BART Turns Off Mobile Phone Service At Station Because It Doesn't Want Protestors To Communicate
from the really-now? dept
With all the talk in the UK from politicians about shutting down mobile messaging services, it's worth pointing out that it apparently takes much less to shut down mobile service in the US at times. Jacob Appelbaum points out that BART -- the Bay Area Rapid Transit train system here in the California Bay Area -- apparently shut down all cell service at a station under the (false, as it turns out) belief that protesters were going to show up there:As an added precaution, the agency shut off cellphone service on the station's platform. While Alkire said the tactic was an unusual measure, he said it was "a great tool to utilize for this specific purpose" given that the agency was expecting a potentially volatile situation.That's really quite incredible, and I'm at a loss to see how that could be allowed. Because BART feared people protesting it literally shut down mobile phone service at its station? Since this particular station is underground, it has special equipment as regular cell towers don't reach the station. However, that shouldn't give BART officials the right to just turn off the service because they're unhappy that people might protest.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: bart, free speech, mobile phones, protests, wireless
Companies: bart
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hey, the Syrians did it first!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Disturbing comments
"I don’t like protesters. I hope they will deserve hell as a heavy price to pay for all the media garbage they are promoting. Cowardly protesters are just a menace to society and their act of disobedience will not be tolerated. I would like it when Uncle Sam makes protesting an illegal activity worthy of a lengthy jail sentence. Protesting is as counterproductive since it can contribute to a full scale riot similar to the one in London. I think there should be a law against all form of protests because a single protest can lead to a violent confrontation with the police who are trying to control the disturbance before it becomes completely unmanageable."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Disturbing comments
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Disturbing comments
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2011/08/11/phil-matier-planned-protest-at-bart-station- fails-to-materialize/
5th one down or so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Disturbing comments
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Disturbing comments
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Disturbing comments
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fuck this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fuck this
Silly man. You can't do that, you'll violate the maximum decibel laws...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fuck this
Silly man. You can't do that, you'll violate the maximum decibel laws...
Sorry, but that would be a public performance and we will have to have our attorneys contact you for the relevant fees...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DARPA Contract Opportunity
Man-portable cell repeater station for tactical use in underground tunnels.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
it might be illegal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: it might be illegal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: it might be illegal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: it might be illegal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: it might be illegal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: it might be illegal
Do you really think they would get away unscathed if someone died because they could not call an ambulance?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: it might be illegal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"shouldn't give BART officials the right to just turn off the service because they're unhappy that"
BART does NOT have the right to, only the power. I'm sure you'd find that it's another unacccountable quasi-gov't corporation. In any case, you'll find that you've no way to even complain, let alone sue, that'd just be throwing money away. You're just one person against a giant corporation, regardless that probably everyone in the city feels the way you do: concentrated power ALWAYS trumps the general interest.
So what are you going to do when corporations and gov't are both out of control and in cahoots? YELL LIKE HELL in no uncertain terms, and don't accept their terminonolgy, else you're sure to lose.
You're no firebrand revolutionary, Mike. I wouldn't follow you into a doughnut shop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "shouldn't give BART officials the right to just turn off the service because they're unhappy that"
And for that I'm sure he's profoundly thankful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No surprise
*shrug* until we drive true accountability from politicians this is what we get.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No surprise
From wikipedia. BART is a governmental agency.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No surprise
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No surprise
How is BART's equipment privately owned when BART itself is a public entity?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Having the right to assemble and protest doesn't mean . . .
Turning off cell phone repeaters in stations doesn't prevent anybody from protesting. You still have exactly the same right to show up there to chant slogans and carry a sign as you did before. You can still take whatever photos/videos you could before (even with your cell phone), and can still send them out via your favorite social media service. Just, apparently, not from right there on the platform. Seems like plenty of people were able to express their views just fine - even from train stations - before cell phones came along, so it's not clear to me how turning off the repeaters is an abridgement of First Amendment rights.
Now, that doesn't mean I think BART is acting wisely. That's a completely different issue.
HM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Having the right to assemble and protest doesn't mean . . .
I love this. Hugh actually seems to believe that doing nothing is "acting affirmatively." Perhaps you missed the part in which the only "affirmative" action was them shutting down the network.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Having the right to assemble and protest doesn't mean . . .
That just doesn't make sense. By "acting affirmatively", I am referring to your apparent belief that BART is now OBLIGATED to provide and maintain cell phone repeaters.
HM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Having the right to assemble and protest doesn't mean . . .
Not at all. The crux of a First Amendment violation is if the action is content neutral. Turning off for repairs is obviously content neutral. Here, BART has specifically stated that they turned it off to stop a form of speech.
That's a First Amendment violation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Having the right to assemble and protest doesn't mean . . .
Not in a non-public forum.
Perry Ed Assn v Perry Local Educators' Assn (Perry):
(Citations and internal quotes removed.)
The headnote summarizes this as, “With respect to public property that is not by tradition or government designation a forum for public communication, a State may reserve the use of the property for its intended purposes, communicative or otherwise, as long as a regulation on speech is reasonable and not an effort to suppress expression merely because public officials oppose the speaker's view.”
In other words, in a non-public forum, viewpoint discrimination is still prohibited, but content-based regulation is subject to merely rational-basis review.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Having the right to assemble and protest doesn't mean . . .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Having the right to assemble and protest doesn't mean . . .
But having a government entity disable them strikes me as cause for a possible lawsuit, especially if there is any evidence that the particular content of the planned protest was what caused them to to disable them. That's a big no-no in first amendment cases.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Having the right to assemble and protest doesn't mean . . .
By whom?
Odds of success seem low. And I can think of better fights to spend scarce resources on. Ones with better chances.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Having the right to assemble and protest doesn't mean . . .
By anyone who was there to demonstrate that couldn't use their phone.
And I can think of better fights to spend scarce resources on.
Yeah, free speech is one of those meaningless rights. We should be suing for more important things, like who's selling red-soled shoes in violation of a bogus trademark!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Having the right to assemble and protest doesn't mean . . .
Let's assume that I have a Stalin-esque power to allocate the people's resources at whim, without transaction costs. In this case, I have the choice between funding “courts and lawyers” or funding “research scientists and engineers”.
Rather than funding a lawsuit, I'd rather take the same chunk of the people's valuable resources and pour them into a DARPA research contract:
I'd say that both the lawsuit and the research have about the same odds of complete sucess. The lawsuit probably runs into rational-basis, and the research probably runs into nature. Potential payoff, well, on the one hand some judge in a black robe says the people have the power to use their cell phones on BART platforms. On the other hand, some scientist in a white laboratory smock says the people have the power to use their cell phones on BART platforms.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, yes and no...
It's possible (even likely, and the rest of my opinion is based heavily on that assumption)that BART owns the equipment that is making cell phone communication possible on the subway. They are well within their rights to shut that gear down for whatever reason they like. Although BART (like many transit authorities) is loosely tied to the government, they aren't _really_ a government organization, so this isn't "state censorship" as suggested by others above. Even if they are a bona-fide government org, this "censorship" would be easy to avoid, make your calls from outside...
In any case, they spend money (yes, a lot of money, DAS systems are really expensive, and this is probably a DAS) to provide that service as a convenience for their riders. If they have reason to believe that the availability of that service is going to make a potentially unsafe situation worse, disabling it temporarily makes sense, for a multitude of reasons.
This isn't a case of shutting down service for huge numbers of people in large geographic areas (like in the UK), it's shutting it down for people in that particular subway station, where they wouldn't have service ANYWAY unless BART hadn't taken the extra effort to make it available.
Granted, BART does have a sworn police service, which blurs the lines a bit, but this still isn't really comparable to the UK situation, the scope of it just doesn't fit. If they have prior knowledge of an event that is likely to jeopardize the safety of innocent bystanders, they are not only within their rights to take reasonable steps to counter it, they have a responsibility to do so. Based (solely) on the linked article, it sounds like the steps they took were reasonable. Given the close quarters of a subway station and the number of people involved, and the proximity to trains, there is a high likelihood that a protest there could get ugly fast.
Finally, if we're going to be drawing parallels to the situation in the UK, let's also look at the other side. As far as I can tell, the vast majority of the people involved in the riots there seem to have very little interest in creating a positive political change. Based on the coverage I've seen from MANY sources, it looks like they are just using that shooting as an excuse to go out and create some mayhem. A PROTEST is one thing, a RIOT is something else entirely. Given that context, it seems that the intent of the people promoting the protests at the BART station COULD HAVE BEEN similar.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well, yes and no...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Well, yes and no...
In fact, since the whole thing didn't end up materializing, it lends credence to the idea that the organizers weren't interested in social change. Once they heard there was a response ready and waiting, they decided not to show up. It's no fun using crappy situation as cover for being a self-absorbed douche who likes to cause people grief if you get arrested for it. If you really are trying to draw attention to an issue to affect a positive change, a police presence (assuming the police mind their Ps&Qs as well) is actually a GOOD thing since it almost guarantees media coverage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well, yes and no...
Having cellphone service downstairs is a PRIVELEGE, and I completely support BART utilizing what resources it could to prevent a vocal minority from taking hostage of thousands for their own political agendas.
I'm as outraged as the next guy over the Oscar Grant thing, but they're using this latest shooting as an excuse to be shitty people and take it out on other unwilling participants.
Hell, I'm liable to shoot a protester if they feel the need to keep me in SF when all I want to do is go home after a long day at work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Well, yes and no...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We're going to protest in every station, for the next decade.
Signed,
Loving Customers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is wrong
How is turning off repeaters in a station going to prevent protestors turning up at that station? Once they are there they don't need cell service!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is wrong
It isn't enought to just shoot the video, you have to get the video out to the audience.
Once you get arrested, then the cops take your recording device and erase incriminating video. So you need to stream the video out before you're in the plastic cuffs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This is wrong
Or you could remove the SD and hide it your mouth
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This is wrong
Awhile ago, I watched video of half-a-dozen pigs —and I mean pigs— —there is no other word to describe those pigs— pepper-spraying a helpless young woman.
Hide the SD in your mouth. You run the risk that they will use a large fire-extinguisher size can of pepper-spray directly in your face, your eyes, your nose your mouth. Choking you with chemical. You really think you can keep that SD in your mouth through that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: This is wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jamming?
How the hell does that work?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"...apparently shut down all cell service at a station under the (false, as it turns out) belief that protesters were going to show up there..."
Obviously the protesters didn't show up because of the agency's wise, proactive precaution of shutting off the cell repeaters. I'm astonished that even you can see it any other way.
Elephant repellent!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If they we're in a brown country..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"expressive activities" banned
"No person shall conduct or participate in assemblies or demonstrations or engage in other expressive activities in the paid areas of BART stations, including BART cars and trains and BART station platforms."
I think talking, and holding signs peaceably are forms of "expressive activities" which they have banned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "expressive activities" banned
First amendment forum analysis:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "expressive activities" banned
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "expressive activities" banned
You mean people are not allowed to dance in a BART station?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
typical
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Every person that says the cell repeater shutdown was uncalled for clearly doesn't know shit about this situation. The last "peaceful" BART protest wasn't peaceful and plenty of crimes were committed. Cellphone service was used by criminal perpetrators to avoid the police, plain and simple.
Don't be fooled. Protest organizers made it clear in days prior that they would use cellphones to avoid police and prosecution for crimes the non-peaceful protesters commit. The repeaters were shut down to eliminate this possibility, not to disrupt the congregation of protest.
First amendment violation? Bullshit. BART is and was never under any obligation to provide cell service on their trains. It is a free service they provide.
Have an emergency call to make? There were police everywhere one could have contacted.
Have to post your "police hate-crime" video online? Exit the station, jackass.
Despite all this, I applaud BART for the actions they took to prevent non-peaceful protesters from avoiding police, but I say a hearty "FUCK YOU" for the clandestine manner in which they did it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
berkley liberalism vs. barts (apparent) conservatism.
may want to make some popcorn for this one...might get interesting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who cares, just adjust to not having cell phone a few minutes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who cares, just adjust to not having cell phone a few minutes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
First, let's get it clear that BART is a government agency, meaning they are limited in what they can do by the U.S. and California Constitutions.
As someone already pointed out, the paid area of a terminal is not a "traditional public forum" (think a park or sidewalk), so state officials have considerably more leeway in ensuring that area is used for its intended purpose. But the Constitution doesn't evaporate simply because the government operates a paid service. When dealing with expressive activities in a non-traditional forum, they have to be "reasonable" in their policies and actions. From what's been publicly discussed so far, BART officials had little to no knowledge of the form or scale of possible protests or any danger they presented. That hurts their chances of successfully claiming the response of shutting off all cell phone service to EVERYONE IN THE PAID AREA was a "reasonable" response. This wasn't a situation where they shut down cell service in a small area to stop an ongoing riot; this was a POTENTIAL protest and they wanted to stop protesters from gathering AT ALL. Their idiotic attempt to impose a "no expressive activities at all" rule will do even more damage to them. No court applying the law properly would find that to be "reasonable" and it would be evidence that the people involved in this fiasco disregarded (or had little understanding of) the First Amendment and the limits on their authority.
There are a lot of other constitutional issues, too. Due Process-wise, BART deprived hundreds (at least) of innocent people of access to services lawfully purchased from private companies, reducing the value of those services (deprivation of property without Due Process). There are also contract problems: Riders paid fares expecting cell phone service in the paid areas, but didn't receive what they paid for. With both of these issues, there is no comparison between what BART did and normal loss of signal. BART has built a network of cell signal repeaters and people rely on it for a wide variety of constitutionally-protected activities. Network failures are one thing; intentional disruption of service by government employees is quite another.
There also are probably some statutory issues. There are various laws on the books prohibiting interfering with communication services, and no sane individual would think that shutting off a signal is NOT interfering with service. It's possible that BART violated one or more of these laws. (I don't know though, it's not an area I'm familiar with.)
Finally, there are plenty of sound policy reasons why this type of thing should result in severe penalties. The biggest is that approving of it could set a dangerous precedent. It's no great leap from shutting down transceivers you control to asking a private company to do the same. If this happened in a major metropolitan area it would have far greater effects on the public. Fortunately there was no emergency in the affected area, because it had no 911 service thanks to BART. (Has BART ever heard of unintended consequences?) There's also the need to prevent the government from getting an additional power to deter speech: If protesters know that they will anger huge groups of people by speaking out because the government will shut off EVERYONE's service to shut them up, they will be deterred from speaking out; this "chilling effect" itself would be a violation of the First Amendment.
Personally, I wish I were there because I'd be at the courthouse door as soon as I finished drafting my papers. Nobody will win a lot of money from a lawsuit over this, but a ruling that it was unconstitutional is worth much much more. I really hope someone challenges this, because this type of government conduct is a deadly threat to liberty as we grow more connected every day. I'm hopeful that because this happened in famously-liberal California, someone will have the courage to challenge it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Pro Se Guy on Aug 12th, 2011 @ 9:28pm
But denying that same group of people cell phone service will anger them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Pro Se Guy on Aug 12th, 2011 @ 9:28pm
But denying that same group of people cell phone service will anger them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the fence...
In summary, if the officials turned off cell communications because it was believed that the protest in question would likely lead to violence, then I believe it was a rather clever idea that had minimal impact on the public (as opposed to other alternatives such as shutting down the station or posting armed guards or something). However, if this was merely an attempt to prevent the message from being heard, then this was a completely condemnable act.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All these issues, and many more, come into play in deciding whether or not BART acted constitutionally. While it is presumed that employees of the government intend to act within the limits of their authority, the proper place to decide whether or not they've STAYED within the limits of their authority is a court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In other words ... the court of public opinion is not allowed to speak out on these matters, it needs to shut up and wait for the system to correct itself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The court of public opinion is free to decide this matter all on its own--especially in California where they have a referendum legislation system--by pushing through a law condemning or expressly prohibiting this behavior if it wants to. In fact, that is a response I would strongly support.
Unless that happens though, this needs to get into a real court. Because the court of public opinion can't issue an injunction or a declaratory judgment. And that's what we need if we can't get a new law passed to help.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Perhaps it is a lack of fairness and neutrality which fuels the protests.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ABOLISH THE FCC!!!! ABOLISH IP!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This may be true, however money has a lot to do with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
phone jammer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Provide transportation or serve as a meeting place?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Provide transportation or serve as a meeting place?
HM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Provide transportation or serve as a meeting place?
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-20092160-93/anonymous-plans-bart-web-site-attack-pro test/?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20
HM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Provide transportation or serve as a meeting place?
Does their mandate also include the termination of your life for no apparent reason?
On November 5, 2010 Mehserle was sentenced to two years, minus time served. He served his time in the Los Angeles County Jail, occupying a private cell away from other prisoners. He was released on June 13, 2011 and is now on parole.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BART_Police_shooting_of_Oscar_Grant
Wow, two whole years - the poor guy, he thought it was a taser huh.
"any effort BART makes to assure continued service to the public would serve that mandate."
Including but not limited to murder.
"the court of public opinion is a ruse to lend legitimacy to mob mentality"
Yes, the little people should stfu and take their pittance with out complaint because it could be so much worse.
"More often than not, the mob tramples the civil rights of an innocent majority of bystanders"
If by "mob" you mean the fascists, then yes
"this kind of "protest" is an attempt by an interested few to disrupt the day-to-day activities of the indifferent many"
Go back to sleep citizen, it will all be over soon. Nothing to see here - move along
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CELL PHONE PROTECTION FROM DICTATORS
for the iphone, Ipod and IPAD and
http://hackerdemia.com/auto-BAHN/android/current/autobahn.apk
For any Android device.
They are emergency mobile phone services apps that cannot be shut down by anybody.
Pass this on...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]