4 ms·

Slightly off topic: Why don't cell networks get shut down more often during large protests etc.? It seems that police use cell phones for internal communicatio

Slightly off topic: Why don't cell networks get shut down more often during large protests etc.? It seems that police use cell phones for internal communications pretty extensively -- Even when there are encrypted radio systems or channels. My guess is that UX of encrypted radio is generally terrible, and that it's a nightmare to distribute keys to all multiple agencies that might be operating in an area. So departments configure encrypted radio for internal use, but when there's large scale activity they need to fall back to cellphones for guaranteed un-eavesdroppable comms

Nasrudith 6y ago
Well for one it would be very disruptive and hard to justify. It would interfere with 911 and calling family and would scare and inconvenience the populace turning them against them and a certain safe 'status quo' apathy is what they depend upon. Social dynamics aside more people on the streets makes their job harder regardless of their demeanor - which they will if they need to go in person to check on others. The disruption to service would also be very expensive to businesses which would be encourage flight. "And we lost this multi-million dollar contract sale because the cell service to reach us anywhere went down for three days, a worse case for the company than even if rioters burnt down the whole office. Why are we located in this shithole again?"
triceratops 6y ago
> Why don't cell networks get shut down more often during large protests etc.? What problem are you trying to solve, exactly?
- 8note 6y ago
  The problem that people are allowed to disrupt society? Not everyone values free speech and rights to association
  - triceratops 6y ago
    Protests are supposed to be disruptive. That's literally the point of them. They're trying to bring about a change in the status quo. If you're American, I wonder what your thoughts are about the Boston Tea Party.

Nasrudith 6y ago

Well for one it would be very disruptive and hard to justify. It would interfere with 911 and calling family and would scare and inconvenience the populace turning them against them and a certain safe 'status quo' apathy is what they depend upon. Social dynamics aside more people on the streets makes their job harder regardless of their demeanor - which they will if they need to go in person to check on others. The disruption to service would also be very expensive to businesses which would be encourage flight. "And we lost this multi-million dollar contract sale because the cell service to reach us anywhere went down for three days, a worse case for the company than even if rioters burnt down the whole office. Why are we located in this shithole again?"

triceratops 6y ago

> Why don't cell networks get shut down more often during large protests etc.? What problem are you trying to solve, exactly?

8note 6y ago
The problem that people are allowed to disrupt society? Not everyone values free speech and rights to association
- triceratops 6y ago
  Protests are supposed to be disruptive. That's literally the point of them. They're trying to bring about a change in the status quo. If you're American, I wonder what your thoughts are about the Boston Tea Party.