BART admits halting cell service to stop protesters

[Newsjock]

Source: San Francisco Chronicle

BART officials acknowledged this afternoon that they shut down cell phone and wireless data service in its downtown San Francisco stations to disrupt a planned protest. Their announcement sparked denunciations from civil libertarians and the apparent threat of a cyber-attack on the BART website.

A statement posted on the transit agency's website said the communications blackout was ordered in the interest of public safety.

... BART warned Thursday that groups planned surprise protests of the fatal July 3 shooting of a knife-wielding man, Charles Blair Hill, on the platform at Civic Center Station. BART Police said they learned that the groups planned to coordinate their protests using cell phones and text messages, and that they planned to block trains and disrupt service.

Civil libertarians and people concerned about passenger safety objected to the cell service shutdown. BART officials said they stationed additional personnel in downtown stations and on trains in case of emergencies. They also said their prime concern was protecting the safety of BART riders, employees and protesters.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/08/12/BAEU1KMS8U.DTL&tsp=1

---

Source: KCBS

... But the move to cut off cell service has been questioned by many people.

“I do think this does raise serious questions about whether or not First Amendment rights were violated,” said Kevin Bankston, a staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

KCBS Technology Analyst Larry Magid said he has never seen a situation like this before.

... “I understand why protesters would want to use the technology. I understand why BART would want to block it,” he said. “But it does bring up a lot of important issues.”

Read more: http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2011/08/12/bart-questioned-over-cell-phone-service-disruption/

---

Source: Christian Science Monitor

The decision by Bay Area Rapid Transit officials to cut off cellphone service Thursday evening – to forestall a planned protest – raises a fundamental question: Do Americans have a basic right to digital free speech or to digitally organized assembly?

... This may be the first time a government agency in the United States has ever deliberately disrupted cellphone service to defang planned protests, criminologist Casey Jordan told CNN. “I haven’t been able to find another incident in which this has happened,” she told CNN’s Suzanne Malveaux Friday.

... The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) forbids jamming cellphones, but BART's move had a different legal context. Because the transit system contracts with five large telecommunications firms to provide underground and station service, BART did not use jamming technology, it simply turned off a service.

... "Government can legitimately stop speech for public safety purposes, but it has to be the narrowest possible response, it has to be reasonable, and there has to be an imminent threat," says Gene Policinski, executive director of the First Amendment Center at Vanderbilt University, in Nashville. "It can't be done on mere speculation."

Read more: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2011/0812/To-defuse-flash-protest-BART-cuts-riders-cell-service.-Is-that-legal

[leveymg]

1. Protestors organized events before cell phones, texting and FB, and will after Tweets are long gone.

[eridani]

34. I'm sure every old fart here whoever demonstrated for or against anything--

--had exactly the same thought.

[MADem]

41. Good grief! Remember "flyers?" Posters? Calling people up on land line phones?

How the hell did we ever get anything done?

Seems that back in the day, more people showed up for these sorts of things with those antiquated means of communication than the "check the tweets" crowd can drum up today...

[AsahinaKimi]

2. "blackout was ordered in the interest of public safety"

If anyone believes that.. we have a bridge for Sale..

[civilisation]

9. Will you think it is an issue when the black out a whole city?

London is already coming up with a blackout strategy,. U.S. cities likely already have them,.

It is the same old crisis/solution dichotomy at work here,. instigate riots, stand down the cops,. let the looters run rampant for a few days,. when enough people are crying for help,. then suddenly bring in (obviously pre-prepared) laws to address the "crisis". It keeps being done over and over, on every scale,. it is a pattern, watch for it. The current financial crisis will generate a "solution" shortly. It will likely be anti-democratic, and help the rich get richer as the masses loose more and more power and rights.

[AsahinaKimi]

24. I think for BART it was a lame excuse..

We know exactly why they used this option. To try to prevent something from happening on their door step.

The whole thing is, however, what if someone has a real emergency, like perhaps for example, having a baby (or something), and the lines of communication are cut off? Will their response be "tough crap" when someone dies or is injured by their actions?

[JoeyT]

40. They'll just blame that on the people that "caused" the blackout.

We saw exactly how willing the media was to question our government over disastrous policies during Katrina. They were especially happy to blame every screwup on the actual victims of the disaster. Since they'll probably be blacking out the internet, or at least parts of it, it isn't like there will be a counter narrative.

[jberryhill]

59. Yeah NOBODY USES BART to get to a medical appointment

[Blue_Tires]

3. how exactly is that done? and what legal authority do they have??

[AtheistCrusader]

5. Turned off cell repeaters and wifi routers inside the stations.

Don't get very good signal in there, without that active equipment.

Which is sort of amusing given they encouraged people to call police, if they saw anything suspicious/riot like. Hard to do if your cell phone doesn't work.

[pennylane100]

4. I am reluctant to agree with them but knowing how demonstrations can get out of hand

I would prefer to be above ground while it is happening so innocent people can get out of the way.

[jtuck004]

8. Respectfully, you really buyin' that load of crap? By that logic, since people have been killed

by these trains, and passengers have been unruly, should we shut BART down and fill in the tunnels.

Most people would say disagree, because it serves such an important purpose.

And so does making sure the Free Speech rights of people in this country are preserved.

I hope they don't think they can just disrupt the service and the people go away. Heck, it might just erupt
into exactly what they feared, because they interfered.

[pennylane100]

21. I have no idea if it was a load of crap or not;

I just said that if there were to be a demonstration in Bart,I would rather not be underground when it happened. You are attacking a straw man when you suggest that I would be OK with shutting BART and filling the tunnels so I will leave that remark alone. Shutting off cell phone service to avoid a riot is not a total denial of free speech, people can still say what they want, just not on the phone and just for a while.

I have no idea if this was done because of a real fear of riots or because the police wanted to act like jerks. I think that because it happened in San Francisco, there must have been some high level of consultation first and I do not believe that the city is run by a bunch of fascist. I am, therefore, prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt. You can certainly disagree with that but please leave the hyperbole out if you want to get taken seriously.

[jtuck004]

23. There was no mention of riot except perhaps among those involved in the "high level of consultation"

and in the missive above that complains about hyperbole. Seems infectious. ;) And I never said you would be OK with anything, just pointed out the parallel logic and the absurd end it could lead to.

The protesters only said they might interfere with service, which mostly means inconvenience, not a loss of control by mobs. Which is something that might happen, vs the interference with civil rights, which is something that DID happen.

A "high level of consultation" doesn't add any legitimacy. The rights of people are often trampled after a "high level of consultation", which doesn't mean anything except the use, or abuse, of power. I am sure there was a "high level of consultation" before the police shot and killed a man that witnesses say was only drunk and wavering, not lunging, not attacking. And shot by a policeman that had a teaser capable of shooting from several feet away while his or her partner covered the situation with a deadlier weapon. The same police department that shot and killed a handcuffed and unarmed man in the back while he was laying on the ground not that long ago. Presumably given that same policing authority after a "high level of consultation" by their employers.

Heck, I am pretty sure that when this country was founded and the laws that gave rise to this controversy were written there was a "high level of consultion" on the part of the British when they tried to stop it. Didn't give them any legitimacy either. Just self-important 18th Century losers.

A "high level of consultation" doesn't give any legitimacy to killing/murder or interfering with people's constitutional right to protest by a tax-supported entity. Doesn't mean a damn thing, really. Just one more excuse to justify an abuse of authority. And I am pretty sure they don't need any more excuses.

[pennylane100]

33. I cannot believe that we are still discussing who said what but here goes,

Let us start at the beginning, "You are buying into that load of crap" Actually it has not definitively been determined to be "a load of crap". It may well turn out to be one until then, the label is a little premature.

Hyperbole is suggesting that those who disagree with you would even consider "shutting down BART and filling in the tunnels". Your words, not mine.

Moving on to "Protestors only say they may interfere with service which mostly means inconvenience" that seems like a very hands off attitude regarding the rights of the people who want to, or have to get home on time. The working parent who has to pick a child up from preschool on time will just have to pay the fine for being late. Even if it costs them lunch money for the rest of the week. So it appears to be OK to deliberately plan a disruption of service and cause all kinds of problems for passengers. Where did their rights go.

"A high level of consultation does not add legitimacy" So now you are concerned with legalities. Well I never claimed there was legitimacy, I just said that I was prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt. You are certainly free to disagree with me and it really is not necessary to quote all the wrongs that have been committed by authorities on innocent citizens. I already know most of them. The history lesson was also not needed. The bottom line is that there were no acts of violence and people were without their cell phone service for a few hours.

There certainly are many instances where government does deny the rights of its citizens, I just am not sure this is one of them. I like to save my energy to fight what I consider to be real injustices, not tilt at windmills.

[kelly1mm]

6. I don't think you have a constitutional right to have cell phone 'repeater'

service in underground train platforms. They simply turned off a service that they had no legal obligation to provide in the first place. There was no jamming, no confiscation, just no service.

That's noit to say it wasn't a dick move, just not illegal/unconstitutional.

Look at it this way - if BART did not have the underground service, cell phones would not work there anyway. Would that be a constitutional violation?

[CreekDog]

11. sounds like you're a strict constructionist

by that reasoning do you have a right to a phone wire running through your neighborhood --because that's what it takes to get service to your home.

if you don't have that right they can be shut off and by your logic --you're SOL.

[joshcryer]

30. Wires run through private property so there's an argument for that. Spectrum flies through the air.

Spectrum is by definition a public asset, otherwise we wouldn't have the FCC. Corporations want to own all the spectrum so that individuals cannot use it for their own public ends. Super WiFi will change that.

[MADem]

48. I know some people sleep in the subway, but come on--you pay a bill

for reasonably reliable landline service TO your HOME--not your car, pocket or purse. Cellphone service is never "guaranteed" everywhere in any city. It never has been. That big truck in front of you can block the signal, the weather can, too.

You don't get a signal? You have to get up off your butt and go to where you can get one. No one pays BART a fee for guaranteed cell service--they provide it as a perk. And the BART giveth, and the BART can taketh away.

[snooper2]

58. So next time you are at the coffee shop and they turn off the free wi-fi

are you going to scream that they are taking away your rights?

[blackspade]

18. But the intent was to limit and disrupt a constitutional protest.

That is the issue.

[annabanana]

56. BINGO! What YOU said. . . . . .n/t

[sendero]

20. If someone had died..

...because emergency help could not be contacted, you and the idiots at BART would be singing a different tune and they would be writing a large check.

Fuck these fascists.

[MADem]

49. What did people do before cell phones? Why, go talk to that cop

three feet from the protest. He gets on his radio, and here comes the ambulance.

What? You're in the subway station, and not near the protest? Go tell the guy in the ticket booth. He has one of those landline phones that used to be popular back in the dark ages.

We aren't talking about the hills of Kentucky here (where you might not have good cell reception, either).

You're being hyperbolic.

[joshcryer]

27. Spectrum is a public owned asset, and there's a constitutional argument for it being freed.

Therefore all spaces where spectrum can exist should not be limited or locked down.

[MADem]

50. No agency is obligated to "pump it in," though. Go to the sidewalk and make your call. NT

[RandySF]

7. I have mixed feelings

Cutting wireless service can be a potential hazard, but the last big protest was equally hazardous. People could not even get out of train (I was in one of them) and one protestor climbed on top of a rail car.

[Zywiec]

10. K&R

[Shining Jack]

12. Why you Little!

[Newsjock]

13. Al-Jazeera: US railway blocked phones to quash protest

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2011/08/201181221139693608.html

... The wireless service in BART's underground stations is provided by Sprint, Verizon, AT&T and T-Mobile. Wagner said the providers could have cut off service in multiple ways, some less sophisticated than others.

The companies could simply have shut down cellular base stations providing signals near the particular BART platforms, he said, or they could have employed a more complicated method of triangulation using multiple base stations to determine cell phones' exact locations, which is done for 911 emergency calls.

"It might be technologically possible for carriers to use this location information to target phones within a particular neighbourhood and shut down service to all phones in that neighborhood," he said. "However, this might require more sophistication, so I don't know whether cellphone carriers would have been able to pull this approach together on short notice."

Jesse Choper, a professor at the Berkeley School of Law and a constitutional law expert, said BART could argue it had acted to preserve public safety rather than halt a protest but that blocking mobile services to entire areas may have obstructed more free speech than was necessary.

[Newsjock]

14. EFF attorney: 'It's enough to make you think that you're in Syria'

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/techchron/detail?entry_id=95300

This afternoon, I briefly spoke to Kevin Bankston, senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, about the potential legal issues raised by the action. EFF is a digital rights advocacy group based in San Francisco.

Q: What was your reaction to BART's decision?

A: It's enough to make you think that you're in Syria, rather than the birthplace of the modern free speech movement.

... Q: So this is the first such case you've ever heard of?

A: This is the first time I have seen an interruption in cell phone service at the request of a government outside of the Arab Spring. They literally pulled a Mubarak (the former Egyptian president).

[6000eliot]

15. They learned their lesson from the Arab Spring, I guess.

[Tejas]

16. STUPID! Whoever authorized this should be arrested and charged.

"protecting the safety of BART riders, employees and protesters"


How, by depriving citizens of the means of summoning help during a mugging or rape? What if a fellow passenger suffered a heart attack or a child needed similar emergency attention?

Stupid! Someone in BART is absolutely STUPID !

[Frank1]

22. Safety

It seems there were safety concerns on both sides as already mentioned.

Shouldn't BART be able to protect itself too from vandalism and disruptions?

[MadMaddie]

26. Should Bart prevent business people from using their cell phones

in pursuit of their business? What about the majority of the riders who were not remotely involved in the so called protest? Kinda like pre-emptive war...hunh.....?

To punish the many for fear of a few...sounds like scaredy pants adults...

[Tejas]

35. "Shouldn't BART be able to protect itself..." This is a joke, right?

Tell that to the woman that goes into labor with no means of summoning emergency assistance. Sorry to be so terse, but NO!

[NYC_SKP]

37. Lawsuits. Damned if they do and damned if they don't.

From their point of view, they don't want riots and chaos and lawsuits for NOT having stopped communication.

No doubt some fool would sue them, they'd pass the cost on to customers......

But then, as you indicate, they're open to suit if they block communications should someone suffer injury for lack of use of their phone.

So they're damned if they do and damned if they don't.

And the ridership suffers either way, by increased fares or decreased communication services.

Because of the fear of lawsuits, largely.

:shrug:

[MADem]

51. If she's on a train, all she has to do is pull the cord. If she is at a protest, all she has to do

is tell the cop standing at the barriers. If she's in the station, she can tell the ticket taker.

What do you think people did before cell phones?

You know, once upon a time, we all got along without them. The world didn't end. Babies were delivered, and "emergency assistance" was summoned.

[blackspade]

17. Got Fascism?

This rabbit hole has no bottom....

[radhika]

19. Technical question, please....

How is this done - we have different phones and different services? And if this is done somewhere in the future - what can we do to connect another way?

Any suggestions or clarifications would be appreciated.

[joshcryer]

29. They shut the power to the cell phone repeaters within the tunnels.

BART doesn't own the cell phone towers and it would take a command from someone a lot higher up to shut off cell phone towers. I'm thinking a mayor might be able to pull strings but we're talking governor level stuff here (or someone at the federal level if a terrorist event is happening).

BART controls the repeaters apparently and can do with them what they will.

Not much you can do about it short of throwing away your corporate owned cell phones and use a mesh network of cell phones that use SuperWifi (they do not exist yet, so as of now there is no solution).

[radhika]

31. Good to know, thanks. n/t

[MadMaddie]

25. This is not acceptable! WTF are we in a 3rd world dictatorship?

This paranoia is out of control.

What if the cell ph of an individual is their only mode of communication? What if their lives were in peril and they needed the police.

This is the reason why I still have a land line....this is where the Right Wing wants to take the country make no mistake about it.

[joshcryer]

28. Eben Moglen has been warning about this for years. He's a modern day prophet.

But it's not really prophetic in a spiritual sense, merely common sense. Authoritarian states want to control you, and corporations are happy to oblige.

[Grrrfun]

32. ummm... what if

somebody had an emergency and they cut off response to it with this stunt?

[MADem]

52. Tell the policeman who will be there, monitoring the protest. He will summon help.

Tell a guy in the ticket booth, or a BART security guy. You think there won't be anyone around when the stations are open?

What do you think people did before cellphones?

[Zywiec]

36. kick

[tawadi]

38. I expected more from San Francisco

:-(

[Downwinder]

39. Worked so well for Mubarek.

[bemildred]

42. I'd turn it off to make people pay attention to what's going on.

The BART station is no place to be spacing out the internets, texting, or phone calls.

[aranthus]

43. You don't have a right to cell service to help you commit a crime.

Protesting is one thing, but apparently these protesters intended to stop trains. That's illegal and dangerous. BART had the right to turn off service to stop them.

[Downwinder]

44. How many drug deals go down without a telephone conversation?

How many telephone companies have been ceased for aiding a criminal act?

[aranthus]

45. If they knew it was happening ahead of time

and there was a public safety issue, then they could block the service. I don't know that you would have many drug deals that fit that bill.

[Downwinder]

46. And if someone might excede the speed limit, shall we shut down the road?

[aranthus]

47. Again, if they knew ahead of time

that a group of people were going to use a freeway for street racing, then shutting down the freeway might make sense. It depends on how much accurate foreknowledge they have, and how dangerous the conduct is. BART had apparently accurate information that a large number of people were going to shut down the trains. That's different from what just one person "might" do.

[MADem]

54. How many drug buys involve trains with people on them being brought to a halt by nefarious means?

Apples and oranges.

And we aren't talking about a "telephone company." This does not involve a "telephone company" at all. We're talking about BART not turning on THEIR repeater so that people who wish them ill can coordinate illegal acts against the agency. If those people want to coordinate, they'll have to go out to the sidewalk to make their call--and odds are good they won't get back in.

[MADem]

53. +1 nt

[NoodleyAppendage]

55. The fact that they knew about this ahead of time suggests gov't spies in the groups.

Bank on this BART thing being blown by spies planted in the protest groups' camps. This is worse than the jamming, IMHO.

J

[yurbud]

57. isn't SF supposed to be a progressive community? Elected officials need to be told to stop this or

find a new job.

[ministry9]

60. explain

HOW IS THIS LEGAL?