3 ms·

EFF: BART Pulls a Mubarak in San Francisco

16 points by gasull 15y ago

tedunangst 15y ago
I wonder what effect this will have on other subway systems. Will they be more or less likely to install cell repeaters in their system now if they can't turn them off?
hollerith 15y ago
What I see here is an organization staffed mainly by lawyers indignant that managers at BART did something important without consulting lawyers. Question for those critical of BART's action: do you believe that a significant fraction of BART's users would rather risk getting stranded in San Francisco (which is what would have happened to them if the protester's plans had succeeded) than to lose the ability to use wireless services for the time it takes to transit the four downtown-SF BART stations?
- tedunangst 15y ago
  Those critical of BART's action will say that stifling communication for any reason is unacceptable and that even if most of the riders would have agreed, they weren't consulted. Some may also say that you can't let the sheeple vote on such matters because they'll vote wrong.
  - hollerith 15y ago
    >stifling communication for any reason is unacceptable Do you really mean that? Do you for example condemn the U.S. army convoys in Iraq for travelling with cell-phone jamming equipment after they learned that insurgents were using cell phones to detonate roadside bombs?
    - tedunangst 15y ago
      It's not a position I personally hold, but it's more or less quoted from other comments in a different thread.
  - wil421 15y ago
    I think if BART owns the repeaters or cell towers etc. then they have every right to turn them off whenever they want. With or without permission from the carriers or occupants.
    - OpieCunningham 15y ago
      Firstly, I'd say it's debate able whether a corporation can disconnect public use communication services they've installed without notifying the public prior to disconnection. However, that debate is moot. BART is a government organization. Disconnection of communication services by a government organization for the express intent of preventing public demonstrations is a rather blatant violation of the 1st Amendment.
- OpieCunningham 15y ago
  Question for those critical of BART's action: do you believe that a significant fraction of BART's users would rather risk getting stranded in San Francisco (which is what would have happened to them if the protester's plans had succeeded) than to lose the ability to use wireless services for the time it takes to transit the four downtown-SF BART stations? That's what a demonstration does. Why not rephrase the question: would you accept a complete ban on all forms of demonstration that potentially inconvenience even a single individual? Next you'll tell me we need to ban parades.
- tuxguy 15y ago
  I am appaled by BART PD's fatal use of force now in 2 instances - Oscar Grant(1January2009, in which BART settled with the Grant family for $ 1.5 million) and Charles Blair Hill (3July2011). In both cases, BART PD decided NOT to use non-lethal force(tasers) & effectively murdered the victims. For a moment, imagine yourself to be a part of the victim's family & maybe you will realize why people are so indignant at BART & want to protest peacefully. I used to think San Francisco is one of the most liberal & progressive places on earth, but BART & BART Police's actions have shamed this wonderful city. p.s. OT(off-topic ?) : The following link is a press briefing(youtube video) by BART on the killing of Charles Blair Hill. http://bit.ly/bartisevil http://bit.ly/bartisevil [ I am really appalled at how Mr. Linton Johnson laughs @00:22 in the video. This incident resulted in the loss of a human life, and is still pending investigation. After the horrific Oscar Grant shooting by a BART PD officer, one would expect all BART employees to exhibit much greater sensitivity to human life & observe some basic etiquette. This press conference was to discuss the loss of a human life & maybe Mr. Hill (the dead man in this incident on Jul3) was homeless & MAYBE, he was a danger to himself & other patrons, it still does not give Mr.Johnson to show such disrespect to the loss of a human life. He is beginning a news conference to discuss the circumstances of a man's death by cracking a joke. He is not just any BART employee, he is BART's Chief Communications Officer. I would like to seriously ask BART's general manager & Mr. Johnson, what precisely does he find funny ? As a regular BART rider, & after the Oscar Grant shooting, i was really upset about BART's conduct. And Mr. Johnson's behaviour & such crude insensitivity, makes me sad & dismayed. - a disappointed BART rider ]

16 points by gasull 15y ago

I wonder what effect this will have on other subway systems. Will they be more or less likely to install cell repeaters in their system now if they can't turn them off?

hollerith 15y ago

What I see here is an organization staffed mainly by lawyers indignant that managers at BART did something important without consulting lawyers. Question for those critical of BART's action: do you believe that a significant fraction of BART's users would rather risk getting stranded in San Francisco (which is what would have happened to them if the protester's plans had succeeded) than to lose the ability to use wireless services for the time it takes to transit the four downtown-SF BART stations?

tedunangst 15y ago
Those critical of BART's action will say that stifling communication for any reason is unacceptable and that even if most of the riders would have agreed, they weren't consulted. Some may also say that you can't let the sheeple vote on such matters because they'll vote wrong.
- hollerith 15y ago
  >stifling communication for any reason is unacceptable Do you really mean that? Do you for example condemn the U.S. army convoys in Iraq for travelling with cell-phone jamming equipment after they learned that insurgents were using cell phones to detonate roadside bombs?
  - tedunangst 15y ago
    It's not a position I personally hold, but it's more or less quoted from other comments in a different thread.
- wil421 15y ago
  I think if BART owns the repeaters or cell towers etc. then they have every right to turn them off whenever they want. With or without permission from the carriers or occupants.
  - OpieCunningham 15y ago
    Firstly, I'd say it's debate able whether a corporation can disconnect public use communication services they've installed without notifying the public prior to disconnection. However, that debate is moot. BART is a government organization. Disconnection of communication services by a government organization for the express intent of preventing public demonstrations is a rather blatant violation of the 1st Amendment.
OpieCunningham 15y ago
Question for those critical of BART's action: do you believe that a significant fraction of BART's users would rather risk getting stranded in San Francisco (which is what would have happened to them if the protester's plans had succeeded) than to lose the ability to use wireless services for the time it takes to transit the four downtown-SF BART stations? That's what a demonstration does. Why not rephrase the question: would you accept a complete ban on all forms of demonstration that potentially inconvenience even a single individual? Next you'll tell me we need to ban parades.
tuxguy 15y ago
I am appaled by BART PD's fatal use of force now in 2 instances - Oscar Grant(1January2009, in which BART settled with the Grant family for $ 1.5 million) and Charles Blair Hill (3July2011). In both cases, BART PD decided NOT to use non-lethal force(tasers) & effectively murdered the victims. For a moment, imagine yourself to be a part of the victim's family & maybe you will realize why people are so indignant at BART & want to protest peacefully. I used to think San Francisco is one of the most liberal & progressive places on earth, but BART & BART Police's actions have shamed this wonderful city. p.s. OT(off-topic ?) : The following link is a press briefing(youtube video) by BART on the killing of Charles Blair Hill. http://bit.ly/bartisevil http://bit.ly/bartisevil [ I am really appalled at how Mr. Linton Johnson laughs @00:22 in the video. This incident resulted in the loss of a human life, and is still pending investigation. After the horrific Oscar Grant shooting by a BART PD officer, one would expect all BART employees to exhibit much greater sensitivity to human life & observe some basic etiquette. This press conference was to discuss the loss of a human life & maybe Mr. Hill (the dead man in this incident on Jul3) was homeless & MAYBE, he was a danger to himself & other patrons, it still does not give Mr.Johnson to show such disrespect to the loss of a human life. He is beginning a news conference to discuss the circumstances of a man's death by cracking a joke. He is not just any BART employee, he is BART's Chief Communications Officer. I would like to seriously ask BART's general manager & Mr. Johnson, what precisely does he find funny ? As a regular BART rider, & after the Oscar Grant shooting, i was really upset about BART's conduct. And Mr. Johnson's behaviour & such crude insensitivity, makes me sad & dismayed. - a disappointed BART rider ]