Slashdot Mirror
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."
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?
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
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.
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." "
I have the hiccups.
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.
sudo make me a sandwich
Why not just restrict the services that can be used down to emergency services only?
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
Unless you are protecting a military asset, keep your hands off the jammer / wire-cutters. Period.
Find another solution.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
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"?
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.
Palm trees and 8
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.
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?
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
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.
Palm trees and 8
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?
Palm trees and 8
You can't shut down cell services there may be an emergency call that needs to be made.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
This pretty much boils down to a principal-agent problem
Set your phasers on "funky"!
Best time to cut it off.
Any time you want, man. Just rent a bulldozer and you're good to go.
---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
The government wants to be able to squelch protests.
I think the answer is NEVER.
One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on
Have them right "I will not turn off Wireless Communications" on a blackboard over and over again until they get the point.
What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
Martial law is declared.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Seems like an easy answer to me -- the government has the authority to inhibit free speech any time they declare martial law.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
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.
Learn to love Alaska
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?
No sir I dont like it.
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).
Palm trees and 8
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.
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.
Palm trees and 8
...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.
...Walkie Talkie.
~Just as a thing fails if it lacks a kernel, so too it fails if it lacks a skin. ~ Rumi, Discourses
Cell phone disruption is a standard practice of cracking down by totalitarian governments.
Has the US government scolded any country for doing that?
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
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.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Monopoly on Violence determines who is the 'authority'. The argument becomes moot after that.
Good-bye
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.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
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).
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.
Sounds like a interesting project.
They don't penetrate ground very well. BART radios have repeaters in the stations so their radios still work.
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.
I am John Hurt.
Might makes right.
I am John Hurt.
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.
Learn to love Alaska
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.
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.
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.
Hollywood, Television, has become the dream machine. We need to take that back; each of us is a Dream Machine
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.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
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.
Have gnu, will travel.
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.
People should not fear their government. Governments should fear their people.
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.
Hollywood, Television, has become the dream machine. We need to take that back; each of us is a Dream Machine
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"...
Grar II
One that the authorities can't shut down (as easily)