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?

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?

[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?

[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.

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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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]

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?

[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?

[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?

[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.

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.

when

[geekoid]

Martial law is declared.

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.

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).