emergency.

Re:Never?

[Anonymous Coward]

Locally, it stems from a similar situation in 2009 where a BART cop shot a guy in cold blood in front of about 100 cameras/phones (and then they tried to cover it up by grabbing cellphones). IIRC, the protest in question was actually against police brutality.

Re:Never?

[AchilleTalon]

And it's easy to imagine fictional scenarios credible enough to request a shutdown while it isn't necessary and for other reasons. Can we trust them to us wisely this power. THAT is THE big question.

Re:Never?

[mrbester]

Have there between any examples that weren't part of the plot in a police procedural show?

Re:Never?

[Anonymous Coward]

beat him to death with it.

That could be a challenge with today's phones, try "Shove it up his ass" ...

Re:Never?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're supposing government who would cut off communications to its electorate thinks there is any difference between a protest and a riot.

At best it would become "Thankfully we stopped the protest turning into a riot by killing the cell services.".

Re:Never?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, preventing a bomb detonation or a terrorist attack is a valid reason to shut down a network or jam a signal. The rest of the reasons are slippery.

Re:Never?

[s.petry]

Think about that logic for a minute. And they will detect that the explosive has a phone detonator how? And disabling a phone number, instead of blacking out the service when they find it is invalid how exactly?

Now, I really want you to do some reading (but I have doubts you will do so). How many cell phones on legitimate cell phone networks do you think are responsible for the IED explosions in Afghanistan or Iraq? Sorry, but the Jihad does not have the funding to pay for monthly phone plans.

This is propaganda for a police state, plain as day.

Oh, and 5 bucks says that the law gets drafted, fought over, then Obama signs it July 3rd at 11:59 PM.

Re:Never?

[foobsr]

Imagine what a neat and tidy solution that would be if cell service was shut down on a grid where a bomb was placed, ...

... while at the same time shutting down a health and disaster aid network probably in place. Good deal!

CC.

Re:Never?

[Nidi62]

Except that would not pass the current test for suspension of 1st Amendment rights and would not hold up in court. It might happen once, but it wouldn't happen again. And it would probably cause riots in it's own right.

Re:Never?

[Anonymous Coward]

Scatter an undisclosed number of bombs around a city that will detonate if they go without cellular service for X amount of time.

The uncertainty as to whether they've found them all will act as encouragement not to take the network down.

Re:Never?

[lightknight]

But when you point that out, DHS goes "See Congress? There are 'terrowists' (said the same way Elmer Fudd says 'Rabbits') right here @home!"

Your paranoid 'rulers' are paranoid. And their advisers are bad, and they should feel bad.

Re:Never?

[CanHasDIY]

Not to mention the countless methods that require no communication device whatsoever.

Re:Never?

[CanHasDIY]

Riots don't need cell phones to spread.

Re:Never?

[Mitreya]

we all could come up with scenarios where it might save lives to cut off service.

Who decides?
If it has to come from a government official - then "never" is the only answer
If this is coming from a judge (you know, like warrants... an impartial 3rd party), then it's probably ok.

Re:Never?

[tibman]

going to nit-pick, sorry! But Iraq (and probably Afghanistan) doesn't use cell phone plans. Everyone uses pre-paid cards. Also, it is common to find a phone used to detonate an ied. I took one apart that was a hybrid timer and radio device by using a washing machine timer and a 900mhz cordless phone. Lastly, there are money men pushing every cause. Iraq was no different. Catching the guy who detonated the bomb is a small victory.. catching the guy who paid that man to do it is fantastic and newspaper worthy (though it would never make it into the news). Don't think that every law or safety measure is just government evil, I was in the marketplace on 28 feb 2005.

Re:Never?

[Hognoxious]

30% of phones on the market are designed with exactly that function in mind.

Re:Never?

[s.petry]

No need to nit-pick, you back my point. Turning off wireless services does nothing to curb a terrorist plot to blow something up. Worse, when you have situations like in India where terrorists take over a facility, the people lose the ability to communicate and help the authorities.

Claiming "It can stop terrorist activities" is a bullshit.

Re:Never?

[R3d M3rcury]

[...] we all could come up with scenarios where it might save lives to cut off service.

As I've said before, if your scenario contains the words "could", "might", or "possibly," then there's no reason to cut off cell phone service.

Also, keep in mind that giving the capability means that it will be misused. Remember the article from yesterday or the day before about how England created various systems to block child pornography--you know, to protect the children--which are now being used by the copyright police?

Re:Never?

[stephanruby]

It's easy to say "never", but we all could come up with scenarios where it might save lives to cut off service.

It's easy to say it's to "save lives".

No doubt, some violence would have been prevented if the video of the Bart cop shooting an immobilized man in the back wouldn't have made it to youtube (although, the Bart police did try their best to confiscate all the cell phone images for "evidence"). And perhaps, the LA riots would have been prevented (or at least reduced) if there had been a media black out about the Rodney King beating.

In those cases, a cell phone blackout, or a media black out, could have saved some lives (may be), but really, is this really what we want? Do we really trust the government to be able to shut down that media/communication infrastructure at will -- when for some people their cell phones and their cell phone cameras are really their last line of defense against a poorly trained government agent, or a rogue local government agency.

Do we really want to become that kind of country? Where we are video recorded by the police to be held accountable, but where no one is allowed to video record the police or publicly broadcast the video of the police -- except for the police themselves.

Re:Never?

[Nidi62]

Where did I say all riots since in recorded history were caused by cellphones? The GP asked for a legitimate scenario for the need to cut off cellular communication. I gave one, and the only counter you can come up with is a strawman consisting of a link to Wikipedia. Nice.

Re:Never?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, the famous "we know for sure that there is a bomb but don't know anything about it" bullshit. It doesn't work that way.

Re:Never?

[CanHasDIY]

Where did I say all riots since in recorded history were caused by cellphones?

You didn't; neither did I. Where's that even come from?

The GP asked for a legitimate scenario for the need to cut off cellular communication. I gave one, and the only counter you can come up with is a strawman consisting of a link to Wikipedia. Nice.

No, you didn't. You gave an example of an event you believe was aggravated by cell phones; I provided evidence that such events have occured, repeatedly, throughout history, long before the advent of the cell phone.

In fact, I posit that the damage in the London riot you mentioned would have been far worse if not for cell phones - kind of hard to chuck a molly through a shop window when you're busy updating your Twitter and Facebook feeds.

Re:Never?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you didn't. You gave an example of an event you believe was aggravated by cell phones; I provided evidence that such events have occured, repeatedly, throughout history, long before the advent of the cell phone.
 

You're still making stuff up and trying to put words in my mouth. I never, EVER, claimed that the riots were caused by cellphones. That link was never even implied. I gave an example of an actual, destructive event, in order to show that similar events could occur elsewhere and that, in cases such as those, it would make sense to restrict cellular communication in an effort to slow the spread of the riot.

When can I shut it down?

[betterunixthanunix]

Here is a simpler question: when can I, an individual citizen, shut down wireless communication? If I cannot just shut down vital communication systems, why should the government be allowed to?

Re:When can I shut it down?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because they are the authority and you aren't. What a stupid question.

Re:When can I shut it down?

[Anonymous Coward]

In this case, BART actually owns the subway cellular system. If you build your own cell network, you can turn it on/off whenever you'd like.

Also this situation was hilarious:
1) people take train to protests
2) phones don't work, can't figure out which stop to take
3) everyone just goes home
4) go back to mom's basement & rage on internet about having twitter rights revoked

Next time, just try walking up the steps, you fat btards

Re:When can I shut it down?

[YodasEvilTwin]

I agree it's a stupid question, but "authorities can do and be trusted to do whatever they want", which is what you seem to be implying, is equally stupid.

Re:When can I shut it down?

[Jeng]

I've seen some real good comments out of you in the past, is this some sort of rhetorical question or just troll bait?

Do you really want an answer to this question?

Re:When can I shut it down?

[betterunixthanunix]

It is a rhetorical question. I do not see any good reason for anyone, and individual or the government, to shut down the cell network. Aside from the issue of emergency calls being missed, who do you think should be trusted with the power to decide when people are allowed to communicate? Cell phones are one of the most important communication tools in America these days; I cannot see any way that the power to shut down the cell phone network would not be abused, and it is difficult to envision legitimate reasons for such a shut down.

Re:When can I shut it down?

[Anonymous Coward]

I implied no such thing. Beat your strawmen elsewhere.

Re:When can I shut it down?

[betterunixthanunix]

OK, so, who do you think should be allowed to do so? You do not think that I should -- and I personally agree -- and you seem to think that the government cannot be trusted to do so either, so I am somewhat curious here. Do you envision legitimate reasons to shut down the cell network?

Re:When can I shut it down?

[Beardo the Bearded]

Any time you want, man. Just rent a bulldozer and you're good to go.

Re:When can I shut it down?

[AK Marc]

It's the same reason you must be a member of the AMA union to practice medicine or go to jail. The "authorities" (AMA) regulate themselves with formal processes to ensure safety of those involved. They aren't trusted any more than the non-union members, in fact it could be argued they are trusted less, as there is a formal process in place for review, rather than having to use the courts for any non-member inadvertently harming someone.

The same case exists with the police and internal affairs departments for overview. Though that doesn't work because there are more bad cops than good cops, so the foxes are in charge of the henhouse.

Re:When can I shut it down?

[silas_moeckel]

They may own it but it does not give them the right to shut it off. Emergency calls must make it through, the system does not care if the phone has an account was stolen etc 911 just works. They took down part of an emergency service with no technical reason. Wireless services are using the public space to make money that comes with responsibility.

Hopefully the FCC does it job to insure this never happens again. Doubtful but I can hope. Protesters in a public space, is that not part of what public spaces are for?

Re:When can I shut it down?

[timeOday]

But the argument, "if an individual can't do it, the govt. shouldn't be able to" is pretty silly. Basically the whole point of government is to solve problems that aren't well solved by individuals or free markets. Imprisoning people is a good example. Note, I'm not arguing govt. should therefore be able to do anything and everything, only that your original argument (the title of this thread) has no bearing on anything one way or the other.

Re:When can I shut it down?

[betterunixthanunix]

The question is not really about who should be allowed to shut down the cell phone system; the point of the question is that there is never a legitimate reason for anyone to shut it down. The fact that an emergency call might be missed as a result of a shutdown is not the main problem. The main problem is that when a communication system is shut down, people lose their ability to speak -- there is no legitimate use for such power.

Re:When can I shut it down?

[Jeng]

Cell phone disruption is a standard practice of cracking down by totalitarian governments.

Has the US government scolded any country for doing that?

Re:When can I shut it down?

[vlm]

Here is a simpler question: when can I, an individual citizen, shut down wireless communication?

That's easy, just call in an anonymous tip that there's something that goes "boom" attached to a cellphone, obviously.

This in itself is an interesting attack vector. You see, this will train people that when the cell service goes down, that means they are in extremely close proximity to a bomb thats about to go off, TSA goons are about to swoop in and beat everyone in sight, etc.

So the "real" attack vector is to build and plant absolutely nothing, select a nice crowded area, call in a completely fake threat, get wireless service shut off, resulting panic by 80K football fans all trying to instantly simultaneously frantically escape a stadium thats about to go boom or whatever, results in dozens if not hundreds of deaths by trampling... and the beauty of it is the government did it to themselves by fearmongering to gain power, and the attackers can be sitting on the other side of the planet using the wonders of modern telecommunications. Or it can be a false flag operation, of course, which is probably the largest source of terrorist attacks anyway.

Once you teach people and the government that cell outages mean nothing by doing this a couple times, then you start doing it for real, of course, which adds to the excitement.

Do you think I should quit my day job and become a hollywood writer or maybe a security consultant? Both jobs just seem to boil down to streaming out some scarey bs in exchange for piles of money.

Re:When can I shut it down?

[spire3661]

Monopoly on Violence determines who is the 'authority'. The argument becomes moot after that.

Re:When can I shut it down?

[Anonymous Coward]

The argument isn't very silly. Prior to government, imprisoning people is relatively trivial and individuals have motivation to do it more often. How many times have you heard or thought "I'd like to lock that guy up and throw away the key?" Individuals can also hold someone until police arrive to take custody. So, at least theoretically, government does it less often than individuals would like while still maintaining that power when individuals should.

Problems not solved by individual rational actions or by free market incentives generally can't be solved by government doing something that individuals can't. Those problems are generally solved by doing something individuals can but won't.

Re:When can I shut it down?

[lightknight]

Indeed. You, hitherto known as 'the serf,' are a piece of property, to be used and eventually sold with the estate. They, hitherto known as 'the authority,' are your lords and masters, and their job is to tell you how to live, and when you may die. In the course of their duties, they may lie to you, beat you, steal from you, use your family members as hostages, and in general do whatever they life; in return, you might live to see another day. Remember, it's join with the oppressors, or be oppressed!

Their authority stems from seizing the power from you, or your parents, or their parents, when your ancestors were experiencing a moment of weakness.

You could point out that various legal documents bearing certain signatures signed by their predecessors say that you cannot be treated as such, as they would say that you have neither the learning, nor the authority (which they reserve for themselves, or people who agree with them) to interpret said documents. Slavery is slavery.

Now, bow your heads, and acknowledge the truth of what I've said.

 

Re:When can I shut it down?

[lightknight]

Might makes right.

Re:When can I shut it down?

[AK Marc]

The power is held by the carriers. They can shut down the service at any time and not deprive anyone of any rights. You are allowed to speak, but that doesn't mean anyone else is required to assist you in that endeavor. Contracts should take care of some of these things, but the cell contracts are boilerplate contracts with 100% of the power on the carrier side, and no negotiation allowed in most cases such that they are arguably not even binding contracts due to this disparity.

Surprise Surprise

[samazon]

The government doesn't like demonstrations. I was at the '08 DNC, inside the 'Freedom Cage' - they're just catching up with the tech trends. The question is, what definition will they hold for "disruption" and "public" - icydrta - "the filing contends that that "balance" must "resonate" in any wireless communications shutdown policy. The Commission should understand that certain situations could present a "credible threat," says the group, and thus, "Interrupting wireless service, when balanced against the disruption to the public, may be a reasoned alternative to consider." "

Re:Surprise Surprise

[Bob the Super Hamste]

I have often wondered if I had a shirt with some slogan that challenged some political party and wore it while walking down a street past their convention if I could be held, arrested, detained, relocated or what ever term they are using now. I do have some fairly offensive t-shirts and I wear them often, and most people, if they aren't looking to be offended, find humor in them. I have never been a fan of free speech zones and feel that so long as the protesters are not infringing on other people's rights they should be able to protest where ever and when ever they want.

Real simple

[Sparticus789]

If they own the antenna's and repeaters, then it is their property and they should be able to shut it down when they want. Just like I can turn off my Air Conditioning whenever I want, because I pay for it. Somebody else cannot come into my house and tell me "turn your AC on." However, if this wireless infrastructure is owned by another entity (cell phone providers), then the government has no legal authority to turn it off. When I was working in downtown DC, all the old building had cell phone repeaters on the roof because of the poor signal through marble. Those repeaters were owned by the phone companies, and the phone company actually paid the government to allow them to install the mini-towers there. If there is a similar arrangement on the BART system, then the phone company is effectively leasing part of the area inside the trains to operate their equipment. If the lease says the government can turn it off, then they can. If there is no such provision in the lease, we should be mad at the service providers.

Re:Real simple

[Anonymous Coward]

"If they own the antenna's and repeaters, then it is their property and they should be able to shut it down when they want."

Your argument sucks because the *they* is a government entity. Since the governemnt does not *enjoy* the same property rights as a private entity the equivilance is busted.

Re:Real simple

[betterunixthanunix]

If they own the antenna's and repeaters, then it is their property and they should be able to shut it down when they want.

1. The government has already shown its willingness to abuse the power to shut off repeaters. Such abuses are inevitable and cannot be tolerated by a free society.
2. Telecom services are vital and people rely upon them. Can I sue the government when I take a financial loss as a result of deliberately disrupted service?

Governments must never be allowed to prevent people from speaking, nor must they be allowed to stifle protests. Even if the government owns the communication system in question, they must not be allowed to shut it down except for legitimate maintenance.

Re:Real simple

[Fned]

If they own the antenna's and repeaters, then it is their property and they should be able to shut it down when they want.

Unless they're under contract to provide a service.

Why shut it down?

[Jeng]

Why not just restrict the services that can be used down to emergency services only?

Jamming (or cutoff) is bad, mmkay?

[X0563511]

Unless you are protecting a military asset, keep your hands off the jammer / wire-cutters. Period.

Find another solution.

So what's the answer, then? Never?

[daveschroeder]

Given the narrow scope of the question, isn't this precisely how we expect the deliberative process on such a question to work?

Or is the answer always, "never"?

Re:So what's the answer, then? Never?

[YodasEvilTwin]

Yeah, it should always be never. In what situation would shutting down the cell networks be appropriate? Never mind the fact that government officials are obviously willing to use this merely to suppress free speech, so the process can't possibly be acceptable.

Re:So what's the answer, then? Never?

[crazyjj]

Or is the answer always, "never"?

No, but I would hope the answer would be a little better than "As long as the guy asking has proper government credentials."

Re:So what's the answer, then? Never?

[Anonymous Coward]

Given the narrow scope of the question, isn't this precisely how we expect the deliberative process on such a question to work?

Or is the answer always, "never"?

Yes. Never.

We are supposed to be a FREE and OPEN society. When we start restricting people's communications, their RIGHT to peacefully assemble (blacking out communications aids in restricting protests), and having this whole BIG BROTHER - LAW and ORDER mentality, we are heading down a very dangerous road. Just because you don't like what protestors have to say or what their issues are doesn't mean we should silince them or dampen their ability to organize.

One day it will affect you - or a group that you agree with and then THEIR ability to protest will be curtailed - and there will be a precendent.

That's somethign folks always forget, when you limit folks you don't agree with they're limitations will be yours.

Re:So what's the answer, then? Never?

[Anonymous Coward]

I question: with big capital controlling the media(and them deciding which stories reach the screen), Don't we already have a bit of big brother ?

Re:So what's the answer, then? Never?

[oh_my_080980980]

Familiar with the first amendment.....

Re:So what's the answer, then? Never?

[oh_my_080980980]

Yes and it was always about corporations being big brother. Government being big brother is a red herring.

Re:So what's the answer, then? Never?

[h4rr4r]

I would say never. Only because I cannot think of anytime they should do that. Can you?

Re:So what's the answer, then? Never?

[Anonymous Coward]

So basically, since *you* can't imagine a scenario where it would be appropriate, that means there is no such scenario in existance. Kind of like how if someone can't imaging how life could evolved with such complexity, then that means it had to have been made by a God.
Arrogance is good at making people stupid.

Re:So what's the answer, then? Never?

[Requiem18th]

Given you are essentially disarming the population and preparing for an attack of some sort noting short of Martial law should give the government such powers.

Re:So what's the answer, then? Never?

[cpu6502]

They didn't shut it down for the same reasons roads are sometimes closed (weather emergency or major accident). They shut it down to censor free speech & prevent a protest. The air belongs to the People and they have a right to use it. They should never be blocked from using their property, except for a real emergency.

(And before you claim the air belongs to someone else..... it does not. It is RENTED to companies, but the ownership remains with the people, from which all legitimate power derives.)

Re:So what's the answer, then? Never?

[Anonymous Coward]

These people were assembling on the loading platforms which is a stupid and dangerous place to protest. Overcrowding can easily cause someone to be pushed down onto the tracks. How in the hell can you call this a "peaceful" protest within the rights of the people?
The "protest" planned on disrupting BART services as well. Since when does anyone have the right to prevent others from exercising their right to travel?
Do you actually believe you have the right to take rights away from others?
Try reading the Constitution some time. Your rights end when they interfere with the rights of others. If you want to protest, you better make damn sure you do not interfere with other's rights and that includes the right to travel by whatever means a person chooses.

Re:So what's the answer, then? Never?

[SnapaJones]

For me, freedom comes first. There is no reason to shut them down (just like there's no reason for the TSA or Patriot Act).

But I agree that the whole, "I can't think of an explanation, so none exist." argument isn't logical.

Re:So what's the answer, then? Never?

[lightknight]

Agreed.

Re:So what's the answer, then? Never?

[foobsr]

We are supposed to be a FREE and OPEN society.

Actually, you maybe were "supposed ...", probably by those who designed your constitution.

Albeit, it never really worked (e.g. discrimination by ethnic origin thwarting both 'FREE' and 'OPEN').

Cc.

Re:So what's the answer, then? Never?

[CanHasDIY]

So basically, since *you* can't imagine a scenario where it would be appropriate, that means there is no such scenario in existance. Kind of like how if someone can't imaging how life could evolved with such complexity, then that means it had to have been made by a God.

Well, you could suggest a scenario yourself... or, you know, continue being a dickhead for no good reason.

Arrogance is good at making people stupid.

No shit, Pot.

Re:So what's the answer, then? Never?

[dgatwood]

The only time it could ever be acceptable would be if terrorists were actively using cellular phones to control the detonators for explosive devices, and even then, it should be shut down only long enough to sweep the expected target area for such devices. In all other circumstances, it should be disallowed. In other words, very nearly never.

Re:So what's the answer, then? Never?

[foobsr]

Given you are essentially disarming the population and preparing for an attack of some sort ...

So the wet dream of any BOFH (a data centre without users) would scale up to a government without a populace (a day after all those bloody nuisances have been wiped away)?

CC.

Re:So what's the answer, then? Never?

[Anonymous Coward]

just like there's no reason for the TSA or Patriot Act

Yes and no. Yes, TSA and the Patriot Act are bad solutions. On other hand, just like we all demand freedom, we also demand bomb-free travel. So between a bad solution and no solution... at least they're trying.

Re:So what's the answer, then? Never?

[tlhIngan]

Yeah, it should always be never. In what situation would shutting down the cell networks be appropriate? Never mind the fact that government officials are obviously willing to use this merely to suppress free speech, so the process can't possibly be acceptable.

Which means that any authority trying to make things more convenient for users should never, ever, do it.

To know why it's an issue, realize that BART decided to install repeaters that they bought, and they operate so users of BART can have cell service where there was none before.

If as a result they can never, ever turn them off (barring stuff like it breaking down), then the take-away from all that is to never ever bother installing them in the first place and let users just live without their cellphones for their journey. In which case the only way to get service is to have the users petition cell providers to install antennas that cover the dead spots. Of course, the authority owning the land will probably not allow them to install it on the premises (see above) so there will be dead spots where existing antenna installations cannot reach.

I suppose that's the sad lesson to be learned - better to not provide, than to provide and get slapped with lawsuits should you fail to provide. And this applies to any place right now with bad cell service - including underground car parks and such where the building owner might want ot make their tenant's lives a little bit more convenient.

Now, if it's the carrier's own signals then yeah, you can't block it ever...

I don't disagree with the sentiment, but the flip side has to be considered as well. I suppose it's like providing a WiFi hotspot, deciding you don't like the crowds and turning it off, then being slapped with a lawsuit. Perhaps that's why government buildings don't have guest wifi.

Re:So what's the answer, then? Never?

[lightknight]

Oh, we can think of a few scenarios, but all of them would have you laughed out of office:

1.) Giant mutant space radishes take over the world, and use the cell-phone networks to communicate.
2.) Poltergeists use the cell-phone networks to possess the minds of young athletic women.
3.) Cell-phone signals cause cancer.
4.) A 31337 h@x0r is using the network to play cell-phone ping pong with another 31337 h@x0r overseas.
5.) The government wants the ability to tell its citizens what it can say, and when.

See? It's #5 on the list of things that would have you laughed out of office. (This message brought to you by Sprint; May your airways always be open).

Re:So what's the answer, then? Never?

[jklovanc]

How about organizing a protest that could draw thousands of people into an area designed for a few hundred where over crowding can cause people to fall in front of moving trains or onto an electrified rail.

The shit down in a small area is not anywhere similar to what Egypt or Syria did. All a protester would have to so is move 100 feet and their cell coverage would be back.

It is about moving protest to safe areas and not stopping them. The "I can protest anywhere I want any time I want no matter the safety issues" is just stupid. The protest could just as well have been held above ground where cell phone coverage was not turned off.

Re:So what's the answer, then? Never?

[lightknight]

Yes, but only one of those can realistically be achieved.

Re:So what's the answer, then? Never?

[jklovanc]

So organizing a protest where Innocent people getting off trains could be pushed onto electrified rails or in front of moving trains is not significant enough? All the protesters had to do was leave the station and hold their protest above ground and all would have been good.

Re:So what's the answer, then? Never?

[jklovanc]

They are not shutting off all communications. If a protester moved a couple hundred feet, to outside the station, their coverage would be fine. Equating blocking coverage in a dangerous area to blocking all communication is invalid. Do I think it is OK to limit my ability to organize a large protest in an area where people could die? Absolutely.

Re:So what's the answer, then? Never?

[jklovanc]

Think about a few thousand angry protesters on a small platform. Do you think it is possible for people to be pushed in front of moving trains or onto the electrified rail? That is the safety issue that BART was trying to deal with. Had the protesters organized the protest to take place above ground where it was safe and their cell phones still worked there would not be a problem.

Re:So what's the answer, then? Never?

[crakbone]

Knowledge of a cell phone detonator in the subway?

Re:So what's the answer, then? Never?

[Anonymous Coward]

People can die anywhere, and if you don't think governments will designate Main Street "dangerous" (someone could get pushed in front of a car!) if that lets them force protests to a low-visibility side street, you don't understand the fine art of soft oppression. But those who do are grateful for your complicity in this matter!

Re:So what's the answer, then? Never?

[SnapaJones]

Nah. I don't care for the "to stop the terrorists" excuse, either.

Re:So what's the answer, then? Never?

[SnapaJones]

No. Between a bad solution and no solution, I'll take no solution.

We must never let the government violate our freedoms and privacy for security. Ever. I don't live in fear; I recognize that terrorists make up only a minuscule portion of the population and that my chances of dying in a terrorist attack are slim to none. Collective punishment (searching/spying on everyone) is never an answer.

Re:So what's the answer, then? Never?

[Eponymous Hero]

close. it's NEVAR!!!!!!!!!!!11111eleven

Re:So what's the answer, then? Never?

[R3d M3rcury]

So organizing a protest where Innocent people getting off trains could be pushed onto electrified rails or in front of moving trains is not significant enough?

Nope.

If your reason contains the words "could", "might", or "possibly", then it is not reason enough. And if you know that innocent people will be pushed onto electrified rails or in front of moving trains, then it might be a better idea to arrest those people who plan to do so rather than shutting off cell service.

Re:So what's the answer, then? Never?

[nedlohs]

So in order for me to point out that just because someone can't think of a reason doe something doesn't mean there isn't one they haven't thought of you require that I know one myself? That's a mightly strange restriction to have.

So if someone was to claim "I know P!=NP because I can't think of any reasons for P to equal NP", then nobody can reply with "Just because you can't think of any doesn't mean there isn't one" unless they also provide a proof that P=NP?

Must be really hard to communicate under the restrictions that exist in your world.

Re:So what's the answer, then? Never?

[R3d M3rcury]

Which means that any authority trying to make things more convenient for users should never, ever, do it.

Unless it makes them money.

BART decided to install those repeaters so that people would use the subway. How many extra riders did they get--or existing riders did they keep--by having cell service available in the tunnels?

Re:So what's the answer, then? Never?

[Hognoxious]

They are not shutting off all communications. If a protester moved a couple hundred feet, to outside the station, their coverage would be fine.

Or they could exercise their right to free speech by, you know, talking to the person next to them.

Re:So what's the answer, then? Never?

[dgatwood]

And shutting down the cell phone network will prevent them from pushing people in front of trains? No, it won't. In fact, quite the opposite; it will prevent people from calling quickly for an ambulance after they do push someone in front of a moving train. In most cases, the added risk to safety caused by shutting down cell service greatly exceeds the benefit.

Maybe if we were talking about a team of gunmen coordinating a strike over the cell network, I could also see it. In general, the requirements should be:

• A specific, credible threat to human life.
• Evidence that disruption of phones would mitigate that threat.
• Evidence that any delay in said disruption would likely result in additional loss of life.
• Confidence that disruption of those phones would not cause a significant delay in determining the location of or otherwise responding to the threat.

In other words, if it's the sort of situation where the police would break into somebody's house without getting a warrant first, it might be acceptable. Otherwise, you'd better have a judicial order.

Re:So what's the answer, then? Never?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Try reading the Constitution some time. Your rights end when they interfere with the rights of others. If you want to protest a whites-only restaurant, you better make damn sure you do not interfere with white people's rights and that includes the right for them to enter and find a seat not taken by a negro..."

Yeah, awesome thought process. :-(

Re:So what's the answer, then? Never?

[R3d M3rcury]

It is about moving protest to safe areas and not stopping them.

Hear hear! BART should be setting up Free Speech Zones!

Re:So what's the answer, then? Never?

[jklovanc]

Which does not require a cell phone thereby making the shutdown irrelevant.

Re:So what's the answer, then? Never?

[SomePoorSchmuck]

And there are not already laws and fire codes governing maximum occupancy of BART stations? There are not already rules of conduct for ridership?

All you apologists keep saying, "someone could...." "it is possible..." "there's a chance that...."
Do you have any idea how corrupted such thinking is at its core? All you have done is created a standard whereby protests must be able to guarantee 100% safety from any and all collateral damage. You are just not thinking clearly. We shouldn't allow thousands of black-skinned americans to march on Birmingham City Hall to protest for equal treatment under the law, because someone could get pushed in front of a car, it is possible that someone might get trampled in the crowd, there's a chance that there will be a riot sparked when the KKK shows up.

Re:So what's the answer, then? Never?

[jklovanc]

BART has in effect done that. The Free speech zone being anywhere but in an inherently dangerous station. Denying protest in less that 1% of a city is not the same as only allowing protest in specific areas.

Re:So what's the answer, then? Never?

[cheater512]

I agree. Shutting cell service off wouldn't stop people being pushed on to rails at all.

Its not like the protesters would check their signal level and say 'Oh no we have no signal! We can't protest now. Lets all go home'

Re:So what's the answer, then? Never?

[craigminah]

Politicians forget they're elected to serve their citizens' needs. Once in office they perpetuate self interests, pork barrel spending, and propping up special interest groups and lobbyists who in turn bring them votes. Do something for the people and you will win a fuzzy prize called reelection. I wish politicians would go and listen to the grievances of their citizens so long as it's done in a civil manner (e.g. not an angry mob wielding torches and pitchforks).

“The Framers [of the Constitution] knew that free speech is the friend of change and revolution. But they also knew that it is always the deadliest enemy of tyranny.” Hugo Black

Re:So what's the answer, then? Never?

[jklovanc]

And shutting down the cell phone network will prevent them from pushing people in front of trains? No, it won't. In fact, quite the opposite; it will prevent people from calling quickly for an ambulance after they do push someone in front of a moving train. In most cases, the added risk to safety caused by shutting down cell service greatly exceeds the benefit.

Bart knew the protest was coming and had stationed people with radios that worked on every platform. Just because civilians can not call 911 does not mean that an incident will not be reported by the BART personnel who are tasked to do just that.

The protesters were sending out spotters and attempting to find stations that had fewer BART police in attendance. They were then going to call all protesters to these platforms. People were waiting on other platforms for text messages so they could get on a train and go to the designated platform. By shutting down the cell systems BART slowed down the coordination of this effort.

Lets look at your criteria;

A specific, credible threat to human life.

Evidence of a coordinated effort to concentrate a large number of people on a few platforms which could credibly lead to people falling off the platform in front of trains and/ or onto the electrified rails and dying.

Evidence that disruption of phones would mitigate that threat.

Without phone service people waiting on platforms could not report deployment of BART personnel to find the least guarded platforms. Without cellular coverage people waiting on platforms could not be texted as to which platform to go to. Both of these will disrupt the coordination and creation of the unsafe protests.

Evidence that any delay in said disruption would likely result in additional loss of life.

If there is a delay the information could have already been send and the movement of protesters already started.

Confidence that disruption of those phones would not cause a significant delay in determining the location of or otherwise responding to the threat.

BART deployed police with working radios, the BART radios work on a different system than the microcells, to every platform in the system so BART would still have the same, if not better, information than if the microcells were turned on.
Shutting off cell service is not similar to breaking into someone's house. The shutdown was targeted at disrupting the coordination of a protest in an unsafe area and has nothing to do with the Fourth Amendment which deals with warrants.

To me the planned protests on inherently unsafe platforms is akin to yelling "FIRE" in a crowed theater and is therefore not protected speech. Speech is not always free all the time. Speech that can cause death can be curtailed.

Re:So what's the answer, then? Never?

[KhabaLox]

inherently dangerous station.

Perhaps the problem is not the protesters. I've seen subway stations in Tokyo that were wall to wall people during rush hour. They actually have attendants there to help push the last few people into the subway car. If the station's design cannot handle peak surges of traffic, then the design needs to be modified.

And if BART has to (or even thinks) that turning off cell phone coverage will prevent peak surges (due to protests or otherwise), then they need to reexamine their procedures.

Re:So what's the answer, then? Never?

[jklovanc]

Yet again with the black and white view of the world. There is a huge difference between "you can not protest here, please move it a couple hundred feet where it is safer" and "you can not protest at all". You seem to miss a very important point; subway platforms are an inherently dangerous place. Short of shutting down the entire BART system they will always be inherently dangerous.

In a large protest like the Birmingham City Hall protests there are things that the police can do to mitigate dangers
1. Block off roads so cars and protesters do not mix,
2. Allow free movement to decrease crowding and decrease the possibility of someone being trampled.
3. Keep opposing groups separate so they do not come to blows.

All of this takes space which is not available on a subway platform. I bet the same people who protested shutting down the cell system would be the ones who would blast BART for not controlling the situation if someone died. No matter what a government agency does that will be slammed for it.

It is not a black and white standard. In the instance of the BART protest there are alternate places available to protest (BART headquarters, city hall, courthouse, entrance to stations, etc) that would be nearly as effective as platform protests and much safer. No one said the protest could not happen; it just could not happen on platforms. In the case of Birmingham City Hall protests the anticipated number of participants required a street protest and massive police presence to facilitate safety. Allowing a few hundred people to shut down the entire BART system is not an acceptable outcome.

It is not a question of "no protest" but one of "not in a dangerous area".

Re:So what's the answer, then? Never?

[KhabaLox]

They are not shutting off all communications. If a protester moved a couple hundred feet, to outside the station, their coverage would be fine.

Or they could exercise their right to free speech by, you know, talking to the person next to them.

Yeah, because if the government has the right to shut down electronic communication, they would never use a technology to shut down verbal communication.

Re:So what's the answer, then? Never?

[Anonymous Coward]

Violence and force, are the elements from which all legitamate power and authority derives. You own only that which you can conquer.

Re:So what's the answer, then? Never?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is about moving the protest to an area that doesn't matter as much...like in an area where no one can see or hear them. People are going to protest there without cell coverage anyway...ultimately denying them any form of external communication (INCLUDING systems of emergency workers) is asking for exactly what you're talking about to happen. The overcrowding is going to cause someone to get trampled and there will be no way to get any medical assistance.

What if you happened to be near the protest and your elderly grandfather had a heart attack? Go ahead and move 500 yards that way while he is laying on the ground dying so you can call up 911. Hopefully there isn't an ambulance just within the effective range of the comms shutdown that could have responded to save his life.

Re:So what's the answer, then? Never?

[Anonymous Coward]

So if someone had a medical issue in the train station while all of the obedient protesters moved themselves upstairs, you're saying that if they cannot walk upstairs to an area with communications coverage to call for help, they are fucked.

I think the likelihood of a medical emergency or 1000 other scenarios requiring the immediate use of communications coverage far outweighs the likelihood that a passenger is going to be pushed/fall in front of a train. Not to mention that whole precedent thing...oh and that freedom thing.

Re:So what's the answer, then? Never?

[dgatwood]

Bart knew the protest was coming and had stationed people with radios that worked on every platform. Just because civilians can not call 911 does not mean that an incident will not be reported by the BART personnel who are tasked to do just that.

Which means exactly squat if the BART personnel are the first ones pushed under the train. And if there are enough BART personnel to mitigate that threat, there are also enough BART personnel to evacuate the platform, thus mitigating the safety risk.

The protesters were sending out spotters and attempting to find stations that had fewer BART police in attendance. They were then going to call all protesters to these platforms. People were waiting on other platforms for text messages so they could get on a train and go to the designated platform. By shutting down the cell systems BART slowed down the coordination of this effort.

By shutting down the cell systems, BART slowed the coordination of a lawful protest. Seems like a pretty clear case of prior restraint of speech to me. The protesters were not coordinating with the intent to kill people or cause people harm. The risk of accidental harm is present to varying degrees in nearly any activity you can think of. That does not make it rise to the level of risk sufficient to warrant shutting down cell service.

A specific, credible threat to human life.

Evidence of a coordinated effort to concentrate a large number of people on a few platforms which could credibly lead to people falling off the platform in front of trains and/ or onto the electrified rails and dying.

Unsafe is not the same thing as a credible threat to human life. A credible threat to human life is an armed gunman threatening to shoot people. A credible threat to human life is not a bunch of peaceful protesters occupying a train platform who might accidentally fall in front of a train. A single person standing on the platform might fall in front of the train, too; the difference in risk is relatively small, and can trivially be mitigated in other ways, such as reducing the speed of the trains before they pull into the stations.

Oh, and I should have added one additional requirement:

• Shutting down cellular service must be the most straightforward, simplest, and least invasive way to mitigate the threat.

If there is an easier or less invasive way to mitigate the threat, then shutting down cell service should absolutely not be allowed.

To me the planned protests on inherently unsafe platforms is akin to yelling "FIRE" in a crowed theater and is therefore not protected speech.

Not remotely. Yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater is deliberately causing panic. A protest is just deliberately causing a large crowd. BTW, if the platforms are inherently unsafe, they should be torn down. I think you mean that the protests were unsafe because the number of people exceeded the capacity of the platform. This is a solvable problem. When there are too many people on the platform resulting from 300 people getting off the same train, shut down the platform until they clear the area.

Further, I would argue that BART's actions were akin to yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater. Had there been any sort of actual emergency, riders would have been unable to contact emergency services. Even if the BART personnel were able to contact help, the passengers' inability to contact emergency services would inevitably cause many of them to panic more than they otherwise would have, putting them all in further danger. In earthquake country, this seems like a bigger risk to human lives than having a few too many people on the platform.

Re:So what's the answer, then? Never?

[gmanterry]

For me, freedom comes first. There is no reason to shut them down (just like there's no reason for the TSA or Patriot Act).

But I agree that the whole, "I can't think of an explanation, so none exist." argument isn't logical.

Right on!

Re:So what's the answer, then? Never?

[Anonymous Coward]

Frankly your attempts at justifying this are pathetic-do you suck the authorities cock on request?

Re:So what's the answer, then? Never?

[jklovanc]

When people going too and coming from the train they spend as little time as possible in the station. There is an unspoken protocol on how things work. People who want to get on the train leave room for people getting off and then get on themselves. There is an inherent flow to the situation.

A protest is hundreds of people milling around shouting and obstructing people getting on and off the train. This created a backup that increases the number of people on the platform until safety limits are exceeded. It is a completely different situation. Think the difference between rush hour traffic and a vehicle accident on the freeway. The protest is an intentional blockage.

They didn't turn off coverage for a peak surge but to forestall a planned blockage.

Re:So what's the answer, then? Never?

[jklovanc]

This is an excellent post full of salient points and insight. I bow to your superior intellect and reasoning. /sarcasm

The knee jerk reaction to any curtailment of speech without taking the situation into consideration is ludicrous. It seems that by your logic people should be able to yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater. There are certain cases where "free speech" needs to be curtailed and this in one of them.

Re:So what's the answer, then? Never?

[Darinbob]

Overcrowding of a station will very likely cause safety issues. You don't have to have someone with the express intent to murder before you try to limit the damage of some kid's subway station rave party.

Your right to free speech does not trump the rights of people around you; including their rights to free speech, rights to assume safety in a public place, rights to peaceably assemble without violence of others, the right to leave trains without being harassed, etc. You do not have the right to shout "fire" in a crowded theater as the saying goes, which seems a very apt analogy to telling everyone possible to crowd into a BART station to shut it down which would be an accident waiting to happen. Protest above ground where it's safe.

Re:So what's the answer, then? Never?

[Darinbob]

You're assuming that a mass protest on a station's platform is a legal protest. Above ground and outside the station it would be legal but I doubt that the protest as planed would have been.

Re:So what's the answer, then? Never?

[Darinbob]

But we don't have a right to violently assemble, or the right to harass other people entering or leaving a business, or to create an unsafe environment for others.

Re:So what's the answer, then? Never?

[jklovanc]

ultimately denying them any form of external communication (INCLUDING systems of emergency workers)

I guess you didn't do enough research on the situation. BART has a radio system that is unaffected by the shut down of the cell system. Here are the ways that emergency issues can be reported in areas where cell coverage was cut off;
1. BART officers that were stationed on every platform and had radios that worked on a different system.
2. Phones on the wall that are free direct lines to BART.
3. Pay phones
4. Conductors of trains who have radios that work on the BART system and not the cellular system.

So there are at least four ways for emergencies to be reported. How many do you need?

What if you happened to be near the protest and your elderly grandfather had a heart attack? Go ahead and move 500 yards that way while he is laying on the ground dying so you can call up 911

Call to the BART officer standing 50 feet away with a radio that works .

Hopefully there isn't an ambulance just within the effective range of the comms shutdown that could have responded to save his life.

The radios thet the ambulance uses are not cellular based and therefore unaffected by the cellular shutdown.
The reporting that emergency situation would go unreported is completely false and just another piece of misinformation put forward by the protest movement.

Re:So what's the answer, then? Never?

[Imrik]

I agree that protesting in a relatively dangerous area isn't a great idea. I fail to see how the cell phone blackout makes that better.

Re:So what's the answer, then? Never?

[R3d M3rcury]

[...] rights to assume safety in a public place, rights to peaceably assemble without violence of others, the right to leave trains without being harassed, etc

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

I wasn't aware that the "right to assume safety in a public place" was in the Bill of Rights. Damn those activist judges!

You do not have the right to shout "fire" in a crowded theater as the saying goes

Actually, you have every right to shout "fire" in a crowded theater. However, you cannot use "Free Speech" as a defense if you are brought to trial for the deaths of the people being trampled.

In short, I have every right to tell everyone to crowd into a BART station and shut it down. However, if someone is injured because of this, I can be held responsible.

For example, you say that "Overcrowding of a station will very likely cause safety issues." Again, there's that weasel word again, "very likely" (which I missed above). Nothing assured. Perhaps there will be no safety issue whatsoever. But it could happen.

Welcome to the exciting world of pre-crime! If something could happen, we must stop it!

Re:So what's the answer, then? Never?

[R3d M3rcury]

It seems that by your logic people should be able to yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater.

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

You can go into a crowded theater and yell "Fire!" all you want. However, if people panic and rush to the doors and some of them are trampled, you may end up in court. In which case, you cannot use "Free Speech" as a defense.

There are certain cases where "free speech" needs to be curtailed and this in one of them.

There may very well be--none that immediately come to mind. But this is definitely not one of them.

Years ago, there was a movie called "Minority Report" where psychics used their power to see the future in order to determine who was going to commit a crime and to stop them before they actually did it. What a great movie--and a great idea. If we could only stop crimes before they happen, then nobody would be killed, robbed, beaten, or anything like that.

Unfortunately, we don't have that ability to see into the future. We can only guess at what might happen. The problem is, we're looking at worst-case thinking and then trying to prevent that.

Some of the examples I've seen is that people could be pushed off the platform. And if they were pushed off the platform, they might hurt themselves. Or they might fall onto the third rail and be killed! Or they might fall in front of an oncoming train and be hit! That would be horrible! Thus, we must curtail our basic rights based on the chance that someone could die a horrible death. And not even necessarily a good chance--after all, people do survive falling off subway platforms.

Re:So what's the answer, then? Never?

[jklovanc]

Which means exactly squat if the BART personnel are the first ones pushed under the train.

What a ludicrous argument. The only way that would happen is for people to purposly grab officers and throw them off the platform. Any first responders knows's that his safety is paramount and keep away from the more dangerous areas because if he becomes a casualty it is doubly bad; more people needing help and fewer people able to help.

And if there are enough BART personnel to mitigate that threat, there are also enough BART personnel to evacuate the platform, thus mitigating the safety risk.

You hit it right on the head. There are not enough BART police to guard every platform and not enough to evacuate people who refuse to leave.

By shutting down the cell systems, BART slowed the coordination of a lawful protest.

That raises the question of "was it a lawful protest". Did they have a permit? I doubt it very much. Permits are required to ensure that protest take place in a safe manner and there are enough authorities around to control issues like traffic, opposing protests, sanitation, emergency care, etc. Authorities are obliged to grant permits when ever possible but are not required to grant permits where safety would be an issue. Without a permit it is an unlawful protest and your argument goes out the window.

A credible threat to human life is not a bunch of peaceful protesters occupying a train platform who might accidentally fall in front of a train.

This assumes that everyone at the protest is peaceful. Considering the previous protests it would be naive to assume everyone will take the Gandhi approach. All it takes is a few agitators to change a peaceful protest into a riot. This is not something that that is safe in an enclosed area bounded by subway tracks.

That does not make it rise to the level of risk sufficient to warrant shutting down cell service.

This is where opinion comes in. In your opinion the risk level does not justify the action. In my mind it does.

A single person standing on the platform might fall in front of the train, too; the difference in risk is relatively small, and can trivially be mitigated in other ways, such as reducing the speed of the trains before they pull into the stations.

How can you logically compare a single person with no one near them to people in a mob barely able to fit on the platform. In the latter case all that is necessary is that someone further in the crown push someone and have that force travel through the group and push an edge person off the platform. If you want a real comparison how about comparing someone waiting alone at a bus stop to someone at the edge of a mosh pit. Which one do you thing is more likely to be moved in a direct they don't want?

such as reducing the speed of the trains before they pull into the stations.

That does not effect the presence of the electrified rail that will kill people if touched. Slower speeds may decrease the chance but someone who falls off the platform less that ten feet in front of a a train is going to get run over most of the time. In fact that is the time of most danger as people are mist concerned when the train gets close. They start to jostle and people fall.

If there is an easier or less invasive way to mitigate the threat, then shutting down cell service should absolutely not be allowed.

What are you ideas on how to mitigate the threat? To me the "easier or less invasive way to mitigate the threat" would be to plan the protest to take place at the entrance to subway stations and not in them. Safety is in the hands of the organizers as well as the authorities. The fact that the organizers gave no thought to the dangers is n

Re:So what's the answer, then? Never?

[jklovanc]

By blocking the cellphones BART curtailed the coordinated movement op people to vulnerable platforms and thereby curtailed the overloading of those platforms..

Re:So what's the answer, then? Never?

[jklovanc]

Maybe you should look up freedom of speech limitations. One of those limitations is incitement to riot. Considering that the protests in 2009 turned into riots it is naive to think it would not happen again.

Some of the examples I've seen is that people could be pushed off the platform. And if they were pushed off the platform, they might hurt themselves. Or they might fall onto the third rail and be killed! Or they might fall in front of an oncoming train and be hit! That would be horrible! Thus, we must curtail our basic rights based on the chance that someone could die a horrible death. And not even necessarily a good chance--after all, people do survive falling off subway platforms.

What you are talking about here is risk analysis. It is concerned with what might happen. Is firing a gun in air in a rural area illegal? No because the chances of the bullet cumming down and killing someone is minuscule. Is it illegal to fire a gun in the air in an urban environment? Yes, at the possibility of hitting someone has increased to an unacceptable level. It is similar to the issue of protests on train platforms. In every day use where there are a reasonable number of people on a platform someone might fall off the platform and be injured or killed. That is a risk that is acceptable to everyone. On the other hand, deliberately overloading a platform and increasing the risk of death is unacceptable to most people. It is the comparative difference between risk during normal operations and risk during a demonstration that makes large demonstrations on platforms unacceptable.

Re:So what's the answer, then? Never?

[arose]

Shutting down communications is just about guaranteed to cause issues, so whatever you want to shut down them for must be more certain than "only with luck will this not cause issues".

Re:So what's the answer, then? Never?

[sjames]

I can imagine enough scenarios where it is not acceptable but excuses will be made (and others I don't have to imagine, reading the paper gives me those) that it becomes clear the only way to prevent routine abuse is to just say never.

Re:So what's the answer, then? Never?

[sjames]

Overcrowding of a station will very likely cause safety issues.

Funny how such arguments come up so frequently for protests and not at all when trains are delayed during rush hour.

Re:So what's the answer, then? Never?

[reasterling]

The only time it could ever be acceptable would be if terrorists were actively using cellular phones to control the detonators for explosive devices

Great, now the terrorists (I really hate that word) are going to start rigging their bombs to go off on loss of network signal.

Re:So what's the answer, then? Never?

[cmarkn]

There are certain cases where "free speech" needs to be curtailed and this in one of them.

What part of "Congress shall make no law" can you not comprehend?

Re:So what's the answer, then? Never?

[cmarkn]

::Boggle::

So government can do no wrong? Does that mean any government, or only one with a member of the Democratic Party in charge, even though he tells his own Justice Department not to persecute people who are following state law in their use of medical cannabis but they ignore him?

Re:So what's the answer, then? Never?

[cmarkn]

You left out the main thing that police can do to mitigate danger: don't shoot your guns indiscriminately into crowds.

Re:So what's the answer, then? Never?

[SharpFang]

The article gives a fairly precise FCC answer to the question ow "when":
There are two possibilities:

1) When the court orders so. The decision is then at the sole discretion of the court.
2) In situation of immediate, overwhelming danger, which the shutdown would prevent.

Note 2:
- Mere conjecture of possible harm is insufficient
- the interruption must be very short in duration, only as long as is necessary to preserve the status quo
- The agency must immediately seek judicial review of its decision
- Under the review the agency must:
-- affirmatively provide explanations and evidence to justify the prior restraint.
-- show that there were no other alternatives,
-- show that the shutdown was deployed with sufficient precision to ensure that it did not deny mobile access to other areas.

So, in this case, that was clearly illegal, failing:
- no situation of immediate overwhelming danger. It was known well ahead of time, and while there were some risks, no overwhelming danger existed.
- the disruption would not prevent that kind of danger anyway.
- the agency didn't seek judicial review.
- they neglected alternatives of simply providing more security
- they shut down a whole lot of neighboring areas.

Re:So what's the answer, then? Never?

[mug funky]

you don't think, seeing as train service is likely to be disrupted, that it might be a better move to turn the power off on the rails??

Re:So what's the answer, then? Never?

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Or a better idea shut off the power to the rails if people are getting pushed onto them. Granted I would prefer that the authorities just arrest those who are doing wrong but the next best option would be to prevent the harm at the inconvenience to other as in shutting down the power on the rails. In the above scenario shutting down cell service wouldn't prevent the harm as the rails would still be electrified so it solves nothing.

Re:So what's the answer, then? Never?

[Phreakiture]

Now, once someone has been pushed onto those electrified tracks in the path of oncoming trains, you reach for your cell phone to dial 911 and . . . nothing.

So you go find a pay phone . . . oh wait, all but a few have been removed because they're not profitable. You know where there is one, but it is up on the surface and several blocks away. You might get there in fifteen minutes if you really hustle and can get through the crowd.

Now by some miracle, the emergency crews show up. First officer on the scene looks at the situation, assesses it, as he is supposed to do, and reaches for his radio to apprise the dispatchers and other emergency service providers of what he finds, and . . . he can't reach anyone because those repeaters are shut down, too.

No, yours is a very bad example.

Re:So what's the answer, then? Never?

[jklovanc]

Yes that is part of the first amendment but the Supreme Court of the US has interpreted it and made several rulings that have placed limits on freedom of speech. Those rulings are called Common Law. You may want to look up the difference between protected and unprotected speech. One category of unprotected speech is that which “advocacy of the use of force or of law violation ... where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” Organizing an unlawful protest, they had no permit, falls into that category. Take a look at this document.

Re:So what's the answer, then? Never?

[jklovanc]

Did you actually read any of the articles explaining what BART did to deal with these situations?
1. There are free phones on every platform that are direct links to BART.
2. There were BART police officers on every platform with radios that used the BART system and were unaffected by the cellular shutdown.
3. Train operators have radios on the same system as the Bart police officers.
4. EMS uses the same radio system as BART.
So, even though the average citizen can not call 911 from the station, the situation will be quickly reported and the cell outage will have no effect on EMS.

Your example is uninformed fear mongering.

Re:So what's the answer, then? Never?

[Anonymous Coward]

You have it wrong. Yours is the incorrect reasoning, for you're saying: "I contend there are situations where this is appropriate, and I demand that you accept that without me describing or offering any examples of what those situations might be."

I can't imagine a valid reason, so I am not willing to give anyone the power to cut off service. If you want me to change, you better offer up a good enough reason. The burden of proof is on you, not me.

Re:So what's the answer, then? Never?

[mcgrew]

So basically, since *you* can't imagine a scenario where it would be appropriate

List such a scenario and I'll change my mind if your scenario is valid. You want to restrict my rights, "there may be a good reason" is no reason and you're going to need a damned good one.

Re:So what's the answer, then? Never?

[jklovanc]

And allow a few hundred protesters to completely shut down a vital transportation link during rush hour? It is not like a road protest where one can use another route as there is only one BART. By the way, it was an unlawful protest as they had no permit.

Re:So what's the answer, then? Never?

[jklovanc]

Are you kidding me? This has to be the most inaccurate and inflammatory post I have seen on the subject. The BART officer did not shoot into a crowd. Read what actually happened. The officer was attempting to secure a man who had been in a fight and escaped custody once already. The man was on the ground and would not surrender his hands to be cuffed. The officer stated he was going to taze the man, stepped back, accidentally selected his side arm instead of the tazer and shot the man. That is why he was convicted of involuntary manslaughter. The officer didn't shoot into a crowd; he shot at a specific target feet away but with the wrong weapon. Maybe you should learn some facts before inflaming the situation.

Re:So what's the answer, then? Never?

[SomePoorSchmuck]

Yet again with the black and white view of the world. There is a huge difference between "you Negroes can not protest here in a whites-only restaurant, please move it a couple hundred feet to the Colored restaurant where it is safer for everyone" and "you can not protest at all". You seem to miss a very important point; whites-only restaurants with black people in them are an inherently dangerous place. Short of shutting down all such restaurants they will always be inherently dangerous.

In a place like a subway station there are things BART and police can do to mitigate dangers
1. Block off the edges of unused portions of the platform so falling protestors and electrified rails and the underside of moving trains do not mix. Unless your engineers/architects are complete morons, the same trains stop at the same places every time, every day, within 10-24 inches. Have openings in your restraining system with sufficient +/- tolerance for the train doors.
2. Allow free movement to decrease crowding and decrease the possibility of someone being trampled.
3. Set up crowd control systems to keep opposing groups like actual passengers and protestors separate so they do not come to the apparently irresistable urge to push each other into the path of the trains.

All of this takes space which would be available on a subway platform if the operator cared to do it instead of taking the easy route of counterinsurgency measures to disrupt protestors' communications

Re:So what's the answer, then? Never?

[CanHasDIY]

So in order for me to point out that just because someone can't think of a reason doe something doesn't mean there isn't one they haven't thought of you require that I know one myself? That's a mightly strange restriction to have.

When did I say you can't point something out? Answer: Never. I merely pointed out that criticism without offering alternative suggestions make you look like a bitchy dickhead, and I stand by that conclusion.

OK, I added the 'bitchy' this time, but it applies, so what the hell.

So if someone was to claim "I know P!=NP because I can't think of any reasons for P to equal NP", then nobody can reply with "Just because you can't think of any doesn't mean there isn't one" unless they also provide a proof that P=NP?

Oh, someone could give that response, and to that person I would reply, "Well thanks there, Captain Obvious... almost didn't recognize you without the mask and cape." Of course, by responding to the statement "I know X =Y because I can't think of a reason for X !=Y" with anything other than an eye roll and/or derisive laugh, you're fucking up IMO.

Seriously, do you really think you're providing any new or useful information by pointing out the obvious? 'Dur, gee, I hadn't thought of the fact that there might be things I hadn't thought of; whatever would society do without Oxford scholars such as yourself?' Get over yourself, man, people like you only say shit like that so you can provoke a response and thus validate your existence. Congratulations, you got what you wanted; now do us all a favor and jog on.

Must be really hard to communicate under the restrictions that exist in your world.

With ego-maniacal narcissists, yes.

Saves me the trouble of having to listen to them fawn over how awesome they think themselves.

Re:So what's the answer, then? Never?

[Bob the Super Hamste]

An easier and more effective solution to shutting down the cell network would have been to shut down power on the rails. That would have prevented anyone from getting killed by moving trains or by falling on electrified rails. As an added bonus it would have probably prevented or slowed the buildup of protesters at stations. Here is another scenario if you like what ifs:
The FBI finds out that someone is planning on detonating a bomb at a specific large airport. The problem is that they don't know who the person is, what flight they are planning on taking (or if they are planning on taking a flight), or what day they will show up. What the terrorist is actually planning on doing is have a carry-on suitcase with wheels packed with gunpowder and ball bearings and go stand in line and when right in the middle of the security line detonate it. They have documents that are close enough (all fakes) that they won't draw attention from the other in line. The detonator button is in the handle of the suitcase, it is mechanical and was cocked by extending the handle so no wires. What would be the correct course of action for the government to take? Should they stop all suitcase sales?

Re:So what's the answer, then? Never?

[Bob the Super Hamste]

If they wanted to do that they should have shutdown power to the trains instead. It would have been more effective.

Re:So what's the answer, then? Never?

[h4rr4r]

That sounds like a human factors problem. Why is the taser on the same side as the gun? Why is the grip not textured in a way unlike the sidearm? Why is a single police officer even carrying both? The ideal solution would probably be to have two officers one with a gun the other with the tazer.

Re:So what's the answer, then? Never?

[Anonymous Coward]

... or after playoff sporting events, concerts, etc.

Re:So what's the answer, then? Never?

[nedlohs]

When did I say you can't point something out? Answer: Never. I merely pointed out that criticism without offering alternative suggestions make you look like a bitchy dickhead, and I stand by that conclusion.

OK, without looking like a bitchy dick head then. Which should have been pretty obviously meant by "can't", since clearly a person can physically say something, it's the saying without being considered an arrogant prick or a bitchy dickhead or whatever insult you want to use next time.

Of course you find someone pointing out a logical problem with an argument as being arrogant and bitchy, you much prefer the "eye roll and/or derisive laughter" response. Since it's much less arrogant to assume the other person can't learn something if you point out a flaw in their logic and just laught at them.

Also, can you point out where the original post was fawning over how awesome they think themselves?

Re:So what's the answer, then? Never?

[jklovanc]

This is not a racial segregation issue where the protest is the presence in the segregated area. Attempting to draw a parallel is invalid. How about protesting at the court house where the seemingly unacceptable verdict was given(the officer was convicted of involuntary manslaughter).

There are many flaws in your "solutions:.

1. Block off the edges of unused portions of the platform so falling protestors and electrified rails and the underside of moving trains do not mix.

There will always be open parts that people can fall through.

Allow free movement to decrease crowding and decrease the possibility of someone being trampled.

The police can not control the protesters to allow this free movement. Free movement is only possible if everyone cooperates. Considering the riots in 2009, expecting cooperation is naive.

Set up crowd control systems to keep opposing groups like actual passengers and protestors separate so they do not come to the apparently irresistable urge to push each other into the path of the trains.

So add a couple hundred police to an already overcrowded platform to control protesters. It is not an "irresistible urge" as that implies intent. Have you ever been in a large crowd where one push in the middle of the crowd results in an unintended movement at the edge of the crowd? That is what I am talking about.

None of these options are perfect and still leave the

Re:So what's the answer, then? Never?

[jklovanc]

It is a human factor that is heightened by the effect of stress on the human brain.

Why is the taser on the same side as the gun?

It usually isn't. Though when the brain says "weapon" it may choose the one that is most practiced with. This may cause muscle memory to choose the wrong weapon.

Why is the grip not textured in a way unlike the sidearm?

It is and it is of a different size. The issue is that under stress the brain is busy dealing with more important matters than the feel of a weapon; threat, movement, sounds, etc. It is not a choice but a physiological response.

Why is a single police officer even carrying both?

If a pair of officers, one with a tazer and one with a gun, get into a situation where guns are required then the officer with the tazer is useless as backup. The same goes for a tazer situation. All officers need to have the flexibility to choose the best tool for the situation.

Re:So what's the answer, then? Never?

[jklovanc]

Effectively allowing a few hundred people to down BART and causing thousands of commuters to be stuck. Yes it would be effective but not an acceptable solution for a majority of people.

Re:So what's the answer, then? Never?

[Anonymous Coward]

Try reading your history some time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montgomery_Bus_Boycott

Re:So what's the answer, then? Never?

[jklovanc]

An easier and more effective solution to shutting down the cell network would have been to shut down power on the rails.

That would allow a few hundred protesters to shut BART down and cause thousands of commuters to be stuck. Yes it would be effective but it would be unacceptable to a majority of people.

The scenario you describe is nothing like the issue at hand. It is much more complex and your sarcastic solution will obviously not solve the issue. A better example would be if it was known that the bomb was going to be triggered by a cellular call. Would you be OK with shutting down cellular service? It is closer to the BART situation where there were posts that planned on using cell phones to concentrate protesters on designated platforms. In effect the cell phones were planned to be used to trigger a riot which is similar to triggering a bomb.

Re:So what's the answer, then? Never?

[cpu6502]

>>>Violence and force, are the elements from which all legitamate power and authority derives.

Which is why the People retain their weapons.

>>>You own only that which you can conquer.

True but only in part. You own your body which Nature has provided for you. And the air and sunlight, which nature has also provided. You have a natural right to these things. (Read Jonn Locke for more detail.)

Re:So what's the answer, then? Never?

[Anonymous Coward]

Then that is an excellent reason for not allowing the permit to protest within a BART station itself, and is not a good reason to turn off cell phone access anywhere within the station.

At some point, the safety of people attempting to contact emergency services within the station becomes more important than a potential safety hazard (overcrowding the station, people falling on rails or in front of trains) that is in no way caused by cell phone communication. Turning off cell towers does not immediately or directly fix the problem of a large crowd gathering and protesting against BART, and it creates safety issues because citizens in the station cannot contact emergency services (when they might expect to be able to) and it prevents people from recording potentially brutal police actions and uploading the video immediately to a server (so confiscating the device doesn't matter).

Yes, we don't need cell phones in the strictest sense of the word. But we did used to have pay phones, and now they have largely disappeared (which is a good thing). As such, turning off cells in a BART station takes our way of communication back to before we had telephones - and ask yourself: why should we be plunged 100 years back in history because of a potential situation? How does that make sense. No, as authorities, BART officers must deal with the fact that they can be recorded at any time and modify their reactions to what is appropriate - they are public officers who are supposed to be serving the public interest (and not shooting unarmed, prone suspects in the back), and there must be a compelling reason to turn off cell phone access (a credible and immediate threat that a terrorist is using cell phones to blow up bombs and there is a credible and reasonable suspicion that the receiver attached to the bomb does not have a fail-deadly). But as a government organization, they are Constitutionally bound to respecting the First Amendment, and that includes the medium by which the message travels. Would you allow them to confiscate printing presses if everybody had a portable one and there was a potential threat of a large crowd gathering by allowing people to print informative leaflets? Cell phone communication should be treated similarly.

Re:So what's the answer, then? Never?

[CanHasDIY]

When did I say you can't point something out? Answer: Never. I merely pointed out that criticism without offering alternative suggestions make you look like a bitchy dickhead, and I stand by that conclusion.

OK, without looking like a bitchy dick head then. Which should have been pretty obviously meant by "can't", since clearly a person can physically say something, it's the saying without being considered an arrogant prick or a bitchy dickhead or whatever insult you want to use next time.

Goalposts - moved.

Look, it's really, really simple, so much so I can't for the life of me figure out why anyone would have so much trouble understanding, other than willful ignorance:

"Just because you can't think of a reason doesn't mean there isn't one." - egocentric dickhead.

"Just because you can't think of a reason doesn't mean there isn't one... such as [insert example here]." - not an egocentric dickhead.

If you still don't see the difference, you may want to take a good, hard, introspective look at yourself... or start taking ESL classes, 'cuz obviously it ain't your first.

Of course you find someone pointing out a logical problem with an argument as being arrogant and bitchy, you much prefer the "eye roll and/or derisive laughter" response.

Speaking of arrogant, reread the post you responded to - you were so busy making sure you were thoroughly offended by my words you failed to notice that particular response was directed at the person making the logical fallacy, not the one pointing it out; hell, I'll save you the trouble of having to scroll up:

Of course, by responding to the statement "I know X =Y because I can't think of a reason for X !=Y" with anything other than an eye roll and/or derisive laugh,

I.e., the person making the logical fallacy is the one who should be responded to with derision. But please, feel free to continue misinterpreting my words to satisfy your own egotism. It entertains me.

Also, can you point out where the original post was fawning over how awesome they think themselves?

Well, unless your statement

Arrogance is good at making people stupid.

was self-directed, I would consider that a fine example.

Re:So what's the answer, then? Never?

[Anonymous Coward]

There are other ways to handle people with dangerous behaviors than trying to shut down communications. Police do have reasons for riot gear, trains can be stopped if "innocent people getting off trains" are threatened, etc.

That said, the repeaters were installed as a convenience service by the rail line. Let 'em do what they want with the damned things.

Re:So what's the answer, then? Never?

[MrResistor]

"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech ... or the right of the people peaceably to assemble"

I believe that answers your question.

Re:So what's the answer, then? Never?

[cmarkn]

It is a human factor that is heightened by the effect of stress on the human brain.

Why is the taser on the same side as the gun?

It usually isn't. Though when the brain says "weapon" it may choose the one that is most practiced with. This may cause muscle memory to choose the wrong weapon.

This is a failure of his training then. So how has the training program for his agency, and all the rest that use Tasers, been changed to reduce the likelihood of a repeat of this shooting?

Why is the grip not textured in a way unlike the sidearm?

It is and it is of a different size. The issue is that under stress the brain is busy dealing with more important matters than the feel of a weapon; threat, movement, sounds, etc. It is not a choice but a physiological response.

Most of the cops I see around here wear their pistols on their right hip and their Tasers on their belly, angled for right-hand access. The handles are different, but similar enough that the proper techniques for aiming and operating them are the same.

Why is a single police officer even carrying both?

If a pair of officers, one with a tazer and one with a gun, get into a situation where guns are required then the officer with the tazer is useless as backup. The same goes for a tazer situation. All officers need to have the flexibility to choose the best tool for the situation.

Or, as the old saying goes, never bring a taser to a gunfight. There are still a lot of cops on the street without Tasers, leaving them with only clubs, knives and pepper spray as their less-lethal options. But they don't shoot any more people than cops with Tasers do, they just don't tase as many. Citation: http://www.citypaper.net/news/2012-01-12-taser-use-gun-use-philadelphia-police.html. (My original source is behind the paywall at chron.com. The numbers in Houston are slightly larger but the trends are the same.)

Re:So what's the answer, then? Never?

[jklovanc]

But they don't shoot any more people than cops with Tasers do, they just don't tase as many.

There is a basic flaw in the statistical analysis in that it assumes that the number of incidents where officers who do not have tazers would have used guns stays the same. For example, if in one year there were 100 gun usages. I that point the tazer was introduced. The next year there were 100 gun usages and 20 tazer usages. It would seem that tazer usages had not decreased the use of guns. The important point would be to ask the 20 officers who used the tazer what they would have done if the tazer was not available. It is quite likely that some or all of them would say that they would have used their guns. Say 10 officers stated they would have used guns. So the comparison is between a year where, without tazers, 100 gun incidents would have occurred with a year where 110 gun incidents would have occurred. In effect tazers mitigated 10 incidents that would have been gun incidents.
Another issue us that tazers are not only an alternative to guns they are also an alternative to the night stick. Striking someone with a nightstick can cause much more damage than a tazer; ask Rodney King. A taser will quickly render a subject unable to fight while a knight stick just enrages some subjects. By the way, I have never seen or heard of an incident where an officer has pulled a knife in a fight and knives are as lethal as guns in close quarters.

Re:So what's the answer, then? Never?

[cmarkn]

It doesn't assume anything of the kind. It states the number of times guns are used, which stays about the same year to year, and looks at the number of times tasers are used, which rises directly in proportion to the number of tasers carried. The entire purpose of making these tools available was to reduce the number of people killed by cops. They haven't.

Instead of your fake numbers, let's look at the real numbers. In the first nine months of 2008, police shot their guns 174 times and used their 227 tasers 126 times . In the first nine months of 2009, they used guns 254 times and tasers 290 times. In the first nine months of 2010, police used guns 256 times and used their 712 Tasers 480 times. In the first nine months of 2011, they used guns an unspecified number of times described as "showed no corresponding decrease", I'll call it 250 times since that matches the previous two years, and their Tasers 550 times.

So you are claiming that the number of times shots would be fired would jump from 300 in 2008 to 544 in 2009, then to 736 in 2010, and then to about 800 in 2011? Those are some mighty big jumps from a baseline around 174, especially in the context of a city in which violent crime, including murder, declined over that period. Those numbers are nothing like the fake ones you pulled out and show a completely different trend han you suggest; I think they speak for themselves. Perhaps if the number of tasings were consistent at about 20% of shootings, as you propose, and the number of shootings showed a corresponding decline, it would be completely different. But that's not consistent with the data.

Your argument about clubs is a bit confused. Do they just piss off the people beaten with them, or kill them? Perhaps it really is both, since it depends on where the blows are struck and how much kicking is added to the beating (ask Rodney King about the kicking). Oh, and haven't tonfas pretty much replaced nightsticks as the club of choice these days?

Oh, and just because I came across it, here's a reference to a killing in the line of duty by a cop using a knife, at what I consider a pretty reliable but incomplete source:
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_14.html

Re:So what's the answer, then? Never?

[cmarkn]

Oh, I didn't get that your list of things to do to mitigate dangers were all involved in the BART protest. The first one was block off roads to keep protestors from getting run over. How hard was it for them to keep cars out of the underground terminal? And keeep opposing groups separated; I didn't know there was a counterprotest in the underground terminals either. You mentioned Birmingham and I misremembered a connected to http://www.may41970.com/Jackson%20State/jackson_state_may_1970.htm

Re:So what's the answer, then? Never?

[jklovanc]

there are a couple of numbers missing for your figures;
1. how many guns were there
2. How many times were guns used before tasers were available.
3. How many time were night sticks used before and after tasers were available. (Tasers are an alternative to night sticks as well.)
4. How many of the taser usages would have been gun shots is tasers were not available.
The point you miss is that there is no way of looking at the raw numbers and knowing if the issue is over usage of tasers or an increase in violent confrontations with police. Any analysis with out this information is pure speculation. Do I think my numbers were accurate? No, they were just an example of how the same numbers can be interpreted in different ways.Lets look at 2010, guns 256 and tasers 712 times. There is no way of knowing what those 712 taser usages would have been if tasers were not available. Some could be gun usage. Some could be night stick usage some could be fists. We have no idea what the ratio would be as we do not have the information.
There is also a major flaw in your reasoning. You seem to assume that the only reason to use a taser is as an alternative to using a gun. That is not true.
Tasers are used in the following situations;
1. As an alternative to guns.
2. As an alternative to knight sticks(and other striking instruments). Ask Rodney King how dangerous night sticks are.
3. As an alternative to putting officers in physical confrontations where they can be injured or where their weapons can be grabbed and used on them.
By only looking at gun vs taser usage you are putting blinders on and not seeing the whole picture. I want to be clear about this; I believe that every taser usage should be investigated like a gun usage and the usage deem reasonable or not. Some departments are too lax in their usage and that needs to be fixed.

Your argument about clubs is a bit confused. Do they just piss off the people beaten with them, or kill them? Perhaps it really is both, since it depends on where the blows are struck and how much kicking is added to the beating (ask Rodney King about the kicking). Oh, and haven't tonfas pretty much replaced nightsticks as the club of choice these days?

If the suspect is on drugs a night stick will piss him of right up to the point at which the suspect dies from wounds he has received. On the other hand a taser interips the nervous system and the suspect goes down.
When officers get into a hand to hand confrontation with a suspect it is dangerous for both of them. One of the big issues being the there have been a number of times when a suspect has gained control of the officer's gun and used it on him. Officers want to avoid fighting a suspect and a taser is a good way to do that.
By the way, i was using the term night stick to include all striking instrument used by police; night sticks, tonfa, asp, etc.

Oh, and just because I came across it, here's a reference to a killing in the line of duty by a cop using a knife, at what I consider a pretty reliable but incomplete source:

It definitely is incomplete. The "knife or cutting instrument" could have been something lying around or possibly a weapon taken from a suspect. There is no evidence that the "knife or cutting instrument" belonged to the officer.

Re:So what's the answer, then? Never?

[jklovanc]

A previous poster compared the BART protest with the Burmigham protest. Here is the statement I was talking about;"We shouldn't allow thousands of black-skinned americans to march on Birmingham City Hall to protest for equal treatment under the law, because someone could get pushed in front of a car, it is possible that someone might get trampled in the crowd, there's a chance that there will be a riot sparked when the KKK shows up." It has nothing at all to do with the BART protest but as an example of things that need planning and room to deal with.

I didn't know there was a counterprotest in the underground terminals either.

What do you think will happen if a few thousand tired workers trying to get home after a long day are blocked by a few hundred protesters? So you thing that confrontations will probably occur? There was no counter protest because the protest didn't go off.

No, the answer is "never"

[betterunixthanunix]

There is no reason to give the government the power to shut down vital communication systems. Such power can only be abused and serves no legitimate purpose.

Re:No, the answer is "never"

[X0563511]

Hell they already have abused it. Witness the whole BART fiasco we are talking about.

Re:No, the answer is "never"

[Digicrat]

How about the (admittedly unlikely) case of a known bomb threat in a given region with a cell phone as its remote detonator? Or perhaps a known threat/disaster in an enclosed and highly crowded space where controlling information is necessary to prevent panic and facilitate an orderly evacuation?

The key is that such capabilities should only be exercised under extreme conditions where lives are in danger -- but never for mere political expediency (ie: impeding a legitimate protest).

Re:No, the answer is "never"

[Jeng]

You can just as easily make it trigger when it receives no signal as to make it trigger from a phone call.

Re:No, the answer is "never"

[Anonymous Coward]

Define "known" bomb threat.

If you mean "we know where it is" then.. how about taking care of that? Bring a faraday cage or even just a slab of steel, problem solved. And no communication cells need be disrupted.

If you mean "someone threatened to do it" then, no. Disrupting communications, including the potential for legitimate emergency calls, is not good. I get that politicians are risk adverse. Responding to everything with a we-have-to-do-something-even-if-it-sucks mindset is not appropriate. Unlikely, but terrible, outcomes are not desirable. Treating them all as credible, sacrificing principles and way of life in the process, isn't desirable either.

If you're trying to control information to prevent panic.. shutting off cell service will give you a decent shot at keeping the information contained to the comm suppressed area. However, it'll only last for as long as it takes someone to get in signal range of a tower not shut down. In a crowd sufficiently sized for panic and evacuation to be issues, this isn't likely to be very long. After all, people are being evacuated. Going to to take them to places also without cell service? Or will there be confiscation of all phones? Then there is the fact that the area is suppressed will be the signal to the rest of the populace that something catastrophic is going on. And the people within the suppressed area are likely to panic regardless. They don't need the cell service to know shit is going down. They're there for it.

Re:No, the answer is "never"

[WaffleMonster]

How about the (admittedly unlikely) case of a known bomb threat in a given region with a cell phone as its remote detonator?

Turning off cell service could just as easily CAUSE the bomb to explode.

Or perhaps a known threat/disaster in an enclosed and highly crowded space where controlling information is necessary to prevent panic and facilitate an orderly evacuation?

People in an enclosed highly crowded space don't need electronic devices to spread panic.

The key is that such capabilities should only be exercised under extreme conditions where lives are in danger

What keeps LEA from seeing a protest as an extreme condition? They could argue the risk of something extreme happening during a protest warrants action.

but never for mere political expediency (ie: impeding a legitimate protest).

Good luck codifying that.

Re:No, the answer is "never"

[lightknight]

I'd take the bomb threat over the J. Edgars any day.

Re:No, the answer is "never"

[lightknight]

But that's...LOGIC!

Seriously, how difficult is it to switch trigger mechanisms? Trivial or super-trivial?

Besides, after that one spam message prematurely set off a bomb in that Middle-Eastern country, I don't think any bomb maker is interested in using a cell-phone again (as a triggering device).

Re:No, the answer is "never"

[jklovanc]

There is are problems with words like "never". In this case, curtailing protest in an area where people could be pushed onto an electrified rail or in front of moving trains is a good idea. The protest could just as well have happened above ground where it was safe and cell phone coverage was available. Moving a protest a few hinderd feet is not a problem in my mind.

Re:No, the answer is "never"

[jklovanc]

Would you be saying the same thing if a friend or loved one got off the train in the middle of a protest and was pushed onto the electrified rail or in front of a moving train? Subway stations are inherently dangerous and no place for large protests.

Re:No, the answer is "never"

[X0563511]

No, I wouldn't. I'd feel bad in general, having just lost a loved one or friend... but I wouldn't be blaming the protest. If anything, I'd be upset with the subway for not having some kind of barrier. What if you had a seizure and fell onto the tracks? Same trouble, but no third party to blame, there.

Re:No, the answer is "never"

[Hognoxious]

Having a seizure, just like slipping or tripping, is one of those things that fall under "shit that just happens".

A bunch of smelly hipsters overcrowding a dangerous area is one of things that falls under "shit that could, and should, be prevented".

Re:No, the answer is "never"

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean like these http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platform_screen_doors?

It's a risk the train companies are aware of (hence why the restrict the number of people going into underground stations during busy times), and they have the technology available to reduce or eliminate the risk. If someone gets injured it's the fault of the train company for a) failing to limit the number of people going into the station to a reasonable number and b) failing to invest in the suitable safety equipment. It's not the fault of the protesters.

Re:No, the answer is "never"

[Anonymous Coward]

Kill yourself. Cell service has nothing to with whether a bunch of retards will infest a particular space and cause problems.

Re:No, the answer is "never"

[Hognoxious]

Monkey spunk. I'm not an electrical engineer, and I could easily wire a relay from the ringer/vibrator to a detonator; call = bang.

But I wouldn't have the faintest fuck of a clue how to detect a "no signal" situation, or even rig a timer to create a kind of dead-man's switch; no call or no signal for x minutes = bang.

Re:No, the answer is "never"

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

"Stop the terrorists from using a phone signal to detonate a bomb" is like "Torture a terrorist who is laughing that he placed an atom bomb".

Fair enough. In either case, do it, then submit for judicial review afterward.

Otherwise no. Government abuse of powers is forbidden.

Re:No, the answer is "never"

[swalve]

Make the phone have a specific beep when it loses service, and wire your relay to recognize that beep. Or, for the more reckless types, keep a call open and have it trigger the relay when the call drops.

Re:No, the answer is "never"

[KhabaLox]

Moving a protest a few hinderd feet is not a problem in my mind.

I do love a good pun.

Re:No, the answer is "never"

[Imrik]

Curtailing protest in the area may be a good idea, but why does that mean shutting off cell service?

Re:No, the answer is "never"

[jklovanc]

because the cell service was planned to be used to coordinate movement of protesters to vulnerable area.

Re:No, the answer is "never"

[sjames]

I'll see that and raise you a backup detonator that sets the bomb off if cell communications are shut down, plus 3 extra bombs as a punative measure.

Re:No, the answer is "never"

[cmarkn]

[Citation Needed]

Re:No, the answer is "never"

[Bob the Super Hamste]

And after the Bastille Day fireworks on the Champ de Mars I witnessed a small mother and infant almost get trampled as people tried to pack into a subway car there. There was massive overcrowding and you haven't smelt anything until you have smelt the Pairs Metro on a hot summer day. Point is shit happens where there are too many people, and there would have been better ways to prevent the problem than by shutting down the cell network.

Re:No, the answer is "never"

[jklovanc]

Citation

Short answer

[koan]

You can't shut down cell services there may be an emergency call that needs to be made.

Re:Short answer

[X0563511]

Hell did you see that doing so cut off police, fire, and medical response radio as well? What the hell, BART!?

Re:Short answer

[CanHasDIY]

Hell did you see that doing so cut off police, fire, and medical response radio as well? What the hell, BART!?

Yea, that kinda blows the whole "public safety" lie out of the water, doesn't it?

Property rights, contract law

[srussia]

This pretty much boils down to a principal-agent problem

Re:Property rights, contract law

[Errol backfiring]

Indeed. Cory Doctorow should file a patent on this. "Little Bother" seems to come true.

In the theater

[jgtg32a]

Best time to cut it off.

Re:In the theater

[Anonymous Coward]

Already feasible - make the theatre a faraday cage so no cell signals can get in, that way people outside the theatre are not affected by active jamming (so things such as emergency services aren't cut off). No need to involve the government outside of building construction codes.

No we can't. Nor could you.

[Anonymous Coward]

....we all could come up with scenarios where it might save lives to cut off service.

Name one.

One medical lawsuit is all it will take

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, he died? Debilitating injury due to treatment delays?
People hurt because police/crowd control couldn't get there in time?
  Citizens burned or killed by smoke because fire fighters didn't get there on time?
  Order to open emergency doors not issued in a timely manner?

Lotsa lawsuits are easily envisioned.

Re:One medical lawsuit is all it will take

[cmarkn]

Does BART have Sovereign Immunity, which would make such a lawsuit useless? It appears there is precedence that it applies to police and firefighters for not being in the right place at the right and for not rendering enough aid.

I think this is flat out a first amendment issue

[SlippyToad]

The government wants to be able to squelch protests.

I think the answer is NEVER.

BART you say?

[JustAnotherIdiot]

Have them right "I will not turn off Wireless Communications" on a blackboard over and over again until they get the point.

Re:BART you say?

[Bob the Super Hamste]

How about we beat it into them with a yard stick (short meter stick for the rest of the world) until they get the point. Better if it has the phrase in relief on the stick so that leaves an after image on the skin.

when

[geekoid]

Martial law is declared.

Re:when

[Githaron]

Actually, martial law is in effect but undeclared. You think government officials would admit to martial law?

freeman!

[Anonymous Coward]

all this means is protesters will have to come up with clever ways to keep communications flowing in these areas. You can build some homebrew wireless backhauls along with microcells and even a WAP to bring communications to these areas. Its time to think about building a freemans roaming internet cell service to fight against these exact types of abuses.

Re:freeman!

[Githaron]

Sounds like a interesting project.

Re:freeman!

[SomePoorSchmuck]

The ONLY thing standing between the people and freedom is portable energy. The day we can instantly create and power (i.e. SUSTAIN) ad-hoc distributed P2P networks using our personal wireless devices is the day all this same old control-suppress crap ends and a bizarre future world (with all new crap) begins. This networked app -- call it an "appwork" will detect the flow of proximity/signal strength of the appwork nodes in mass protest situations and automatically direct apparticipants to move x-meters to the left or up 1 flight of stairs to ensure all apparticipants have sufficient coverage to take advantage of the appwork's features. Every protest crowd becomes as beautiful and agile as a flock of hundreds of birds which shifts directions dozens of times in a minute with only fractional delays. Instead of a carefully rehearsed, short-lived one-off scripted flash mob, every flash mob becomes a shifting wave pattern that is exceedingly difficult to disrupt.

Martial Law

[Bob9113]

Seems like an easy answer to me -- the government has the authority to inhibit free speech any time they declare martial law.

Re:Martial Law

[Mitreya]

the government has the authority to inhibit free speech any time they declare martial law.

Also through a judge! Judges can impose gag orders, thus restricting speech
Why don't they require judge's order for this? The debate seems to be -- what if some official comes over and says they really honestly think shutting down is a good idea. Is the debating which random officials get that power?
Don't we have judges to serve as an impartial observer?

Re:Martial Law

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, sorry. No such thing as "martial law".

Re:Martial Law

[Anonymous Coward]

If martial law needs to be declared, then something is already wrong with the government, and thus it should not be given the power to declare martial law...

Handheld radios?

[Anonymous Coward]

Next time you're going to protest, fuck the cell phone.

Re:Handheld radios?

[jklovanc]

They don't penetrate ground very well. BART radios have repeaters in the stations so their radios still work.

To put it another way

[betterunixthanunix]

Why not allow the government to dictate when people can talk to each other? That is what shutting a communication system down, or restricting the system so that only emergency calls can be made, is doing: restricting how, when, and with whom people can communicate (in a very literal sense).

Re:To put it another way

[Jeng]

I guess my point was why completely disable the system which is easy to make an argument against rather than restrict it to emergency services which is harder to argue against.

Basically since they are lazy and by shutting it completely down they are having a harder time justifying their actions.

Your point about them infringing on our freedom of speech is the correct argument to be making though.

Reminder...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll just leave this here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution

Drop the providers, keep the WiFi...

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if there are any applications to turn WiFi-enabled smartphones into a mesh relay network. That will enable a communication channel in case of provider shutdown. Self-organizing wireless mesh networks was a popular topic few years ago.

Re:Drop the providers, keep the WiFi...

[SomePoorSchmuck]

I wonder if there are any applications to turn WiFi-enabled smartphones into a mesh relay network. That will enable a communication channel in case of provider shutdown. Self-organizing wireless mesh networks was a popular topic few years ago.

The software aspect could be done now. The problem is that turning your phone/tablet into a router/switch is gonna suck your battery down to zero in a very very short time interval.

Its really a simple question...

[3seas]

...who is it that has a problem with the 1st amendment?

There is no complicating this simple straight forward question with any additional babel!
There is a simple and straight forward reason why it's the FIRST Amendment, not the second or third or any other.

Re:Its really a simple question...

[Bob the Super Hamste]

You seem to believe that it is more important than the others but that isn't the case. The reason is that it was the first of the original 12 amendments that was ratified by enough states. Originally there were 12 amendments that were all sent out to the original 13 states. The 10 that were initially ratified became the bill of rights while one eventually became the 27th amendment, and the other still remains pending before the states. Interestingly the first proposed amendment to the constitution is the one that remains pending from the initial 12 that were sent to the states for ratification. If ratified it wouldn't have any effect on the current makeup of congress as our national population and number of house members has already exceeded the limits listed.

Two Words:

[flameproof]

...Walkie Talkie.

Re:Two Words:

[Anonymous Coward]

Beat me to it! We are prepared and will be the only ones able to communicate.

Amerika, land of those who love their manacles.

[Anonymous Coward]

Fucking IDIOTS shut down the POLICE radios ?

That in itself is so fucking stupid it beggars belief.

Glad I don't live in California, glad I never will.

Re:I think this is flat out a first amendment issu

[Anonymous Coward]

The Supreme Court doesn't interpet the First Amendment that way.
The government has the authority to restrict the time, place, and manner of assembly/protest.

treat them like they treat you.

[Thud457]

You have to remember where this stems from --

Yeah, a BARTcop shooting a customer who was compliant to orders and lying on the ground.
Oh, and a handful of miscellaneous other beat-downs, too.

Terroists also use AIR

[StillNeedMoreCoffee]

It is weak argument that terroist use something so it can be denied everyone. It is one step closer to a police state. Closing down communications also closes down 911 calls, which in that city are I believe numerous and important. If something goes down in a tunnel, people have a right to protect themselves with communications, (like they seem to be able to with concealed weapons in other states).

Content Neutral?

[MarkvW]

Pretty obvious that would not be a content-neutral restriction on the rights of american citizens.

Big 1st Amendment problems with shutting down phone lines or radio lines ONLY because you want to keep certain people from talking.

Governments are terrorists

[Anonymous Coward]

The city surveillance video that shows a group of Fullerton police officers beating a homeless mentally ill man to death last year was finally released today, laying to rest any argument that Kelly Thomas was a threat to officers.

The shocking video, which was combined with an audio recorder worn by one of the police officers on the night of July 5, 2011, was shown in court today, then later released to the media.

“Now you see my fists?” Fullerton police officer Manny Ramos asked Thomas while slipping on a pair of latex gloves.

“Yeah, what about them?” Thomas responded.

“They are getting ready to fuck you up,” said Ramos, a burly cop who appears to outweigh Thomas by 100 pounds.

http://www.pixiq.com/article/shocking-video-of-kelly-thomas-released-watch-with-caution

Read the Constitution and take it literally

[Anonymous Coward]

The citizens have sovereignty not the government. So shutting it down for even military purposes is illegal and unconstitutional. Shutting it down with the intent of interfering with free speech is a clear civil rights violation and a violation of the pledge each and every officer took to uphold the Constitution. No, really.

JJ

Misleading summary.

[jklovanc]

The summary states that "This affected not only cellphone signals, but also the radio systems of Police, Fire and Ambulance crews (PDF) within the underground." The PDF is a description of the radio network and has no explanation of how shutting down microcells has anything to do with it. In fact statements from BART say that radios carried by BART employees and trains worked during the shutdown. The BART radios are completely separate from the microcell system and one does not effect the other. This is yet another inaccurate sensationistic summary.

This is ridiculous

[kilodelta]

I'm sorry - government should not be able to shut down public communication networks. The fact that this also shut down part of Public Safety concerns me greatly.

What happens when the guy is having a heart attack on the train during such and event? Seconds count. Lets say the guy dies because of government ineptitude. Well then, sue the government.

Better yet...

[Anonymous Coward]

How about we just monitor every single thing and flag anyone who sounds unstable?

Oh... never mind.

Civil Disobedience is a poor alternative

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is in both the protest and the police response. Blocking streets, confronting police, trashing businesses is not a good way to bring about positive change. OWS seems to think the more anarchy the better; we'll see if they disrupt the Democrats as much as they disrupt the Republicans or whether they are (as many suspect) just tools of people like Soros.

Citizens Band Radios

[couchslug]

CBs are cheap, and while HF won't punch underground on its own, enterprising activists could certainly build portable repeaters and try them out.

I lack local subways or I'd have at it.

Experiment with various "civilian" handheld radios and see what you get.

Re:Citizens Band Radios

[k6mfw]

Problem is for most under 30 have no idea of RF commo equipment that works on freq less than 800 MHz. Yeah I know I'm acting like a troll but from my interactions young techies are very familiar with cellphones and wifi but get this weird look on their faces when I mention UHF and VHF 2-way radios (both ham and Part 90), CB is unheard of, HF is what the old guys use.

Re:Citizens Band Radios

[PPH]

Pardon me sir. Are your pants coming unraveled or is that a VLF antenna you are dragging?

Re:Citizens Band Radios

[ArcadeNut]

Maybe someone could build something to convert a CB communication to something that works over the Internet... kind of like a CB->Skype adapter...

Whose network is it?

[PPH]

Who owns and/or operates the cellular/WiFi networks on BART property? Cellular might work from outside towers above ground, but in the tunnels, all communications require repeaters or access points. Jamming third party telecommunications might be forbidden by FCC regulations. But if one party to that link shuts their facilities down voluntarily (perhaps due to the terms of their original installation), there may not be anything one can do about it.

Here's one way to think about it: Lets say I, as a landlord, must allow the installation of equipment on my property to facilitate the communications of my customers or tenants. If I chose to impose some conditions on its use, that's my right. If I am not allowed to impose such conditions, I have the right to refuse the installation of the requisite gear. Game over. No WiFi on my property. Ever.

Mesh networking solution.. Serval Project

[Anonymous Coward]

See: http://www.servalproject.org/

Under active development, and currently available for Android as a beta software in the Android Marketplace (Google Play) this software allows voice calls to be made over a dynamic mesh network over Wifi, using self discovery of your own phone number (or you can pick another one). The code is Free and Open source, hosted at GitHub.

However, the protest is not incitement to riot.

[Anonymous Coward]

Therefore your point is invalid.

And a protest is not a violent assembly

[Anonymous Coward]

And you don't have the right to demand you are not inconvenienced. Again your points are invalid.

And, in the UK recently, someone leaving their business to go home was killed by a policeman during a protest because he didn't stop when the officer yelled at him, thinking it was about a protester, not him.

No, it's not Free Speech, sorry!

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think so. When I read the original documents, and then Google "BART DAS" to learn what was shut down, it seems to say: They did not ask carriers to shut down services. Instead, BART turned off equipment BART maintains and owns under contract to nominally repeat signals in areas where signals would not normally be able to propogate. In short, BART turned off its own equipment. I think they have every right to do that.
If they HAD gone to Verizon, etc. and said, "Hey, can you shut down these cell nodes because..." then there would be an issue.
Which is why our government doesn't own the telecoms and ISPs themselves, thank God.

You are the government

[Anonymous Coward]

You're spending dollar is the government! If you don't like what is happening with your service then don't use it in the first place. Nothing inspires change faster than taking money out of the pockets of the rich.

Quasi-Governmental?

[Somebody is Grar]

This is a major gray area that should be resolved. BART is not a government agency per se, it is "quasi-governmental." It should either be moved into the government domain, in which case, the government can decide when it can turn off wireless (or discontinue any other service), or a fully private agency, in which case it can decide for itself what services it will provide and when. Then there is the question of BART "police"...

Let's evolve a mesh type system...

[Meski]

One that the authorities can't shut down (as easily)