BART Shuts Down Cell Service

Submitted by: hmmmh 5 years ago in

Police block access to cellular networks in the wake of recent protests; infringement of rights or justified precaution?
There are 42 comments:
Male 237
How do we not have cell phone coverage cut off within BART?

Don`t threaten to become a violent protest. (notice I said *violent*)
0
Reply
Male 7,378
If Bart police didn`t kill the passengers of Bart transit, they wouldn`t have protests and they wouldn`t need to shut down the cell towers. Stop killing the passengers and you won`t be targeted by protesters or Anon.
0
Reply
Male 7,736
nettech98-"The cellular equipment is not the property of BART."

To quote: "BART spokesman Jim Allison maintained that the cellphone disruptions were legal as the agency owns the property and infrastructure. He added while they didn`t need the permission of cellphone carriers to temporarily cut service, they notified them as a courtesy."

Scuzoid-"Cut out the part that matters "Until the supreme court says otherwise." "

Just WTF are you talking about?

Free Speech is a constituional right. A cell phone, or cell phone access is not. They are not equivalent.

Scuzoid-"lets use an example I know full well I cannot remotely compare to our current situation"

It does compare. A cell phone has as much in common with the First Amendment as a landline telephone and/or long-distance service (put simply, in deference to you: Use of, and access to either cell phone, land-lines and long distance
0
Reply
Male 4,902
Uh oh, Anon is going to shut down their website for a couple of days. rolling eyes...
0
Reply
Male 1,404
This should be a clear message to all that communications networks are controllable, some more then others. Just like having a small generator, a supply of food to sustain yourself and your family in an emergency one should not rely on standard lines of communication.
0
Reply
Female 136
...in the east bay anyway
0
Reply
Female 136
but it was only very recently that they even put cell service underground...
0
Reply
Female 25
The BART runs very close to a major earthquake fault line and in some areas, it runs right alongside it. Cutting off cellphone reception entirely is potentially dangerous, especially since California is still waiting for the big earthquake to hit. What if an earthquake damages the subway and you`re trapped in? How are you going to call for help?
0
Reply
Male 1,054
"The property and infrastructure in question is the sole property of Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART). They have every right to control its usage."

The cellular equipment is not the property of BART. It belongs to the service providers. They lease the right to install it on BART property. If it were BART`s, BART could just turn it off instead of asking/telling the service providers to turn it off.

Same concept when a service provider rents space on a rooftop, chimney stack, etc.

Another case of punishing everyone for the actions of a few.

Wouldn`t any protest organizer just send messages to everyone BEFORE they entered the subway? Takes a little element of surprise away but still...
0
Reply
Male 2,384
the police state is upon us now theyre shutting down cell towers, next the`ll arrest us for thought crime o wait they already have
http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/NSA_warrantless_ surveillance_controversy
0
Reply
Male 1,268
"Uh...no.

If that were the case then you couldn`t be charged for Long Distance calls."

Uh, yes. Cut out the part that matters "Until the supreme court says otherwise." and you make yourself look like a fool. A whole multitude of supreme courts, including the US court, have heard statements about standard and long distance phone service over the past 150 years.

Meanwhile, "lets use an example I know full well I cannot remotely compare to our current situation." eh grendel? Really, if Bart is going to charge for access to the internet on top of what people are already paying, fine. That`s not the case. As such, long distance companies share nothing in common with Bart.
0
Reply
Male 10,339
@Elmustache: Franklin was not talking about during a time of danger and unrest. He was talking about liberty as a whole.
0
Reply
Male 1,625
Rawrg: "Those who would sacrifice Liberty for Security deserve neither."
0
Reply
Male 934
BART has the right to do whatever it wants with it`s network. It`s not a right...

And for all you morons calling this sort of thing some sort of stripping of rights:

During times of strife, such as the riots in London, where there is chaos and a clear and present danger to the public, rights may be temporarily suspended. Martial law may even be used, including curfews and random searches of civilians in public being legal. As long as the situation doesn`t become permanent, it`s not fascism, it`s just an appropriate response.
0
Reply
Male 1,054
"The property and infrastructure in question is the sole property of Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART). They have every right to control its usage."

The cellular equipment is not the property of BART. It belongs to the service providers. They lease the right to install it on BART property. If it were BART`s, BART could just turn it off instead of asking/telling the service providers to turn it off.

Same concept when a service provider rents space on a rooftop, chimney stack, etc.

Another case of punishing everyone for the actions of a few.

Wouldn`t any protest organizer just send messages to everyone BEFORE they entered the subway? Takes a little element of surprise away but still...
0
Reply
Male 25,416
meh... no matter what happens someone will winge!
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote]ALL communication is first amendment territory[/quote]
The First Amendment gives you the right to say anything, not the right to a platform to say it on.
0
Reply
Male 7,736
Scuzoid-"ALL communication is first amendment territory"

Uh...no.

If that were the case then you couldn`t be charged for Long Distance calls.

`Free Speech` means you are free to say what you want without the worry of the Government punishing you for it. It has abosolutely nothing to do with the method of that speech.

In other words, you have the right to say what you would like, but you do not have a right to demand others give you either a venue or any attention.

The property and infrastructure in question is the sole property of Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART). They have every right to control its usage.

Now, if they had shut down the cellular system that YOU built, owned and operated, then YOU (and only you) may have a complaint.

Plus, shutting down the system in no way stopped the riders` right to free speech...they just had to go find another way to do it (you know, like finding your friend and saying `Hi, wh
0
Reply
Male 2,790
putting everyone`s safety at risk? i don`t think so. at the most your making a bunch of teenagers mad.
0
Reply
Male 84
Go BART! Also, Anon and this news station need to shove it.
0
Reply
Male 7,736
BlameMeta-"yeah, that was back when people carried guns to protect themselves and didn`t drive 2,000 pounds of steel and plastic at 60 miles per hour."

Need to check your timeline.
Car came into common usage in: 1902
First commercial cellular network in the USA created in: 1983

So, it would seem that managed to drive "2,000 pounds of steel and plastic at 60 miles per hour" for over eighty years without the benefit of cell phones. (not sure how you got guns mixed up in this).

So their phones die not work for a little while. Not really a big deal.
0
Reply
Male 1,268
"For that reason, bravo to BART. You do not have a right to cell service, or FB and Twitter."

And you continue to be the blue tool. Here`s the thing, until the supreme court says otherwise, ALL communication is first amendment territory. This WILL go to the supreme court, especially considering the Bart chief of police did this WITHOUT his board member`s approval.

I hate FB/Twitter. That said, any decent lawyer looking to make a name for himself will find a 1st amendment lawsuit here. All Bart did with this was add more fuel to the fire. Hell, I`d be surprised if 90% of the protester`s could name the man who died. After this "Censoring free speech." will be an easy way to get people interested.
0
Reply
Male 408
they don`t need to give this poo to anyone specially if people are gonna protest some poo that is over with. They are just looking for poo to do, drating berkeley hippies and oakland hoodlums
0
Reply
Male 10,339
There are emergency phone boxes all over the place around where they were that were working land lines. Cell service was interrupted to prevent the perpetrators from using social media to coordinate their attacks.

For that reason, bravo to BART. You do not have a right to cell service, or FB and Twitter.
0
Reply
Female 55
I see both sides of the situation. BART is trying to stall/stop the protests which in and of them selves can cause more danger/deaths/injuries to people who may not even be taking part in the protest or know whats going on given they are happening in the stations.

But I also see the fact that BART needs to come clean if their men did something wrong and answer for that just like Police in a city would be forced too. If the company wants to win the public back and stop the protests, have those involved given to the proper authority and charged. SHOW decisive action from the company and you might stop the protests.
0
Reply
Male 42
@WeePee
yeah, that was back when people carried guns to protect themselves and didn`t drive 2,000 pounds of steel and plastic at 60 miles per hour.
0
Reply
Male 612
how can this be an infringement of rights when it is not a right to have or use a cell phone?

the whole "what if theres an emergency" reasoning is idiotic. im pretty sure there were plenty of emergencies that were handled in the pre cell phone era.
0
Reply
Female 136
@LazyMe484

The cell service was ONLY disrupted within the BART Stations and terminals. NOT in the entire city or for that matter, anywhere where the highway cell service would be disrupted.
0
Reply
Male 688
"One of the FIRST objectives in a military campaign is to disrupt the other side`s line of communication."

Agreed. Personally I`m just happy that that transit police are waging a military campaign against civilians. - AWeSoME!
0
Reply
Male 7,378
I applaud Anon. Keep up the good work!
0
Reply
Male 10,440
[quote] But for one, there were phones in the stations for emergencies. [/quote]
That`s stupid. Let`s say that on the day/days of the cell phone outage you get into a nasty car accident on the highway, which could easily happen in a city the size of SF. Your phone doesn`t work, so you can`t call 911. The fact that the station has `emergency phones` won`t do you any good.

Not being able to get help in time could easily mean the difference between life and death.
0
Reply
Male 2,756
Across the planet and through out history,governments have escalated control over it`s citizens.With eventual poor results.While a centralized government is-I believe-necessary,Americans are increasingly tiring of this "Let them eat cake" attitude that elected leaders have.Eventually we`ll have to remind them that they are leaders,not rulers.
0
Reply
Male 10,440
[quote] infringement of rights [/quote]
Yep, exactly for the reasons pointed out. What if you`re in trouble? Yeah... this is ridiculous.

Not only that but protests can be organized by other means, like FB or email or the regular phone.
0
Reply
Male 7,736
The `Flash Mob` was predicted in 1973 by Science Fiction writer Larry Niven`s short story `Flash Crowd`. Only in the story, it was made possible by the instant access via `Transfer Booth` that would take you anywhere on the Globe, instantly. Mobs would tranfer in, rob places and transfer out.

The only difference is we have instant communication rather than instant teleportation. The solution is the same. Divert/cease the ability of people to tranfer/communicate.

And Groogle, if you don`t realize that shutting down a mob`s ability to communicate (read: stratagize/manipulate), then you need to seriously reconsider. One of the FIRST objectives in a military campaign is to disrupt the other side`s line of communication.
0
Reply
Male 5,413
Anon aren`t happy.
0
Reply
Male 1,011
oh wow, this should be soooo illegal.

0
Reply
Male 904
Thank you PATRIOT Act. Thank you US presidents. Thank you police state. I`m more proud than ever to be an American.
0
Reply
Male 409
It was certainly questionable ethically, but legally, they were probably within their rights. However, it did open them up to legal problems if the shut down endangered someone (if someone, not related to the protest, needed to make an emergency call they might be able to sue.)
0
Reply
Female 136
Lies and bullpoo on the reporter`s part. Not that I support BART in this, I think they were idiots. But for one, there were phones in the stations for emergencies. Protesters were being disruptive, which is already illegal so BART really had other options available. FFS, that was one of the stupidest things they could have done given the circumstances! Their excuse was preventing rioting such as what`s occurring in London. Not to mention that they`ve been getting some real heat from riders for having to shut down so often lately.

Note: BART is a semi-public institution that is run much like the Postal Service, separate, but apart of government. In legality, they have all right to shut down a "complimentary" service. They didn`t have to ask the providers for anything. However, what they did was incredibly stupid and done in a panic with no forethought of the consequences as given by the fact that they decided to do it only 3 hours before the scheduled protest.
0
Reply
Male 1,266
Yeah I mean seriously, what could we do without cell phones, we`ve had them since time began... oh wait...
0
Reply
Male 2,172
I`m really surprised here that those people would even think it`s a good idea to shut down communication for everyone inside a certain perimeter.

It`s only going to cause more trouble and even put people at risk of being harmed without a chance of contacting the authority (the very same people who are to blame for the lack of communication).

I hope they know what they`re doing because that`s the opposite of what they`re supposed to be doing. To serve and protect.
0
Reply
Male 1
Link: BART Shuts Down Cell Service [Rate Link] - Police block access to cellular networks in the wake of recent protests; infringement of rights or justified precaution?
0
Reply