
San Francisco Subway Muzzles Cell Service During Protest - hornokplease
http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-20091822-245/s.f-subway-muzzles-cell-service-during-protest/
======
nettdata
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.

~~~
samstave
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.

~~~
nettdata
Does it MEAN that, or simply imply it?

I don't think it means that there is a requirement to provide the most
convenient method available. Cel phone service isn't even classified as an
essential service. Never mind internet access.

They didn't stop communication, they made it less convenient. The protesters
had to stay within range of a normal cel tower, rather that use the
locally/BART provided repeaters. "Can you hear me now?" "No."

What's next? BART has to provide the paper and photocopying to the protesters
for their pamphlets so they can communicate their issues?

~~~
samstave
Well, as IANAL - I used the word implies as I am not 100% positive...

However, I would propose this is one example where the populous needs to start
exerting their opinion on how these things should be interpreted. We are far
to reticent to express our view and too complacent in accepting the position
of the government in matters where it is critical that we remind the
government that this is a REPRESENTATIVE democracy and as such, our views must
be properly represented.

I am reminded of when I had a dispute with my home owners association about a
ridiculous rule whereby I was precluded from putting up anything other than
white curtains in my townhome.

The rule stated that the externally facing view of any curtains must be white.
Which is what I had.

The complaint came that due to me having gold colored curtains on the interior
side of my windows, at night, when the lights were on - they could tell these
were not white.

They attempted to fine me. We battled for months. I went to several HOA
meetings and was confronted with an opinion that "these are the rules, we do
them to uphold the property values of the community" -- I emphatically
reminded the HOA that not only was this argument ridiculous that WE were
infact the HOA and thus WE should change the rules to not be so "fucking
retarded".

I ended up winning - but the lesson was that bureaucratic authority applied
unnecessarily begets mediocre minds reaching for abuseable power.

~~~
nettdata
I could just as easily say that those same mediocre minds are looking for
rights where none exist.

And I won't comment on the mindset it takes to move into a place that is
controlled by an HOA in the first place. ;)

Complaining about morons on an HOA is like moving next to an airport and
complaining about the aircraft that always seem to be around.

~~~
samstave
Sure, you can claim that assuming you have had prior experience with an HOA or
other groups... My problem was that I had no idea this level of ridiculousness
existed. So it is not like I entered into that thinking "this time it will be
different" :)

Also, Iam trying to point out in my other comments that I am not lokoing for
rights where they do not exist, per se, but that I think we as a whole need to
be open to the possibility that the framework and definition of said rights
need to evolve with the changes in our society, and the expression and level
of our civilization.

It appears to me that anyone denouncing those who question the current state
refuse to stray from the centuries old definitions.

------
tlb
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.

~~~
blantonl
in this case, legally it is a tricky issue and BART is probably and
unfortunately in the clear on this.

BART cut _power_ to the wireless sites in these/tunnels tations - they didn't
ask the wireless providers to terminate their services. I suspect that since
the wireless sites lease space and consume power from BART operated
facilities, BART is well within their rights to terminate power and other
services based on existing contractual agreements.

However, that doesn't make what BART did "right." It is downright disgusting
and I hope that the wireless providers mount up and put some serious pressure
on BART in response. Certainly the providers are paying serious money to BART
to lease space to provide service to riders, and the optics of the loss of
that will hurt BART far more than it will hurt the wireless providers. At the
end of the day, loss of wireless lease would really be a punch in the gut to
BART, not to mention the public safety issues.

~~~
sehugg
I don't know that the technical details factor into this -- BART admitted that
their intent was to prevent speech and to interfere with communications,
therefore it's possible they ran afoul of the First Amendment and/or the FCC.
I don't know that we'll find the answer unless someone takes it to trial.

~~~
blantonl
I'm not condoning what BART did, I think it was wrong.

But, if you decided to use HN to organize a response to an issue and HN
deleted your posts, that doesn't make HN's actions a First Amendment issue.
The First Amendment does not apply for private institutions that you choose to
participate on.

~~~
joeguilmette
HN has a TOS and is a private institution. Further, HN is not part of our
public telecom infrastructure - ie if I'm being stabbed during the protest
they were trying to thwart, I wouldn't use HN to call an ambulance.

BART shutting down cell service is irresponsible, deplorable and something
we're going to see more and more as the first world descends into the kind of
place we all see it becoming.

~~~
GHFigs
_...as the first world descends into the kind of place we all see it
becoming._

Which is what?

------
tshtf
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.

~~~
skroth
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?

~~~
dsl
They address the safety of people on the platform, but what about people that
didn't have a few dozen cops nearby?

I have ill family members, and need to be able to be on a plane in a few hours
notice. Avoiding some bad PR photos justifies missing that important inbound
phone call?

~~~
yummies
Simply put, the primary purpose of bart is to run a train service and maximize
availability of that service. Cell service is a non essential (and until a few
years ago, nonexistant) enhancement of that service.

The theory here is that if they allowed cell service to continue then
protesters would have disrupted train service. So then the more pressing issue
becomes getting people to the airport, not cellphone availability.

So yes, you missed your important call, but that's better than others missing
their important flight.

~~~
dunham
Your important call would have been cut off as soon as you left the station
anyway.

~~~
scelerat
BART has continuous cell service even in tunnels.

~~~
dunham
Cell service usually drops between 16th and civic center (I frequently see
people get cut off). And 3G service on Verizon seems to drop off for at least
50% of the way between 24th and montgomery (personal experience, iPhone4).

------
stevenp
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.

------
lucasjake
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.

~~~
molecule
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
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.

------
mc32
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.

~~~
dunham
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
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.

------
tinio
Additional details on the matter are reported here:

[http://www.baycitizen.org/bart-police-shooting/story/bart-
ce...](http://www.baycitizen.org/bart-police-shooting/story/bart-cell-phone-
service-legal/)

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.”

------
sp332
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
"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
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
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.

------
SeoxyS
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.

------
realou
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...

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

------
pstephens
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?

------
Anti-Ratfish
>Meanwhile, they also released a digital flyer with the words "muBARTek,"
"Mystery of Lulz,"<

Article misquotes. It said "ministry of lulz".

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

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

------
ck2
Apparently the USA is once again taking notes from China and the middle-east.

------
bherms
Wouldn't this effectively be violating freedom of assembly?

~~~
raganwald
Most of the “freedoms” people speak of are really freedoms from government
interference. For example, “freedom of speech” doesn’t apply to a symphony
hall that requires its patrons to be silent during performances, but it may
restrict a government’s ability to enact anti-hate crime legislation.

In this case the more interesting issue is that a private entity disrupted
telecommunications on its property without notice or warning. In addition to
making it difficult for protesters to coördinate their actions, it also made
it difficult for people to make unrelated calls, to report crimes, call 911,
and so forth.

It might be legal, but I admit I find the idea very unsettling.

~~~
pavel_lishin
Is BART a private entity, or are they state funded/run?

I've never been clear on this in most places I've been; I don't know if New
York's MTA is part of the city, or if it's a private corporation entrusted
with a public utility - and if it is, what are the ramifications?

~~~
tibbon
Most subway systems are actually privately owned/operated, yet state funded
entities. Or at least that's my understanding of many of them. The MTA and
MBTA are this way I believe.

------
kanamekun
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.

------
michaelfeathers
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
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.

