San Francisco Subway Muzzles Cell Service During Protest
news.cnet.com
news.cnet.com
They provided a cel phone repeater as an amenity/courtesy to their passengers. It's not part of their charter to provide cel service.
Their goal is to keep their passengers moving efficiently. By no longer providing that cel service, they disrupted the wannabe disrupters.
Their freedom of assembly wasn't interfered with, they just didn't help it.
If the protesters relied on cel phone coverage to perform their demonstration, then their strategy failed, and they'll have to come up with another way.
They increased the presence of police in the area, so the "how will I call for an ambulance" concern is a bit melodramatic; there were emergency personal already on scene, with non-cel communication capabilities.
Personally, I feel the right to assemble/demonstrate has been extended too far into the area of "I demand the right to fuck up everyone else's day", and applaud BART for doing something about it.
"Unifying issues" seem to be somewhat of a thing of the past- it is rare you see tens or hundreds of thousands protesting anything anymore. As demonstrators grow more fringe (due to the lack of "unifying issues"- they protest things that interest only a small minority), their numbers have dwindled to the point a traditional protest is ineffective, and in an effort to secure results they have adopted more... radical techniques.
As an example, if the majority of the San Francisco Bay Area really cared about the issue at hand here, it would have been trivial to stage an effective protest. E.g., call for a boycott (effective, easy and captivating, but only if you have a large following). Pack the cars with protesters, so many that regular commuters can't get on, and refuse to get off. Protests are about demonstrating a majority, a plurality, or a very significant minority, not a tiny vocal minority.
It's like that band in California that caused the huge traffic jam as a publicity stunt. By doing what they did, they caused huge inconvenience to a lot of people, and got nothing but negative press out of it. They even ended up in court over it. Rightfully so.
If they feel that the only way to get any media attention out of their protest is under the headline of "thousands delayed for hours", then screw them and their cause.
I tend to believe that these disruptive tactics are more to get their name in the paper than to actually try and bring about change.
Uhhh, where do you think the money that's going to have to be used to clean up your mess comes from? Yeah, you have not exactly won my support.
What about all the subway tunnels that don't have cell service - is their lack of cell service unconstitutional, or is it just that once you offer someone cell service, you can never take it back?
As I understand it, no. The way Free Speech works in regards to newspapers (which are the closest well-established analogue to cellular) is you have the right to say whatever you want, in your own newspaper, because you own it.
You do not own the cellular networks, in the same way you do not own the San Francisco Chronicle, and you do not have the right to have your speech carried by either.
How then does free speech interact with cellular networks? Well, if you owned and operated your OWN cellular network (no matter the size, technology or hardware) the government cannot prevent you from transmitting to others (unless, of course, you are in violation of FCC regulations)
In short, you have a right to speech (broadcast), but there are no requirements that say intermediaries you do not own must pick up and deliver your speech (broadcast).
It would boil down, I think, to "letter of the law" vs. "spirit of the law". Personally, while I am in general a "spirit of the law" kind of guy, I find myself falling back on the letter for the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, etc. Back then they meant what they said, and they said what they meant - with incredible clarity- and it's interesting to see how much sense a rigorous "letter of the law" interpretation of those ancient laws often makes.
This could be an important subject, where the service's impingement could realistically represent a violation of my constitutional rights.
The problem is that is will be argued that using their service is at will, being on BART property is at will etc.. etc.. -- but then this is a farked up loophole to the rights within the constitution whereas we are allowing for the constitution to only be upheld in a silo of presence, property and service I directly own.
Does this mean, then, that if I have a mortgage on my home - that truly it is the banks property and therefore am not entitled to my rights?
Why so, then, would we say that when I am out of my house, on public or private property, that my rights are suspended?
We need to either protect communication and speech throughout - or not. I do not see much middle ground here.
Finally I agree that such efforts to cutoff such a fundamental service is malfeasance in that it would prevent any notification of imminent danger outside the group.
This will likely be fought by only permitting 911 - but what if the threat is from the system itself. This is directly opposed to the constitution which is designed to uphold inalienable rights of the people against tyranical systems of governance... if the only authority you can contact is the one who is directly attacking you - this is entirely flawed.
You honestly think when AT&T/Verizon inhibits your cellular service, your constitutional rights are being violated? You are aware that a private party cannot, by definition, violate your constitutional rights, as they are only protection from government, not private parties?
When you have a mortgage on your home, you own your home. It is simply used as a security, which means if you cease payment it will then no longer be your property. In any case, as your home is not a transmission vector for your speech, unlike air/radio/newspaper, ownership is irrelevant to free speech. However, if you do not own the home, damn straight you don't have the right to assembly there, any more than your neighbor has the right to assembly in your living room.
You are trying to sneak "communication" in with "speech". Communication is not a right. Recall that the First Amendment has been alternatively dubbed "Freedom of Expression".
I really wish folks would cease with this bandying about how everything should be a right. It is especially ridiculous when it is declared that a service provided by a business is a right, and it makes me wonder if many people are actually familiar with the Bill of Rights. It's hard to imagine you could be, and not understand how fundamentally different those wonderful 10 are from things like cell service and internet.
Superb. That means I can finally ban all redheads from my restaurant.
"You are trying to sneak "communication" in with "speech"."
Oh go fuck yourself sideways with a cactus, that is the most retarded reading of the the first thatI have ever heard. FURTHERMORE, you make the mistake of thinking that we only have the rights specifically mentioned on some piece of paper. This is not the case.
And there is no obligation on their part to provide access to 911. I'm sure there is some requirement for them to provide emergency assistance, but that doesn't mean passengers being able to call on their own.
If anything, I see this as being the end of their deployment of repeaters altogether. "We tried to be nice, people got upset, it became a political shitstorm, so we'll eliminate the problem and remove them so there are no future issues."
My point is that our understanding needs to evolve. While i appreciate your opinion, I think that the definitions you are holding onto so vehemently are outdated.
I am not claiming my statement should be absolute but that these ideas and definitions need to be continuously looked at. The very nature of these concepts are disrupted, adapted and morphed with the growth of civilization, thus the basis of design for societal frameworks needs to be adapted as well.
Is BART government?
I don't think it means that there is a requirement to provide the most convenient method available. Cel phone service isn't even classified as an essential service. Never mind internet access.
They didn't stop communication, they made it less convenient. The protesters had to stay within range of a normal cel tower, rather that use the locally/BART provided repeaters. "Can you hear me now?" "No."
What's next? BART has to provide the paper and photocopying to the protesters for their pamphlets so they can communicate their issues?
However, I would propose this is one example where the populous needs to start exerting their opinion on how these things should be interpreted. We are far to reticent to express our view and too complacent in accepting the position of the government in matters where it is critical that we remind the government that this is a REPRESENTATIVE democracy and as such, our views must be properly represented.
I am reminded of when I had a dispute with my home owners association about a ridiculous rule whereby I was precluded from putting up anything other than white curtains in my townhome.
The rule stated that the externally facing view of any curtains must be white. Which is what I had.
The complaint came that due to me having gold colored curtains on the interior side of my windows, at night, when the lights were on - they could tell these were not white.
They attempted to fine me. We battled for months. I went to several HOA meetings and was confronted with an opinion that "these are the rules, we do them to uphold the property values of the community" -- I emphatically reminded the HOA that not only was this argument ridiculous that WE were infact the HOA and thus WE should change the rules to not be so "fucking retarded".
I ended up winning - but the lesson was that bureaucratic authority applied unnecessarily begets mediocre minds reaching for abuseable power.
And I won't comment on the mindset it takes to move into a place that is controlled by an HOA in the first place. ;)
Complaining about morons on an HOA is like moving next to an airport and complaining about the aircraft that always seem to be around.
Also, Iam trying to point out in my other comments that I am not lokoing for rights where they do not exist, per se, but that I think we as a whole need to be open to the possibility that the framework and definition of said rights need to evolve with the changes in our society, and the expression and level of our civilization.
It appears to me that anyone denouncing those who question the current state refuse to stray from the centuries old definitions.
"In some countries such as Estonia,[5] France, [6] Spain,[7] Finland[8] and Greece,[9] Internet access has already been made a human right."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_access#Access_as_a_hum...
Otherwise, yeah. The comparisons to Egypt are a little over the top. It's awesome that cell phones work in the Bart tunnels at all.
Upvote this man (and give me some downvotes if it balances things out for you). Too few see the world this way.
You can pick up any cellphone that has a battery in it, regardless of contract status, and call 911. That is of course unless you ride BART during a protest, a time when you are much more likely to be in need of emergency services.
If you say yes, how about the USFS? When I'm up in the mountains in land managed by the USFS, I cannot always place a 911 call. Can I sue the USFS for obstructing one of my most basic human rights, access to rapid sophisticated medical response?
BART is fairly dangerous. It has it's own dedicated police force. Is it ok for movie theaters to jam cell phones? What happens when someone dies because they couldnt get thru to 911 during a protest in a major city? What about when they shut the Internet off during a riot in NY?
Does no one else see where this is going?
So during the next protest they ban cars, including emergency vehicles? People got around just fine before cars.
I don't think you quite understand, we aren't talking about people not being able to all their friends, we're talking about 911.
We need to hurry up and give our government the ability to have an Internet off switch, you know, for the safety of everyone.
If I buy a cellphone jammer and run it on my property near a government building because there is a protest going on... for the safety of everyone. I would be immediately arrested upon discovery of what I was doing.
Not sure about California.
The worst that's likely to happen is someone sues them, but good luck proving damages.
BART cut power to the wireless sites in these/tunnels tations - they didn't ask the wireless providers to terminate their services. I suspect that since the wireless sites lease space and consume power from BART operated facilities, BART is well within their rights to terminate power and other services based on existing contractual agreements.
However, that doesn't make what BART did "right." It is downright disgusting and I hope that the wireless providers mount up and put some serious pressure on BART in response. Certainly the providers are paying serious money to BART to lease space to provide service to riders, and the optics of the loss of that will hurt BART far more than it will hurt the wireless providers. At the end of the day, loss of wireless lease would really be a punch in the gut to BART, not to mention the public safety issues.
But, if you decided to use HN to organize a response to an issue and HN deleted your posts, that doesn't make HN's actions a First Amendment issue. The First Amendment does not apply for private institutions that you choose to participate on.
BART shutting down cell service is irresponsible, deplorable and something we're going to see more and more as the first world descends into the kind of place we all see it becoming.
Which is what?
The big problem is that the governing authorities assumed that everyone around BART that day was there for nefarious cause and treated everyone as a suspect, thereby shutting down potential criminal activity, yet depriving law-abiding citizens the ability to communicate freely. If the governing authorities were interested in preserving security, then they should use the means granted to them by the citizens; namely, police officers.
This sounds nice, but do you actually know what those Constitutional standards are?
First, as you seem to recognize, the area in which cell phone service was disrupted is what is considered a "nonpublic forum." The government has significant latitude to restrict speech in nonpublic forums, especially when the restriction is related to the function of that forum. Here, BART shut down cell phone service because it was informed that a group of "protesters", which had caused disruption to BART service in the past, was going to use cell phones to organize another disruption. According to reports, cell phones were to be used to communicate the locations of BART police officers to maximize the mob's ability to disrupt service.
Second, not all speech is due protection under the First Amendment. There is protected speech, and unprotected speech.Speech designed to incite violence or create a breach of the peace is not protected. There is substantial case law on this. Here, based on tweets like "We are going to show BART (@SFBART) how to prevent a riot #OpBART" and the past actions of this particular group of "protesters", it is clear that BART had a compelling reason to temporarily shut down cell phone service in its stations.
Finally, in this case, BART did not prevent this group of "protesters" from expressing ideas. It simply restricted, temporarily, a particular mode of delivery.
What about those who weren't planning to use their cell phones to incite a riot? Again, there is more latitude to restrict speech in nonpublic forums, and any restrictions here were content-neutral, narrowly drawn in terms of time, place and manner, and were for a compelling purpose (protecting public safety).
Bottom line: this is only a Constitutional issue if you have no understanding of the Constitution and First Amendment case law.
What if, while the cell sites were powered down, a crazed lunatic with a knife started stabbing people on a BART platform or train? How could anyone call for help?
This is lunacy.
So, to answer your question, BART police would have detained him, or someone would have used one of those phones to call for help.
Regarding your first question, what are you implying was their motive for doing this, if not for safety?
Disrupting protest would be an obvious motivation. The less effective the protest, the less bad press for the transit authority.
This is not your typical peaceful protest - BART was probably more concerned about preventing trains from being blocked, vandalism, and safety. And about safety - in this case, it's not some euphemism for control. These are train stations where people stand on a platform inches away from trains going at high speed. A rowdy crowd in a space like that is definitely a threat to safety.
I think of it BART taking away one of its amenities in order to maintain its core services and responsibility to safety than a draconian abuse of force. It's like a coffee shop that turns off its wifi because of abuse. Cell 'towers' placed in BART tunnels and stations are provided for the convenience of customers (as previously pointed out, not for safety).
For what it's worth, I ride the BART twice a day, every week day. I would choose train service over underground cell service any day.
If you threaten the life of a police officer, expect to be shot. That's all there is to it. These people are just looking for something to cry over.
To people saying BART did this to prevent bad PR: I'm not convinced of this. Everyone knows that doing this would cause an uproar, simply based on the fact that they get their panties in a bunch over acceptable police action.
If you want to protest, go to the streets. You don't have to clog up commuters' travel and make their day shitty. Kmart doesn't have to let you congregate inside their stores. BART doesn't have to let you congregate in the paid area.
Also, I think it's a bit ridiculous that people can write off any claim if it has to do with safety. You guys really think that it would be safe to have protesting in a train station?
If that's what actually happened, sure, but it's interesting that they refuse to release video of the event.
http://articles.sfgate.com/2011-07-05/bay-area/29737621_1_ba...
I have ill family members, and need to be able to be on a plane in a few hours notice. Avoiding some bad PR photos justifies missing that important inbound phone call?
The theory here is that if they allowed cell service to continue then protesters would have disrupted train service. So then the more pressing issue becomes getting people to the airport, not cellphone availability.
So yes, you missed your important call, but that's better than others missing their important flight.
My application is supposed to tell you when the train is coming, and it doesn't work once you walk down to the platform due to complete lack of cell service.
I chuckle at the ludicrous idea of "disrupting" something that doesn't actually work to begin with. If it worked, perhaps my app would be more useful.
Just silly.
And many of them will be angry @ BART for disabling their ability to contact friends / family during delay, look up status and alternate routes on the web, etc.
wide ripple to heavy-handed tactics.
Now if you're stuck on a train in a tunnel because protesters are causing the system to shut down, that's a different situation, but still not decidedly evil or foolish for BART to turn off its cell service. In BART's defense, they did tell everyone earlier in the day to make alternate plans and prepare for delays.
I'm sure that more flowery rhetoric could be said about the whole business, but I'm going to go with:
Bad BART. Bad. Don't do it ever again.
If it's the underground repeaters, that's their business. If it was the towers on Bart property but property of telecoms, then that's problematic -as it interrupts service to non-Bart users.
We need to find out who is repsonsible for this. We need public personal accountability for organizational decisions, particularly in the case of public and government services.
I'm guessing the AT&T customers just figured it was service as usual in SF. :)
http://www.baycitizen.org/bart-police-shooting/story/bart-ce...
with BART saying they were within their legal right to shut down the cell service. However, the Electronic Frontier Foundation had this to say:
“It’s outrageous that the authorities would resort to the same tactics of the repressive Mubarak regime,” said Kevin Bankston, a lawyer for the Electronic Frontier Foundation. “The fact that it was motivated by a desire to stifle free speech raises serious First Amendment problems.”
They disabled the power to the base stations which were deployed in specific locations (locations which are not public property). I assume they argue that they are not under any obligation to provide access to these base stations. I also assume that the base stations in question are either owned by them, or provided by the telcos.
Technically, one of the wireless providers could probably raise a stink that this action made their service look bad, but I seriously doubt they are going to take a stand in this regard.
I'd actually be surprised if that was the case though.
Or would you all prefer BART to protect people's right to tweet at the cost of lives and injuries?
BART rides trough some extremely violent neighborhoods, and carries all kinds of people, rich and poor. The fact that it works as smoothly as it does is a miracle already. Compare it with some of the trashier public transport options out there. Even some MUNI lines have some really creepy things going on on them.
In response, cell comms are disrupted, of course, by the powers in place.
It is easy to see what the response to _that_ will be... Anonymus showed it brillantly recently at Defcon. Eventually, we will have human-carried miniaturized cell tower repeaters amongst the protesters, insuring local cell coverage.
We live in interesting times...
Article misquotes. It said "ministry of lulz".
Paid areas of BART stations are reserved for ticketed passengers who are boarding, exiting or waiting for BART cars and trains, or for authorized BART personnel. No person shall conduct or participate in assemblies or demonstrations or engage in other expressive activities in the paid areas of BART stations, including BART cars and trains and BART station platforms.
Source: http://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2011/news20110812.aspx
According to Fairow, the statement from BART saying that cell carriers participated in the shutoff isn't precisely it. Fairow says that language in BART's contract with carriers allows BART to "flip a switch" to cut off service for issues of safety. A spokesperson from one of SF's major wireless carriers confirms this, and says that the carriers themselves weren't involved in the shutdown.
"Ultimately, I'm the one that implemented it," said Fairow. "It was certainly run through through channels. A lot of thought went into this."
Source: http://sfappeal.com/news/2011/08/bart-cell-fcc.php
All of the reports that I have seen (including the CNet story linked above) have retracted any statement that the wireless carriers turned off the signal at BART's request.
The bigger issue to me is that is almost certainly illegal to willfully disrupt 911 service, and it's unlikely that whoever flipped whatever switch, be it disrupting commercial power to carrier-owned base stations or a BART-owned DAS, was able to disrupt texts/voice calls to other parties selectively without disrupting 911 service.
[1] http://www.infinigy.com/PDF/InfinigyNeutralHostWhitepaper.pd...
Yeah, BART probably knows where the power switches are.
ability-to-disable seems like a pretty basic provision for allowing others' services into one's facilities.
Of course it's public space. That's where the public is!
And, BART is financed by public money and operated by an agency that reports directly to regional government.
What qualifies as an expressive activity? Saying "I love my friends!" is an expressive activity, and so is saying "BART police shouldn't shoot people who don't deserve to be shot!"
You should definitely be able to "assemble" peaceably and say whatever you want to say.
BART should be within its rights to remove people who actively disrupt the service by blocking platforms or cars or ticket booths, but going beyond that (i.e. removing someone from a train because they were critical of BART or its policies) is too far. If that's what this release is indeed implying...
In this case the more interesting issue is that a private entity disrupted telecommunications on its property without notice or warning. In addition to making it difficult for protesters to coördinate their actions, it also made it difficult for people to make unrelated calls, to report crimes, call 911, and so forth.
It might be legal, but I admit I find the idea very unsettling.
Good point though about unrelated calls, 911, crimes, etc. Had something bad happened during that time I imagine they'd be in some (more) hot water right now.
I've never been clear on this in most places I've been; I don't know if New York's MTA is part of the city, or if it's a private corporation entrusted with a public utility - and if it is, what are the ramifications?
Despite the Republicans wet dreams, we aren't at the stage (yet) where private companies shoot people who don't obey orders or resist.
ETA a link to BART's discussion of its formation: http://bart.gov/about/history/index.aspx
It's amazing to me how my primary read for years and years has been totally and utterly eaten alive by tech blogs.