BART Defends Mobile Service Shutdown 149
itwbennett writes "In a filing to the FCC, Bay Area Rapid Transit general manager Grace Crunican defended last August's mobile shutdown, saying that 'a temporary disruption of cell phone service, under extreme circumstances where harm and destruction are imminent, is a necessary tool to protect passengers.' Taking the opposing position, digital rights groups, including Public Knowledge, Free Press, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Center for Democracy and Technology, told the FCC (PDF) that 'wireless interruption will necessarily prohibit the communications of completely innocent parties — precisely those parties closest to the site where the emergency is located or anticipated.'"
Fixing up the story (Score:4, Insightful)
sed 's/a temporary disruption of cell phone service, under extreme circumstances where harm and destruction are imminent/anything that could be bad PR/'
Illegal... (Score:0, Insightful)
They need to quit the lying (Score:5, Insightful)
The real reason they shut off cell phone service was to disrupt the electronic communication of the organizers of the protest. If there was a 'safety' reason, it was to disrupt the protest in the interest of safety. Down that path lies the complete elimination of public assembly 'in the interest of safety'.
I could see their argument if say they had a credible threat of a cellphone-triggered bomb, but trying to disrupt a protest's electronic communication does NOT cut it.
Re:Next they'll turn off the power (Score:4, Insightful)
You know, I'm no fun of poor public decision-making but honestly turning off the data in underground public transportation seriously does not seem like that big of a deal to me.
Its increadibly inconviniant, and the airlines are starting to show how unnessessary it is. My own feeling is that they did that in an attempt to conceal the fact that BART was broken again. Had nothing to do with safety.
Re:Next they'll turn off the power (Score:4, Insightful)
Why is this moderated funny?
Apparently someone already turned off the power to your sarcasm meter.
Re:Next they'll turn off the power (Score:2, Insightful)
Temporarily turning off resources to contain mob behavior is not silencing political speech.
Re:Illegal... (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly.
A contract dispute, a civil matter, and quite possibly not something under the FCC jurisdiction.
Maybe the Cell carriers sue BART for disruption of services by cutting power to their micro-cells or something.
But Bart would likely have been one party to the contract to provide power to the carrier's micro-cells, whereas Tortuous Interference pretty much requires action by a third party, not a party to the contracts.
Was there an "out" in Bart's contract with these carriers?
Were there even Carrier Contracts involved, or was BART using off the shelf Cellular repeaters that anyone can buy [wpsantennas.com], which they would be fully within their right to turn off?
There are a lot of questions to be answered before some guy on slash dot can pronounce something illegal, plain and simple.
In other words... (Score:5, Insightful)
So for all transit operators out there, the apparent takeaway from all this is to not provide any form of cell service in weak areas. Offering a repeater that you can control, and disabling it can be considered a breech of freedoms and make you liable.
Better to just avoid the whole issue and not do anything that'll make your commuters happier. If they want cell service, they can lobby their cell carriers to point antennas directed into the tunnels themselves. And nevermind emergencies - there's always the emergency phones in the trains.
Anyone who wants to text and use their cellphone, can drive instead.
Re:Next they'll turn off the power (Score:4, Insightful)
I wonder if shutting all communications down in Manhattan in September 11 would had significantly helped as this person is claiming.
Re:Next they'll turn off the power (Score:5, Insightful)
Temporarily turning off resources to contain mob behavior is not silencing political speech.
Unless the mob behaviour is protesting against the latest thing the government did but shouldn't have / didn't do but should have.
Or is it really to prevent Western Spring?
(Sorry, forgot to put my foil helmet on this morning)
Re:Next they'll turn off the power (Score:3, Insightful)
If the limit is already in place, the need to shutdown the towers all together is?
Re:Next they'll turn off the power (Score:5, Insightful)
You are only listening to the BART side of the story.
First, it's not just data that was shut down, but voice as well.
Second. Imagine if a fire broke out, or you had a heart attack, or somebody was being attacked; How would you report it without your phone working?
Third. The only reason BART shut it down was because they wanted to prevent any kind of protests against them (BART police shot a suspect at point blank range, while the suspect was pinned on the ground by multiple police officers).
Fourth. interfearing with communications are the acts of totalitarian governments around the world, and it is not compatible with Freedom.
Re:They are full of crap, of course! (Score:3, Insightful)
As usual you didn't answer the question but rather decided to troll.
You might also look into the case [wikipedia.org] a little more before making bold statements.
1. There was a near riot going on at the platform.
2. Grant was involved in fighting on the train.
3. Oscar Grant was not restrained as the BART officer never had control of his hands (even the family in the wrongful death suit agrees on this point). He had escaped custody at least once before and returned to the train
4. As Grand never surrendered he was never searched and therefore the officers had no way of knowing whether or not he was armed. Any officer will assume someone is armed until they have been cuffed and searched. Grant never got to that point. Even if Grant was unarmed, a struggling man can gain control of an officers gun and use it [dispatch.com].
5. The Officer stated he was going to taze Grant and cleared the other officer so as not to taze him too.
6. The Officer grabbed the wrong weapon and shot .
7. Under conditions of stress, adrenaline and split second decision making a tazer and a SIG Sauer P226 [wikipedia.org] can feel very similar in the hand.
8. The officer felt immediate remorse as evidenced by looking frightened, saying "Oh my God" and holding his head in his hands. Everyone on the platform who saw the officer agreed that he looked stunned at what happened. This looks to me like tha actions of someone who made a mistake and knew it.
9. There is a federal civil rights case still open against the officer so it isn't even over yet (this is an exception to the double jeopardy rule)
10. Violent protest had occurred in 2009 over the same issue and there were indications that they would happen again.
11. The "protest" had the wrong target as the Officer was convicted of involuntary manslaughter and sentenced to 2 years in prison. If the sentence seems too light then protest the courts who imposed the sentence and not BART who had nothing to do with it.
12. The protest was designed to take place in an area where people could die if they fell of the platform and onto the third rail or in front of a moving train.
13. Finally and most important, the actions of one officer does not justify the disruption of the lives of thousands of commuters who had nothing to do with the issue. Go ahead and protest but do it safely.
I am in no way saying what the officer did was right but since you were not there and hindsight while sitting safely at you computer does not compare with being in the middle of a riot you must be very careful in passing judgement without knowing all the facts.