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.'"
Re:Next they'll turn off the power (Score:4, Interesting)
This is what I think anyone can object to. If anyone actually believed this was about, "extreme circumstances where harm and destruction are imminent", then it'd be understandable.
But that's like... terrorist with a remote trigger wired to a mobile phone. Not, "Aw god dammit, a bunch of stupid college kids are gunna protest something again." Then you're just getting nasty about suppressing something you don't like, and you're inconveniencing a gajillion other people in the process.
Re:Illegal... (Score:3, Interesting)
Apparently its illegal to jam cell phone transmitters
A felony if I'm not mistaken.
but not technically illegal to unplug them. Its entirely possible the FCC will find itself powerless in this fight, because there is no mandatory "must operate" regulations in place.
Uh, no. Cell phone operators [and telcos] are common carriers, subject to Title II regulations, under the Communications Act of 1934. Common carriers [by definition] are prohibited from discriminating service, based on the content of messages (e.g. voice, data). The FCC has complete authority to regulate this matter [from this Act].
If you are going to rush in and pronounce something "illegal, plain and simple" please provide your credentials, and what year you were appointed to the bench.
Et tu, Brute?
Re:Next they'll turn off the power (Score:2, Interesting)
If you assume that "imminent harm" (decided upon without a judge, I am pretty sure) is a good enough reason to kill cell phones.
We're not talking about killing cell phones, we're talking about turning off a signal relay.
Driving a car is a privilege too.
And what you're claiming is that if the government can shut down a road (without judicial review) for safety reasons, then that means they can just take your car away from you entirely. Which is just about as fucking retarded as you can get.
But here's what most of you are missing entirely. The 911 center has a limited capability to handle calls. They have a limited number of incoming trunks and a limited number of operators to handle those calls. When 1,000 people in the subway all call 911 because some rent-a-cop got frisky with his pepper spray, the 911 center is effectively DDOS'd and can't respond to anything else in town. Which is why each cell tower has a limit on how many calls can connect to 911 at one time... usually the limit is around 5 calls (or less). And of course the tower has a limit on how many calls of any type can be taken at one time.
So what I'm getting at here, is that in an emergency there's only going to be about a half dozen people who get through to 911, a couple dozen more who get busy signals, and everybody else is just plain fucked because the tower just overloaded. And for the next hour or more, the 911 center will have to take calls from people who are redialing over and over and over.
You know where I heard that kind of rhetoric last? (Score:4, Interesting)
Living this close to the former iron curtain, I have heard and read that kind of apologies before. Every time there was an unrest in one of those countries, something like this would be sprouted. "For the safety", "to protect order", "to keep people from misusing tools" and "what could have happened if we didn't step in".
So far the difference is still that we don't get shot.
At least not yet.
Re:Next they'll turn off the power (Score:5, Interesting)
That said, your note that you believe the slippery slope is coming to reach to turning off the power is a bit much. Yeah you could have been exaggerating for fun but honestly, that's just silly.
So, which is more useful - blocking communications between members of a dangerous mob or blocking communications of potential victims of that dangerous mob to do things like call 911?
Of course that question assumes that you buy the claims that the mob is dangerous to anything more than the jobs of the people turning off the communications.