You need to read the following paragraphs of the publication
9.5. Distribution of Domestic Imagery. Distribution of domestic imagery to parties other than those identified in the approved PUM, DIR or MFR is prohibited, unless the recipient is reasonably perceived to have a specific, lawful governmental function requiring it IAW paragraph 11.4. Unless otherwise approved, domestic imagery must be withheld from all general access database systems (e.g., Intelink). 9.6. Navigational/Target Training activities. 9.6.1. Air Force units with weapon system video and tactical ISR capabilities may collect imagery during formal and continuation training missions as long as the collected imagery is not for the purpose of obtaining information about specific US persons or private property. Collected imagery may incidentally include US persons or private property without consent. Imagery may not be collected for the purpose of gathering any specific information about a US person or private entity, without consent, nor may stored imagery be retrievable by reference to US person identifiers. 9.6.2. Air Force Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) operations, exercise and training missions will not conduct nonconsensual surveillance on specifically identified US persons, unless expressly approved by the Secretary of Defense, consistent with US law and regulations. Civil law enforcement agencies, such as the US Customs and Border Patrol (CBP), Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI), US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and the US Coast Guard, will control any such data collected. 11.4. Dissemination. US person information in the possession of an Air Force intelligence component may be disseminated pursuant to law, a court order, or IAW the following criteria: 11.4.2. The recipient is reasonably believed to have a need to receive such information for the performance of a lawful governmental function and is: 11.4.2.2. A law enforcement entity of federal, state or local government, and the information may indicate involvement in activities that may violate laws that the recipient is responsible to enforce.
As long as the survailance is not targeted at an individual or their property the footage can be passed on to law enforcement.
BART did not cut off all protest just protest in that one type of area.
There's a big problem with the concept of protests being illegal unless sanctioned by government. Ref China, Russia, Syria etc.
There are a very strict list of reasons that a permit can be denied and "we don't agree with you" is not on that list. The government is required to do anything reasonable to allow protests to go forward. This is very different from the countries you list because they deny protests because they do not like what the protesters have to say.
And what if in a few years time the US government is not one that you trust anymore, and they are suppressing your protest?
Any denied permit can go to court to get a ruling. If the government and the courts turn against the people and the Constitution there are bigger issues than protest permits.
If there was a serious risk of accidents happening due to the protest, then that's even more reason not to cut off the emergency communication lines.
Yet another person who never read about how BART mitigated this issue. BART has a separate radio system that was still in operation. They had officers stationed on every platform with radios that use that system. Every train operator had a radio that used that system. EMS uses the same radio system as BART. There are telephones in every station that are direct lines to BART. In effect one out of five possible emergency channels was cut off. To me, that is not a problem.
If the presence of wax allows contaminants to adhere to the apples, and washing removes these contaminants, why isn't it a good idea to avoid consuming the wax and contaminants that are adhered to it?
The difference is that in the environment contaminants adhere to apples. The apples are then washed and the wax is re applied. It this point the apples are boxed and stored in contaminant free environments. In effect the apples would be the same as one picked from a tree if there were no contaminants in the environment.
If it is a good idea, why isn't it a good idea to just peel the apple rather than wonder what combination of water temperature and cleaning agents might be required to remove this artificial coating?
Many nutrients are in the skin of fruit and pealing it removes those nutrients. Since most people do not compose, the peels add to the volume of garbage. The coating does not need to be removed at all as it has the same properties as an apple picked right off the tree(only less contaminant). Do you peal apples that you pick off trees?. The wax is extremely thin and, in the case of most waxes, the coating is completely natural.
And there are plenty more non-emergency but reasonable needs for communication whilst travelling.
People seemed to get along fine before cell phones were invented and traveling. Cell phones are a convenience and not a right.
Protests are an intrinsic part of being in a democracy and shouldn't be thought of as something to be suppressed.
There are plenty of other venues to protest rater than a crowded platform with trains moving by. How about the the court house that convicted the officer of involuntary manslaughter? The protest was planned only because some people didn't think that involuntary manslaughter was a stiff enough conviction.
The idea that people should be able to protest anywhere any time is not reasonable. All organized protests must have a permit to ensure that safety, ems, sanitation, etc are planned and available to accommodate the protest. All efforts must be done to accommodate the protests but sometimes that is not possible. A protest in an unsafe area is one of those cases. The protesters did not apply for or get a permit for this protest and it is therefore an unlawful protest.
And I don't think a protest in the area is a good reason.
This is where your opinion conflicts with mine. To me, a protest in a confined area where there is a danger of people being pushed or falling on to the tracks is a safety concern sufficient to deny large protest in that area. If the protest was allowed and someone was killed the headline would have been "BART fails to act in the face of protest. Innocent rider killed".
'In the US, it would be hard to justify this type of law on either legal or normative policy grounds,' says Downs. 'The Israeli law is paternalistic in that it prohibits something because of the effect it might have on others in the longer term.'"
The US already has a law that "paternalistic in that it prohibits something because of the effect it might have on others in the longer term". It is the FDA law that prohibits unsubstantiated medical claims because it might cause people to ignore treatments that actually work. The issue of under weight and Photoshoped images is that they cause people to attempt to attain that standard and cause health issues. This has been proven to happen.
But what about if there is an accident in the theater and no one can call 911; panic will ensue. I can't phone friends to tell them how bad the movie is it is censorship and agains my right to freedom of speech.Sounds kind of dumb doesn't it but this is the logic used by many to blast BART for shutting off cellular coverage in response to a planned protest.
That would assume that it was a Faraday cage. That is a reasonable assumption as that is the standard way of blocking radio waves. According to one of the articles it is a diffraction grid that can be tuned to the frequencies that it will absorb and filter.
... lying is part of the job description of a good CEO. Writing code isn't. So Thompson has proven his qualifications.
I see this as Thompson failing as he lied about an easily verifiable fact and was caught. Anyone can lie but CEOs have to lie well; Thompson failed at that.
There is an excellent book, Fly in the Ointment, that debunks a number of these kinds of issues.
I especially like the one about peeling apples because they have been coated in chemicals. The chemicals they are coated with is simple wax used to replace the naturally occurring wax that is removed during the washing process. Why wash the apples? To remove fungus spores, dirt and insect eggs. Why replace the wax? To prevent premature spoilage due to excess oxygen getting to the fruit.
That is true if you don't want to use your cell phone either. The pattern is designed to filter frequencies used by WiFi but not those used by cell phones. You can not do that with paint.
Say a military drone is tasked with border security. On the way to the border it is much safer if the pilot can see where he is going so has the cameras turned on. He happens to see a crime going on. What should the pilot do? Ignore it as he is not supposed to be watching Americans or report it and pass the recording on to the police? All video from a drone is saved. All this is doing is clarifying that video taken in the US must be destroyed after 90 days. Why 90 days? Maybe because it gives time for police to request the video if they are investigating crime that might have been recorded by the drone.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
By blocking the cellphones BART curtailed the coordinated movement op people to vulnerable platforms and thereby curtailed the overloading of those platforms..
Slashdot Mirror
You need to read the following paragraphs of the publication
9.5. Distribution of Domestic Imagery. Distribution of domestic imagery to parties other than those identified in the approved PUM, DIR or MFR is prohibited, unless the recipient is reasonably perceived to have a specific, lawful governmental function requiring it IAW paragraph 11.4. Unless otherwise approved, domestic imagery must be withheld from all general access database systems (e.g., Intelink).
9.6. Navigational/Target Training activities.
9.6.1. Air Force units with weapon system video and tactical ISR capabilities may collect imagery during formal and continuation training missions as long as the collected imagery is not for the purpose of obtaining information about specific US persons or private property. Collected imagery may incidentally include US persons or private property without consent. Imagery may not be collected for the purpose of gathering any specific information about a US person or private entity, without consent, nor may stored imagery be retrievable by reference to US person identifiers.
9.6.2. Air Force Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) operations, exercise and training missions will not conduct nonconsensual surveillance on specifically identified US persons, unless expressly approved by the Secretary of Defense, consistent with US law and regulations. Civil law enforcement agencies, such as the US Customs and Border Patrol (CBP), Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI), US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and the US Coast Guard, will control any such data collected.
11.4. Dissemination. US person information in the possession of an Air Force intelligence component may be disseminated pursuant to law, a court order, or IAW the following criteria:
11.4.2. The recipient is reasonably believed to have a need to receive such information for the performance of a lawful governmental function and is:
11.4.2.2. A law enforcement entity of federal, state or local government, and the information may indicate involvement in activities that may violate laws that the recipient is responsible to enforce.
As long as the survailance is not targeted at an individual or their property the footage can be passed on to law enforcement.
BART did not cut off all protest just protest in that one type of area.
There's a big problem with the concept of protests being illegal unless sanctioned by government. Ref China, Russia, Syria etc.
There are a very strict list of reasons that a permit can be denied and "we don't agree with you" is not on that list. The government is required to do anything reasonable to allow protests to go forward. This is very different from the countries you list because they deny protests because they do not like what the protesters have to say.
And what if in a few years time the US government is not one that you trust anymore, and they are suppressing your protest?
Any denied permit can go to court to get a ruling. If the government and the courts turn against the people and the Constitution there are bigger issues than protest permits.
If there was a serious risk of accidents happening due to the protest, then that's even more reason not to cut off the emergency communication lines.
Yet another person who never read about how BART mitigated this issue. BART has a separate radio system that was still in operation. They had officers stationed on every platform with radios that use that system. Every train operator had a radio that used that system. EMS uses the same radio system as BART. There are telephones in every station that are direct lines to BART. In effect one out of five possible emergency channels was cut off. To me, that is not a problem.
If the presence of wax allows contaminants to adhere to the apples, and washing removes these contaminants, why isn't it a good idea to avoid consuming the wax and contaminants that are adhered to it?
The difference is that in the environment contaminants adhere to apples. The apples are then washed and the wax is re applied. It this point the apples are boxed and stored in contaminant free environments. In effect the apples would be the same as one picked from a tree if there were no contaminants in the environment.
If it is a good idea, why isn't it a good idea to just peel the apple rather than wonder what combination of water temperature and cleaning agents might be required to remove this artificial coating?
Many nutrients are in the skin of fruit and pealing it removes those nutrients. Since most people do not compose, the peels add to the volume of garbage. The coating does not need to be removed at all as it has the same properties as an apple picked right off the tree(only less contaminant). Do you peal apples that you pick off trees?. The wax is extremely thin and, in the case of most waxes, the coating is completely natural.
And there are plenty more non-emergency but reasonable needs for communication whilst travelling.
People seemed to get along fine before cell phones were invented and traveling. Cell phones are a convenience and not a right.
Protests are an intrinsic part of being in a democracy and shouldn't be thought of as something to be suppressed.
There are plenty of other venues to protest rater than a crowded platform with trains moving by. How about the the court house that convicted the officer of involuntary manslaughter? The protest was planned only because some people didn't think that involuntary manslaughter was a stiff enough conviction.
The idea that people should be able to protest anywhere any time is not reasonable. All organized protests must have a permit to ensure that safety, ems, sanitation, etc are planned and available to accommodate the protest. All efforts must be done to accommodate the protests but sometimes that is not possible. A protest in an unsafe area is one of those cases. The protesters did not apply for or get a permit for this protest and it is therefore an unlawful protest.
And I don't think a protest in the area is a good reason.
This is where your opinion conflicts with mine. To me, a protest in a confined area where there is a danger of people being pushed or falling on to the tracks is a safety concern sufficient to deny large protest in that area. If the protest was allowed and someone was killed the headline would have been "BART fails to act in the face of protest. Innocent rider killed".
Read the book but here is some info;
Most waxes are bees wax, carnauba and candelilla wax, shellac or oxidized polyethylene. So the waxes use are harmless.
'In the US, it would be hard to justify this type of law on either legal or normative policy grounds,' says Downs. 'The Israeli law is paternalistic in that it prohibits something because of the effect it might have on others in the longer term.'"
The US already has a law that "paternalistic in that it prohibits something because of the effect it might have on others in the longer term". It is the FDA law that prohibits unsubstantiated medical claims because it might cause people to ignore treatments that actually work. The issue of under weight and Photoshoped images is that they cause people to attempt to attain that standard and cause health issues. This has been proven to happen.
But what about if there is an accident in the theater and no one can call 911; panic will ensue. I can't phone friends to tell them how bad the movie is it is censorship and agains my right to freedom of speech.Sounds kind of dumb doesn't it but this is the logic used by many to blast BART for shutting off cellular coverage in response to a planned protest.
That would assume that it was a Faraday cage. That is a reasonable assumption as that is the standard way of blocking radio waves. According to one of the articles it is a diffraction grid that can be tuned to the frequencies that it will absorb and filter.
... lying is part of the job description of a good CEO. Writing code isn't. So Thompson has proven his qualifications.
I see this as Thompson failing as he lied about an easily verifiable fact and was caught. Anyone can lie but CEOs have to lie well; Thompson failed at that.
There is an excellent book, Fly in the Ointment, that debunks a number of these kinds of issues.
I especially like the one about peeling apples because they have been coated in chemicals. The chemicals they are coated with is simple wax used to replace the naturally occurring wax that is removed during the washing process. Why wash the apples? To remove fungus spores, dirt and insect eggs. Why replace the wax? To prevent premature spoilage due to excess oxygen getting to the fruit.
That is true if you don't want to use your cell phone either. The pattern is designed to filter frequencies used by WiFi but not those used by cell phones. You can not do that with paint.
Say a military drone is tasked with border security. On the way to the border it is much safer if the pilot can see where he is going so has the cameras turned on. He happens to see a crime going on. What should the pilot do? Ignore it as he is not supposed to be watching Americans or report it and pass the recording on to the police?
All video from a drone is saved. All this is doing is clarifying that video taken in the US must be destroyed after 90 days. Why 90 days? Maybe because it gives time for police to request the video if they are investigating crime that might have been recorded by the drone.
Let loose the tin hat brigade
Let loose the tin hat brigade
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.
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.
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.
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
Citation
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
By blocking the cellphones BART curtailed the coordinated movement op people to vulnerable platforms and thereby curtailed the overloading of those platforms..