SF cell shutdown: Safety issue, or hint of Orwell?

An illegal, Orwellian violation of free-speech rights? Or just a smart tactic to protect train passengers from rowdy would-be demonstrators during a busy evening commute?

The question resonated Saturday in San Francisco and beyond as details emerged of Bay Area Rapid Transit officials' decision to cut off underground cellphone service for a few hours at several stations Thursday. Commuters at stations from downtown to near the city's main airport were affected as BART officials sought to tactically thwart a planned protest over the recent fatal shooting of a 45-year-old man by transit police.

Two days later, the move had civil rights and legal experts questioning the agency's move, and drew backlash from one transit board member who was taken aback by the decision.

Click to expand...

Source: Breitbart

It seems authoritarianism is becoming quite popular recently.

Demon of Light said:

It seems authoritarianism is becoming quite popular recently.

Click to expand...

Yeah, “muBARTek” is such an appropriate hashtag in this instance isn’t it?

Here’s a novel idea: if you have information about an illegal protest that might occur, once the protest begins you send the cops in and arrest those who are violating the law.

This will occur I think more and more as social media is used. Cell towers and transmissions will be monitored and shut down to cut down the risk of mobs or other types of possible planning of illegal activities by groups. Certainly heavy handed and as with anything, it depends how it's used and implemented. It may turn out to be prudent or it may turn out to be Orwellian.

I don't get how this could be an attempt to control people, beyond the stated purpose.

Are they planning to warn people underground with all the muggers and rapists before they turn off the cell service?.

What if...? said:

Are they planning to warn people underground with all the muggers and rapists before they turn off the cell service?.

Click to expand...

Good point! I see city lawsuits in their future.

Ockham said:

Good point! I see city lawsuits in their future.

Click to expand...

Great movie gimmick. All the cell phones suddenly go down. Vampires and werewolves everywhere!

What if...? said:

Great movie gimmick. All the cell phones suddenly go down. Vampires and werewolves everywhere!

Click to expand...

Could be... but just one person dialing 911 getting mugged and assualted, the call failing, the person finding out the cell towers were shut off by orders of authorities during that time, and a visit to a lawyers office will net a very nice sum indeed. Vampires and werewolves are so 90's.

Seems to me that the cell phone issue is a minor point here. People are allowed to protest. The idea that they tried to shut down the protest is the problem.

That BART owns the system, they are allowed to do with it what they please. They are providing it as a service to their customers. The idea that they are perhaps setting themselves up for a unrelated lawsuit is a good one, but that's their call.

As for the article, what Britain does is irrelevant.

1Perry said:

Seems to me that the cell phone issue is a minor point here. People are allowed to protest. The idea that they tried to shut down the protest is the problem.

That BART owns the system, they are allowed to do with it what they please. They are providing it as a service to their customers. The idea that they are perhaps setting themselves up for a unrelated lawsuit is a good one, but that's their call.

As for the article, what Britain does is irrelevant.

Click to expand...

BART doesn't own anything. It's tax payer funded and thus accountable to the residents of the counties that pay into it. So no they can't do as they please.

Demon of Light said:

Source: Breitbart

It seems authoritarianism is becoming quite popular recently.

Click to expand...

I don't understand why Breitbart is getting all up in arms. I thought Conservatism was in favor of a business doing as they please. It must be Obama's fault. :roll:

It certainly does have an Orwellian twinge, especially since BART is an arm of the government. What would happen if one wanted to protest T-Mobile or something?

GPS_Flex said:

Yeah, “muBARTek” is such an appropriate hashtag in this instance isn’t it?

Here’s a novel idea: if you have information about an illegal protest that might occur, once the protest begins you send the cops in and arrest those who are violating the law.

Click to expand...

Not that simple Politics is always in play with a police action...the civilian powers to be that pull the strings make decisions on whats good for their re election or image not whats necessarily good for the public....any time you move the police in a major city it costs millions...having said all that im not condoning what they did in this instance because i dont have all the facts...

But i nee to ask this...is saving lives as important as shutting down cell service for a few hours...

1Perry said:

Seems to me that the cell phone issue is a minor point here. People are allowed to protest. The idea that they tried to shut down the protest is the problem.

That BART owns the system, they are allowed to do with it what they please. They are providing it as a service to their customers. The idea that they are perhaps setting themselves up for a unrelated lawsuit is a good one, but that's their call.


As for the article, what Britain does is irrelevant.

Click to expand...

That depends...if its a heavily used area by civilians not involved in protest in a contained area a large protest can cost alot of innocent lives...I dont see how cutting off cell phone service was a big benefit here for security...but I dont have all the facts on what they based the decision on...none of us do...

I was listening to NPR "Talk of the Nation" on the way home from taking my daughter to the chiropractor. They were talking about this, and the guy "representing" BART (I didn't hear the beginning to tell me what his relationship was) made some points that gave me pause.
dis
1) The cell transceivers in question are within stations and trains. BART provides them as a service, but are under no obligation to provide them.

2) BART is under no obligation to facilitate the flash mob.

3) BART's primary obligation is to provide timely public transportation. Inasmuch as a demonstration would interfere with that...again, not BART's responsibility to facilitate disruption of service.

It's an interesting point. The Constitution does provide freedoms of speech and of the press, but it is not the government's responsibilty to give everybody a PA system and a printing press. I don't know...but interesting counterpoints.

If the legality of this action is challenged it could got either way once it reaches the Supreme Court because the right to Free Speech is not absolute.

You cannot scream fire in a crowd, you cannot incite a right, and BART can say they were only protecting the safety of innocent people at the stations from what could have been a live threatening situation.

I also would like to point out that the Air Waves are owned by the public and licenced to TV and Radio Station owners and Free Speech does not exist over the Air Waves to protect the public from the FCC deemed as harmful or offensive to some people who might tune in.

Go to a City council meeting and try to shout down a Councilperson, but be prepared to be cited or arrested if you do. I know this is true because I have seen it in action. It rook the Chief of Police who is present at all meetings, a few seconds to escort the protester out in Handcuffs.

Can you imagine how long a Talk Show Host would remain on the air if they threatened the life of anyone, let alone an elected official.

So Free Speech has it's limitations.

Hatuey said:

BART doesn't own anything. It's tax payer funded and thus accountable to the residents of the counties that pay into it. So no they can't do as they please.

Click to expand...

I'm not interested in argueing semantics.

Contrary to some speculative reports, BART did not jam wireless signals or ask cell phone providers to shut down towers near stations. BART owns and controls the wireless network strung through its subways, and BART police ordered it switched off, after receiving permission from BART interim General Manager Sherwood Wakeman, former general counsel for the transit district.

BART admits halting cell service to stop protests - SFGate