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?
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.
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 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.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
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.
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.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
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.
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.
[...] 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!
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.