BART Bosses Say Phone Shutoff Will Only Be Used In 'Extreme Situations' Going Forward
from the learning-their-lesson? dept
When BART first announced that it had shut off mobile phone service in a station to stop protesters, it was seen as a brief aside by the transit operation. The news reports covering the story buried that part of the story as not very important. Then people began to realize it was a huge deal and perhaps a violation of telecom law and the First Amendment, and quite an uproar ensued. Not surprisingly, the folks at BART are now realizing that perhaps they were a bit hasty. BART held an emergency board meeting solely on this issue and announced that BART will only use such measures "in an extreme case where the public is imminently at risk." Of course, what constitutes such an "extreme case" is not entirely clear. But, at the very least, I would imagine that BART bosses will think about the consequences a bit more next time.
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
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 ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There are officers working in the BART system, I would assume. If there were an accident or someone were injured, it's likely one of them would be able to assist. Cell phones are a necessity in order to get help - society did fine without them up until the late 90'/early 2000's when their popularity really shot up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Correction
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
A few hundred thousand years ago we did fine without fire and tools made of stone before their popularity shot up. Just my 2 pebbles... I mean, cents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Society did fine without fire at one time I'm sure, but now we're better off with it.
Society did fine without modern hospitals and medical advancements, but now we're better off with them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Every time I've ever made fire it was always the real kind that actually burns things.
Enlighten me on this "artificial fire" thing, please?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
> had the ability to artificially make fire.
Why is it that when a human makes fire the process becomes artificial? It results in genuine fire, does it not?
The fact that a person does it, instead of a random occurence like a lightning strike or a volcanic eruption, doesn't make it artificial. Purposeful, yes. Artificial, no.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Clarification
And society used to have pay phones, too. haven't seen one of those around in a LONG time. Cell phones are important to getting access to emergency services. and the FCC agrees, giving the same policies for interruption of service as landlines, and forcing localized 911 emergency service on cell carriers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Clarification
Well said. I imagine some New Orleans citizens have their own special view of the police after Katrina.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Clarification
> own special view of the police after Katrina.
Yeah, the ones who had their guns forcibly taken away by the cops on orders from the mayor and governor, in violation of the 2nd and 4th Amendments.
However there's a whole other (quite large) segment of the population, which was set upon by hordes of urban thugs, who I'm sure would love to have had a strong police presence in their neighborhoods.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Clarification
Or their guns, at the least. ;)
And don't forget about the police officers who murdered two men on a bridge, and then went on to later lie in their reports and fabricate evidence (with the help of the very guy that was supposedly "investigating" the shooting) to make it look like the shooting was justified.
The police are not your friends. Invoke them at your peril.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Clarification
> people and mistake their gun for their
> tazzers? EXACTLY who I want to help me in
> an emergency
Actually, I bet it would be those same police that you'd want to help you, and you'd cry like a little girl if they didn't show up.
In my experience, the people that bitch the loudest about the cops are also the ones who expect the cops to be johnny-on-the-spot to help them whenever the need arises.
Oh, and it's Taser, not 'tazzer'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I assume there are still "Emergency phones" in the BART stations that you can get to in case there is an actual emergency. If cell phone service had to be shut off for any reason, I'm sure that place will be crawling with officers anyway...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Being a typical citizen of The United States of America I never actually bothered to read the First Amendment (TL;DR) so this was new information to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
/sarcasm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Test Run
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Test Run
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Test Run
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Test Run
Go figure....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Test Run
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Test Run
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Test Run
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Test Run
You knew about somebody getting shot for vague reasons and you didn't care?
You're a drug dealer aren't you
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Test Run
The initial protest was because in 2009 a BART officer shoot and killed a unarmed man.
Earlier this year a BART officer used what seems to be excessive force and shot an killed a person with a knife.
BART officers are perceived overly aggressive and don't have the best reputation in the Bay Area.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Test Run
> seems to be excessive force and shot an
> killed a person with a knife.
He had a knife and was brandishing it. Nothing excessive about it.
Here's a thought: If you don't want to risk getting killed while attacking someone with a knife, don't attack people with knives. Otherwise, you assume the risks inherenet in attacking people with knives, one of which is getting shot by someone who has the sense to be better armed than you are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Test Run
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Then again, it could just be this week's episode of NCIS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Also, I can't wait for when criminals take advantage of this to do something to some poor person; I hope that person sues the bloody sin out of BART so they learn the only way these things ever will. Direct obvious attacks to the bottom line and hopefully jail time for the morons involved (both the criminals attacking and the criminals denying service).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The worst that ever happens is a negative news article.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
extreme case
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That makes sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That sounds fine to me.
I consider that a situation where BART can reasonably consider that the public is subject to imminent danger from an out-of-control crowd, and they should be able to take pre-emptive steps to keep that from happening.
The train platform is not a public gathering place like a mall or city square. It is a place for ticketed passengers to board and exit from trains. It doesn't take much rowdiness at all before someone gets hurt, perhaps fatally. There are other places in the train station to protest that do not interfere with service or cause risk to protesters or innocent bystanders.
I just plain don't have a problem with BART taking steps like shutting down their cell phone repeaters if they reasonably believe someone is planning a disruptive event for the platform itself.
HM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: That sounds fine to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: That sounds fine to me.
HM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: That sounds fine to me.
The free speech zones are outside of the fare gates, much like the designated protest zones we have for the president where no one might see anyone disagreeing with them.
The real serious problem that drove this to 11 was BART said X, that made Protesters feel it was needed to do Y. BART rolled out riot gear, Protesters turned up their games.
The situation fed on itself, each side reacting exactly how the other side needed them to behave to justify this spiraling into a cluster*ahem*
BART was amazed anyone would dare to challenge their authority, and the Protesters were less than amazed that the people they already considered jackbooted power hungry thugs acted like jackbooted power hungry thugs.
Had the protesters been greeted by the standard BART officer, not all rioted geared up, who said for your safety we have set aside this portion of the platform for your protest. Your visible and the area is safe your us, yourselves and the passengers. Your right to protest does not involve stopping the trains, and people who do so will be removed and arrested. Enjoy your protest.
The protesters would have been dumbfounded and there would have been much less overhype as a peaceful protest happened.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: That sounds fine to me.
> and there would have been much less overhype
> as a peaceful protest happened.
Baloney. Those protesters are there for one reason: to defy authority. That's their raison d'etre. There's nothing BART could have offered them that would have induced them to do anything other than what they were planning on doing, which was to disrupt the functioning of the station as much as they possibly could.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: That sounds fine to me.
To defy authority... really?
So when some authority tells you to accept something stupid you just bend over and take it?
You might have not noticed that this entire country was founded on the idea of defying authority of a king, who was screwing over the people... because he had the authority to.
While disrupting the trains is a bad thing, you claim to know that every person who showed up intended to do such. How much did your crystal ball cost and where can I get one. To know what is in the hearts and minds of all people protesting an issue is an amazing super power. Maybe you can consult for TSA so you can tell which people in an airport actually are terrorists from your ability to read minds.
I enjoy this new idea sweeping the mindset that everyone who protests wants anarchy and riots to break out. To run out to rape, loot, and pillage.
Anyone else find it sad that to disagree with the "majority" in this country is now considered to always have a criminal element to it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: That sounds fine to me.
Yes, really.
> So when some authority tells you to accept something
> stupid you just bend over and take it?
No, but I don't walk around breaking the rules just for the sake of being a contrarian who enjoys "fucking with the man", either. Most of the real assholes in these groups couldn't give a tin shit about the issue they're 'protesting'. They're there for one reason: to break things and piss people off. That's all they care about. The protest is just a convenient excuse to exercise their particular mental pathology.
They're the same kids who could never behave in school and were always getting kicked out of wherever they were because they refused to follow any rule, no matter how reasonable.
> You might have not noticed that this entire country was
> founded on the idea of defying authority of a king, who
> was screwing over the people... because he had the authority to.
It was not, however, founded on the idea of victimizing innocent people, which is exactly what these thugs were doing.
> While disrupting the trains is a bad thing
No kidding. How nice of you to acknowledge that.
> you claim to know that every person who showed up intended to do such
Where did I say anything about 'every person who showed up'? I only commented on the ones who were engaging in criminal activity. Not every person who showed up.
> Maybe you can consult for TSA so you can tell which people
> in an airport actually are terrorists from your ability to read minds.
Or maybe you can drop your zeal for sarcasm for a minute, take a deep breath, and actually read what I wrote. Of course that won't give you as much opportunity to be so witty and clever, but then again, you're not nearly as clever as you apparently think you are.
> I enjoy this new idea sweeping the mindset that everyone who
> protests wants anarchy and riots to break out.
And I love this continuing trend among some of the posters here who either fail to grasp basic syntax or purposely put words in other people's mouths so that they can set up, and then oh-so-valiantly knock down, a series of ridiculous strawmen.
> Anyone else find it sad that to disagree with the "majority"
> in this country is now considered to always have a criminal
> element to it?
I guess it must have escaped your keen eye, but there *was* a criminal element to this protest. No one had to assume anything, genius. They were right there, committing crimes for all to see.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here we have an authority, violating the constitutional rights of it's citizens in an effort to maintain what they suspect may be a problem.
I can't help but think along the lines of BART is acting as a cell phone relayer, underground. While they are not providing you with the service, they are assisting in enabling it. In that sense they are part of the communications link, the same as the provider of the service is. While I am not sure on this there is probably a law other than freedom of speech, covering the willful termination of emergency services.
Being underground, means cell towers don't work there. The signal does not penetrate underground. This is why BART is running this service. Without it, cell phones don't work.
I too have a problem with BART judging it can act to shut off the service because someone "claimed" to plan to have a protest. Next when the terrorists want to strike, someone will call BART with information that there will be a protest, which in turn will shut off needed emergency calling when needed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
falsely shouting "extreme case"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]