

EFF: BART Pulls a Mubarak in San Francisco - gasull
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/08/bart-pulls-mubarak-san-francisco

======
hollerith
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
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
>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
It's not a position I personally hold, but it's more or less quoted from other
comments in a different thread.

------
tedunangst
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?

