8 ms·

San Francisco Subway Muzzles Cell Service During Protest

142 points by hornokplease 15y ago

Anti-Ratfish 15y ago
>Meanwhile, they also released a digital flyer with the words "muBARTek," "Mystery of Lulz,"< Article misquotes. It said "ministry of lulz".
nettdata 15y ago
Am I the only one who doesn't see a problem with this? 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.
- sliverstorm 15y ago
  In regards to the right to assemble/demonstrate, I personally believe that the public's idea (or at least perception) of what makes an effective (nonviolent) demonstration has changed. "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.
  - nettdata 15y ago
    On top of that, I have to wonder about the mindset of the protesters. If they protest, and cause an interruption or major inconvenience to me, then odds are I won't care what their cause is, I won't support them. That is no way for them to gain my support. Do something for charity, for the community, or in some other non-disruptive manner, and be respectful of others in the community. 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.
    - sliverstorm 15y ago
      It was even better when I was in college and protesters trashed campus buildings. 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.
- samstave 15y ago
  Freedom of speech implies the freedom to communicate. Given the era of technology has made it such that the communications infrastructure is fundamental to our speech and communication, it could be construed that removing this is violating our constitutional rights.
  - yummies 15y ago
    Would you say that airlines are violating your right to free speech because they make you turn off your cell phones in flight? 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?
    - sliverstorm 15y ago
      is their lack of cell service unconstitutional 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).
      - sliverstorm 15y ago
        I will add that if BART had instead employed the use of cell phone jammers, this would be much murkier. On the one hand, you could argue a jammer is essentially "intercepting" your transmission. On the other hand (the view that I favor, knowing a thing or two about radio) you could argue the jammer is in reality simply "drowning you out"- which could infringe upon your right to be heard, except I don't know if such a right actually exists. 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.
- IsaacSchlueter 15y ago
  It was kind of lame that I couldn't read LessWrong on my commute home. I really enjoy that part of my day. 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.
  - sliverstorm 15y ago
    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. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r1CZTLk-Gk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r1CZTLk-Gk
pstephens 15y ago
The issue isn't access, it's injustice. Don't let the topic change to some bland consumer access issue -- Why does BART mandate its officers carry lethal force?
SeoxyS 15y ago
BART exists to transport people safely and efficiently. I think they do a fantastic job of it. They manage to make BART travel reliable, fast and safe. The presence of a strong and armed police force is necessary and fundamentally a good thing. If disrupting cell service protects riders, then it is the right course of action. 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.
tinio 15y ago
Additional details on the matter are reported here: http://www.baycitizen.org/bart-police-shooting/story/bart-cell-phone-service-legal/ 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.”
stevenp 15y ago
As a frequent public transit rider in SF, and the developer of a popular Muni iPhone app, let me say: If you told anyone in SF thought that there was intentionally functioning cell service in the subway tunnels, they would LAUGH. 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.
bherms 15y ago
Wouldn't this effectively be violating freedom of assembly?
- hornokplease 15y ago
  BART's initial statement includes the following: 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 http://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2011/news20110812.aspx
  - egiva 15y ago
    The justification being that the area isn't "public" so the right to public assembly doesn't apply? I find it really interesting that they have that sort of macro-control on the cell broadcast antennas in the BART stations in order to turn service on and off...that implies a system to control or coordinate wireless broadcast access throughout the system...
    - pavel_lishin 15y ago
      They don't, I don't think. They contacted the providers directly and asked them to do it. They don't just have a magical pull-switch - they just have phones, and apparently a lot of pull.
      - bdb 15y ago
        Pure speculation on my part, but given the limited suitable equipment space available in each BART station, it's likely that BART has deployed a neutral host (i.e., BART-owned, not carrier-owned) distributed antenna system[1] throughout their stations. In that case, it's easy for them to cut power to the actual RF gear without carrier intervention (and without having to worry about those pesky strings of 48V batteries keeping things running.) 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.pdf http://www.infinigy.com/PDF/InfinigyNeutralHostWhitepaper.pd...
sfboy88 15y ago
I had a feeling BART was up to some BS when my phone just did not work at Civic Center yesterday. It was also nice to share the platform with police fully decked out in riot gear. The only positive thing was that the trains were empty because of all the hullabaloo
tlb 15y ago
It is not OK for the government to cut off citizen communications in times of civil unrest or any other time. BART, which has its own police force, must be held to constitutional standards. While they can prohibit assembly within their stations, disabling communications infrastructure violates people's basic rights.
- jeygifford 15y ago
  This is why government should not be in the cell phone (or tower, or repeater) business. Just as they should not be involved in the newspaper, news reporting or any other business not related to actual governing. Giving any government the power to shut down communication is a nasty, slippery slope. Once it's OK to quash communication in the subway, then it's OK to quash it just outside the subway; then for one block around the subway; then for 10 blocks around the subway ad infinitum. 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.
- hammock 15y ago
  Didn't Obama recently sign a bill giving him and any future president power to shut off nationwide internet during times of "crisis'?
  - tedunangst 15y ago
    No.
- ImprovedSilence 15y ago
  The tricky part here is, BART shut off the communications, and told everyone else after the fact.
- TGJ 15y ago
  What basic right is that?
tibbon 15y ago
I'm laughing at the fact that BART thinks they can effectively control people with this. This will only make things worse.
lowglow 15y ago
I'm speechless. This is insane and I fear it will only get worse.
tshtf 15y ago
Are they really concerned about public safety? 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.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- skroth 15y ago
  From the article: "In addition, numerous BART police officers and other BART personnel were present during the planned protest, and train intercoms and white courtesy telephones remained available for customers seeking assistance or reporting suspicious activity." 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?
  - mcantelon 15y ago
    >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.
    - yummies 15y ago
      Read what happened last time there was a protest by this group: http://sfist.com/2011/07/12/bart_protesters_chant_vandalize_and.php#photo-1 http://sfist.com/2011/07/12/bart_protesters_chant_vandalize_... 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.
mc32 15y ago
Was it the underground cell repeaters? Or the cell towers on BART property --for which they lease out the land to telecom providers? 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.
- WalterSear 15y ago
  They are asserting it's the underground repeaters. Apparently, they approached the telcos and the telcos wouldn't play. 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.
- dunham 15y ago
  I believe just the underground repeaters - probably just in San Francisco proper. I had one bar on the east end of the embarcadero station (Verizon), probably from outside, but I couldn't successfully send a text or call. After getting on the train, I figured out they'd shut down the cell service on the platforms/tunnel (no signal until I got above ground at 24th). This was around 4:30pm. I'm guessing the AT&T customers just figured it was service as usual in SF. :)
  - SeoxyS 15y ago
    Yeah, on AT&T I pretty much give up on using my phone once the train starts moving, even though we're supposed to have service from Civic Center all the way to the Oakland end of the transbay tube.
michaelfeathers 15y ago
I think that when cell-jammers first became available, the FCC said that they were illegal regardless of whether private citizens used them or municipalities. The FCC is the regulatory body that has the last word on radio technology, and since it is a federal agency the whole area is under federal authority; it isn't an area states and cities can enter into.
- skroth 15y ago
  This has nothing to do with cell-jammers. BART normally offers cell phone service underground as signal usually can't travel there. They just flipped the switch.
lucasjake 15y ago
Really just seems like they're adding fuel to the fire. Its kind of a boneheaded move, as people will just organize the old fashioned way the next time around. Just silly.
- pnathan 15y ago
  Yes, now I know about it, and I would never have heard about it otherwise. 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.
- molecule 15y ago
  When it does succeed while BART is doing this, affected riders will be w/o rail AND cell service. 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.
  - yummies 15y ago
    You can simply walk upstairs where there's normal cellphone reception, and you're good to go. 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.
sp332 15y ago
Isn't it against FCC regs to intentionally cause cell phones to stop working? I remember some prisons wanted to buy cell jammers to prevent inmates from using smuggled phones, but it's illegal.
- m0nastic 15y ago
  "Jamming" wireless transmissions does indeed run afoul of FCC regulation; but that's not what they did here. 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.
  - count 15y ago
    It's actually potentially more interesting than that. AM/FM radio stations on licensed frequencies are required to be transmitting. Dead air has to be reported and justified to the FCC, or they can face fines. I wonder if that sort of thing applies to CDMA/GSM radio towers and repeaters.
    - m0nastic 15y ago
      I'm trying to ascertain that, but so far lost in a maze of twisty little links on the wireless.fcc.gov site, all alike. I'd actually be surprised if that was the case though.
kanamekun 15y ago
News.com still exists? It's amazing to me how my primary read for years and years has been totally and utterly eaten alive by tech blogs.
jrockway 15y ago
This is why cell phones need the ability to create a transparent mesh network.
ck2 15y ago
Apparently the USA is once again taking notes from China and the middle-east.
realou 15y ago
The ability to organize protestations live via cell phones is becoming more popular all around the world. 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...

142 points by hornokplease 15y ago

>Meanwhile, they also released a digital flyer with the words "muBARTek," "Mystery of Lulz,"< Article misquotes. It said "ministry of lulz".

nettdata 15y ago

Am I the only one who doesn't see a problem with this? 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.

sliverstorm 15y ago
In regards to the right to assemble/demonstrate, I personally believe that the public's idea (or at least perception) of what makes an effective (nonviolent) demonstration has changed. "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.
- nettdata 15y ago
  On top of that, I have to wonder about the mindset of the protesters. If they protest, and cause an interruption or major inconvenience to me, then odds are I won't care what their cause is, I won't support them. That is no way for them to gain my support. Do something for charity, for the community, or in some other non-disruptive manner, and be respectful of others in the community. 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.
  - sliverstorm 15y ago
    It was even better when I was in college and protesters trashed campus buildings. 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.
samstave 15y ago
Freedom of speech implies the freedom to communicate. Given the era of technology has made it such that the communications infrastructure is fundamental to our speech and communication, it could be construed that removing this is violating our constitutional rights.
- yummies 15y ago
  Would you say that airlines are violating your right to free speech because they make you turn off your cell phones in flight? 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?
  - sliverstorm 15y ago
    is their lack of cell service unconstitutional 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).
    - sliverstorm 15y ago
      I will add that if BART had instead employed the use of cell phone jammers, this would be much murkier. On the one hand, you could argue a jammer is essentially "intercepting" your transmission. On the other hand (the view that I favor, knowing a thing or two about radio) you could argue the jammer is in reality simply "drowning you out"- which could infringe upon your right to be heard, except I don't know if such a right actually exists. 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.
IsaacSchlueter 15y ago
It was kind of lame that I couldn't read LessWrong on my commute home. I really enjoy that part of my day. 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.
- sliverstorm 15y ago
  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. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r1CZTLk-Gk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r1CZTLk-Gk

pstephens 15y ago

The issue isn't access, it's injustice. Don't let the topic change to some bland consumer access issue -- Why does BART mandate its officers carry lethal force?

SeoxyS 15y ago

BART exists to transport people safely and efficiently. I think they do a fantastic job of it. They manage to make BART travel reliable, fast and safe. The presence of a strong and armed police force is necessary and fundamentally a good thing. If disrupting cell service protects riders, then it is the right course of action. 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.

tinio 15y ago

Additional details on the matter are reported here: http://www.baycitizen.org/bart-police-shooting/story/bart-cell-phone-service-legal/ 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.”

stevenp 15y ago

As a frequent public transit rider in SF, and the developer of a popular Muni iPhone app, let me say: If you told anyone in SF thought that there was intentionally functioning cell service in the subway tunnels, they would LAUGH. 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.

bherms 15y ago

Wouldn't this effectively be violating freedom of assembly?

hornokplease 15y ago
BART's initial statement includes the following: 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 http://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2011/news20110812.aspx
- egiva 15y ago
  The justification being that the area isn't "public" so the right to public assembly doesn't apply? I find it really interesting that they have that sort of macro-control on the cell broadcast antennas in the BART stations in order to turn service on and off...that implies a system to control or coordinate wireless broadcast access throughout the system...
  - pavel_lishin 15y ago
    They don't, I don't think. They contacted the providers directly and asked them to do it. They don't just have a magical pull-switch - they just have phones, and apparently a lot of pull.
    - bdb 15y ago
      Pure speculation on my part, but given the limited suitable equipment space available in each BART station, it's likely that BART has deployed a neutral host (i.e., BART-owned, not carrier-owned) distributed antenna system[1] throughout their stations. In that case, it's easy for them to cut power to the actual RF gear without carrier intervention (and without having to worry about those pesky strings of 48V batteries keeping things running.) 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.pdf http://www.infinigy.com/PDF/InfinigyNeutralHostWhitepaper.pd...

sfboy88 15y ago

I had a feeling BART was up to some BS when my phone just did not work at Civic Center yesterday. It was also nice to share the platform with police fully decked out in riot gear. The only positive thing was that the trains were empty because of all the hullabaloo

tlb 15y ago

It is not OK for the government to cut off citizen communications in times of civil unrest or any other time. BART, which has its own police force, must be held to constitutional standards. While they can prohibit assembly within their stations, disabling communications infrastructure violates people's basic rights.

jeygifford 15y ago
This is why government should not be in the cell phone (or tower, or repeater) business. Just as they should not be involved in the newspaper, news reporting or any other business not related to actual governing. Giving any government the power to shut down communication is a nasty, slippery slope. Once it's OK to quash communication in the subway, then it's OK to quash it just outside the subway; then for one block around the subway; then for 10 blocks around the subway ad infinitum. 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.
hammock 15y ago
Didn't Obama recently sign a bill giving him and any future president power to shut off nationwide internet during times of "crisis'?
- tedunangst 15y ago
  No.
ImprovedSilence 15y ago
The tricky part here is, BART shut off the communications, and told everyone else after the fact.
TGJ 15y ago
What basic right is that?

tibbon 15y ago

I'm laughing at the fact that BART thinks they can effectively control people with this. This will only make things worse.

lowglow 15y ago

I'm speechless. This is insane and I fear it will only get worse.

tshtf 15y ago

Are they really concerned about public safety? 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.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
skroth 15y ago
From the article: "In addition, numerous BART police officers and other BART personnel were present during the planned protest, and train intercoms and white courtesy telephones remained available for customers seeking assistance or reporting suspicious activity." 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?
- mcantelon 15y ago
  >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.
  - yummies 15y ago
    Read what happened last time there was a protest by this group: http://sfist.com/2011/07/12/bart_protesters_chant_vandalize_and.php#photo-1 http://sfist.com/2011/07/12/bart_protesters_chant_vandalize_... 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.

mc32 15y ago

Was it the underground cell repeaters? Or the cell towers on BART property --for which they lease out the land to telecom providers? 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.

WalterSear 15y ago
They are asserting it's the underground repeaters. Apparently, they approached the telcos and the telcos wouldn't play. 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.
dunham 15y ago
I believe just the underground repeaters - probably just in San Francisco proper. I had one bar on the east end of the embarcadero station (Verizon), probably from outside, but I couldn't successfully send a text or call. After getting on the train, I figured out they'd shut down the cell service on the platforms/tunnel (no signal until I got above ground at 24th). This was around 4:30pm. I'm guessing the AT&T customers just figured it was service as usual in SF. :)
- SeoxyS 15y ago
  Yeah, on AT&T I pretty much give up on using my phone once the train starts moving, even though we're supposed to have service from Civic Center all the way to the Oakland end of the transbay tube.

michaelfeathers 15y ago

I think that when cell-jammers first became available, the FCC said that they were illegal regardless of whether private citizens used them or municipalities. The FCC is the regulatory body that has the last word on radio technology, and since it is a federal agency the whole area is under federal authority; it isn't an area states and cities can enter into.

skroth 15y ago
This has nothing to do with cell-jammers. BART normally offers cell phone service underground as signal usually can't travel there. They just flipped the switch.

lucasjake 15y ago

Really just seems like they're adding fuel to the fire. Its kind of a boneheaded move, as people will just organize the old fashioned way the next time around. Just silly.

pnathan 15y ago
Yes, now I know about it, and I would never have heard about it otherwise. 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.
molecule 15y ago
When it does succeed while BART is doing this, affected riders will be w/o rail AND cell service. 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.
- yummies 15y ago
  You can simply walk upstairs where there's normal cellphone reception, and you're good to go. 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.

sp332 15y ago

Isn't it against FCC regs to intentionally cause cell phones to stop working? I remember some prisons wanted to buy cell jammers to prevent inmates from using smuggled phones, but it's illegal.

m0nastic 15y ago
"Jamming" wireless transmissions does indeed run afoul of FCC regulation; but that's not what they did here. 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.
- count 15y ago
  It's actually potentially more interesting than that. AM/FM radio stations on licensed frequencies are required to be transmitting. Dead air has to be reported and justified to the FCC, or they can face fines. I wonder if that sort of thing applies to CDMA/GSM radio towers and repeaters.
  - m0nastic 15y ago
    I'm trying to ascertain that, but so far lost in a maze of twisty little links on the wireless.fcc.gov site, all alike. I'd actually be surprised if that was the case though.

kanamekun 15y ago

News.com still exists? It's amazing to me how my primary read for years and years has been totally and utterly eaten alive by tech blogs.

jrockway 15y ago

This is why cell phones need the ability to create a transparent mesh network.

ck2 15y ago

Apparently the USA is once again taking notes from China and the middle-east.

realou 15y ago

The ability to organize protestations live via cell phones is becoming more popular all around the world. 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...