BART PD shuts down cell service... [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : BART PD shuts down cell service...


Sam Spade
08-14-2011, 07:42
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/08/12/BAEU1KMS8U.DTL

Thoughts?

Cochese
08-14-2011, 07:59
Good move by BART.

Its THEIR system. If the flash mob *********s want to use that system against BART, well tough tittties. Maybe those jamokes should invest in some FRS radios or can and string.

Agent6-3/8
08-14-2011, 08:00
Good move by BART.

Its THEIR system. If the flash mob *********s want to use that system against BART, well tough tittties. Maybe those jamokes should invest in some FRS radios or can and string.

+1


Its BART's system. They can pull the plug on it just the same as Eric can pull the plug on GT if he so chooses.

Eric SF
08-14-2011, 08:19
Wow, hopefully BART gets sued and loses a ton of money. The government has no right to shut down communications lines. This is statism at its finest. What if someone needed to dial 911? I'm backing the ACLU on this one.

eracer
08-14-2011, 08:23
Doesn't the Patriot Act cover this? DHS should set up a cellular monitoring station and have armed SWAT teams waiting for the yutes to arrive at the designated locations.

boomhower
08-14-2011, 08:37
It's their system so they have the right to shut it down. It would be different if they ordered a Verizon tower shut down it would be a different story. They are just *****hurt they couldnt use BART's own system against them. Get over it.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

dano1427
08-14-2011, 09:50
BART turned off the cell sites in the tubes. Since cell companies lease these from BART, it was BART's call. Nothing was jammed/interfered with, so there was no FCC issue.

One of the big three (Verizon, Sprint, AT&T) doesn't even have a presence in BART, with no service at all. And remember that all SF BART stations are underground, so no overhead cell sites work.

wprebeck
08-14-2011, 09:55
Wow, hopefully BART gets sued and loses a ton of money. The government has no right to shut down communications lines. This is statism at its finest. What if someone needed to dial 911? I'm backing the ACLU on this one.

You don't read much, do you?


So, the government doesn't have a right to close down something it owns? How exactly does that work in your little world?

bccop
08-14-2011, 10:00
Wow, hopefully BART gets sued and loses a ton of money. The government has no right to shut down communications lines. This is statism at its finest. What if someone needed to dial 911? I'm backing the ACLU on this one.

If someone needs to call 911 they can use one of the many emergency call boxes available at subway stations and on trains.

MeefZah
08-14-2011, 10:26
I'm torn, honestly.

On one hand, I am okay with a shutdown of the cell service to keep violent protests from being coordinated. That's a good move by BART so as to further an agenda of public safety and general peace.

On the other, I understand the concern people have. Yeah, BART owns the cell service, and legally they can shut it off same as they might choose to shut off the lights, or stop a train. It's their stuff. But shutting down lines of communication does have more broad social implications than shutting off a light, especially in this day and age - the comments regarding Syria, Egypt, etc., are accurate in that regard.

I guess ultimately the cop in me (who makes all my decisions in the end anyway) would say this: "if you don't like what BART is doing, don't ride the train".

merlynusn
08-14-2011, 10:43
I'm torn, honestly.

On one hand, I am okay with a shutdown of the cell service to keep violent protests from being coordinated. That's a good move by BART so as to further an agenda of public safety and general peace.

On the other, I understand the concern people have. Yeah, BART owns the cell service, and legally they can shut it off same as they might choose to shut off the lights, or stop a train. It's their stuff. But shutting down lines of communication does have more broad social implications than shutting off a light, especially in this day and age - the comments regarding Syria, Egypt, etc., are accurate in that regard.

I guess ultimately the cop in me (who makes all my decisions in the end anyway) would say this: "if you don't like what BART is doing, don't ride the train".

:agree:

Sharky7
08-14-2011, 10:56
Wow, hopefully BART gets sued and loses a ton of money. The government has no right to shut down communications lines. This is statism at its finest. What if someone needed to dial 911? I'm backing the ACLU on this one.

Yikes! If someone needed to call 911 on a cell phone.

Wait...What did people do in 1990 before cell phones were in every pocket?

CAcop
08-14-2011, 11:20
I rode on BART for the first time in a long time last week. I was surprised that you could get 3g cell service in the stations and tunnels.

I just goes to show you how addicted people are to their phones. They have to have service everywhere and to yank it is an affront to their rights.

What if a commercial building set up their building to be able to get cell signals in but then shut it off when protestors came? Amusement parks? People would still *****.

As far as I am concerned BART does not have to offer cell service in the tunnels. They do it as a convienince to their riders. IF they get sued and loose I would shut down all service. I would call it a safety hazard. There are plenty of call boxes on the trains and stations. Also many of the big stations have police stations in them and at least 16 cops are on the trains at all times.

nelsone
08-14-2011, 11:39
Legality is one thing - and it appears that BART has an ironclad right to shut off their transmitters. Maybe Verizon will sue to get some of their lease fee back, but I can't see any other serious repercussions.

Appropriateness of the action is another, given that there was no riot, no unrest, nothing but an institutional fear of flashmobs. Hey, I share their fear, but there's a difference between being proactive and engaging in prior restraint.

It's ironic that cell phones in prisons are such a huge and intractable problem, since FCC forbids jamming. You'd think that the long-recognized need for cell-service denial in prisons would trigger some kind of response, but instead what we get is people who have broken no law and aren't in prison being denied their cell service instead.

S.O.Interceptor
08-14-2011, 11:52
If BART was smart they would just eliminate the service all together. BART is under no obligation to the public to provide that service. It's a privilege, not a right. People survived just fine prior to having cell phone service in subways, and they can do it again.

CAcop
08-14-2011, 12:23
Legality is one thing - and it appears that BART has an ironclad right to shut off their transmitters. Maybe Verizon will sue to get some of their lease fee back, but I can't see any other serious repercussions.

Appropriateness of the action is another, given that there was no riot, no unrest, nothing but an institutional fear of flashmobs. Hey, I share their fear, but there's a difference between being proactive and engaging in prior restraint.

It's ironic that cell phones in prisons are such a huge and intractable problem, since FCC forbids jamming. You'd think that the long-recognized need for cell-service denial in prisons would trigger some kind of response, but instead what we get is people who have broken no law and aren't in prison being denied their cell service instead.

It has only been since My 2004 that cell service has been on train stations and tunnels. You had a cell phone before that? Well it was going to do you no good in the stations and tunnels.

mrsurfboard
08-14-2011, 12:28
BART will not hear the end of this. Lawsuits will be coming. Cutting lines of communication will be the first thing the government does when they are about to close their fist around it's citizens.

Brucev
08-14-2011, 12:41
Yes, bart has the legal right to do as it pleases with its property. In this case, stupid move. Don't live in sf and would not likely ever want to. Prefer the east coast. But very much do not think it wise for any govt. bureaucrat to have the power to cut off communications of legitimate law abiding persons simply because they suspect someone might do something that they consider untoward. Given the choice, I will always opt for such bureaucrats to be restricted... require of them a court order before they could proceed, allow only in the case of a genuine emergency rather than such people having the power to make such decisions on their own at their own discretion. In this case, all who made the decision need at a minimum to be disciplined... loss of pay/benefits, etc.

Sam Spade
08-14-2011, 12:52
Yes, bart has the legal right to do as it pleases with its property. In this case, stupid move. Don't live in sf and would not likely ever want to. Prefer the east coast. But very much do not think it wise for any govt. bureaucrat to have the power to cut off communications of legitimate law abiding persons simply because they suspect someone might do something that they consider untoward. Given the choice, I will always opt for such bureaucrats to be restricted... require of them a court order before they could proceed, allow only in the case of a genuine emergency rather than such people having the power to make such decisions on their own at their own discretion. In this case, all who made the decision need at a minimum to be disciplined... loss of pay/benefits, etc.

It was legal, there was an impending flash mob that had said it was going to use cells, there was no requirement to get any court order and they confered with the lawyers.....and you want them to be disciplined, at a minimum.

Can you explain the springboard you used to leap between what was and what you want?

m2hmghb
08-14-2011, 13:13
Yes, bart has the legal right to do as it pleases with its property. In this case, stupid move. Don't live in sf and would not likely ever want to. Prefer the east coast. But very much do not think it wise for any govt. bureaucrat to have the power to cut off communications of legitimate law abiding persons simply because they suspect someone might do something that they consider untoward. Given the choice, I will always opt for such bureaucrats to be restricted... require of them a court order before they could proceed, allow only in the case of a genuine emergency rather than such people having the power to make such decisions on their own at their own discretion. In this case, all who made the decision need at a minimum to be disciplined... loss of pay/benefits, etc.


See you said "legitimate law abiding persons" which in this case the people targeted are not. I'd hate to hear you screaming how they could have done more if one of the flash mobs got unruly and someone was pushed onto the tracks.

ray9898
08-14-2011, 15:13
Looks like a good move to me since BART owns the system. I am sure it prevented a dangerous situation for all the good folks simply trying to go about their everyday lives since one group wanted to cause trouble.

Cochese
08-14-2011, 15:18
Wow, hopefully BART gets sued and loses a ton of money. The government has no right to shut down communications lines. This is statism at its finest. What if someone needed to dial 911? I'm backing the ACLU on this one.

Reading is fundamental Eric.

I think you may have lived in SF too long. :wavey:

Patchman
08-14-2011, 15:25
Bad enough when drivers yap away on cell phones while driving. Doubly horrible when riders yap-yap-yap away on their cell phone while riding public transportation. So I'm in favor of all transportation systems shutting down cell service everywhere.

I'm OK with using whatever reason to do so.

CAcop
08-14-2011, 16:05
Reading is fundamental Eric.

I think you may have lived in SF too long. :wavey:

I find it funny the guy complaining about statism is upset about the governement taking away a service they don't have to provide.

Everybody wants their slice of the governement cheese.

Patchman
08-14-2011, 17:11
Well, if we're going to into a tiff about the public's right to yap away in a public transportation system vs. public safety, let' not forget that even suicide bombers no longer get to personally detonate their bomb. They may or may not be led to believe they hold the detonator in their hand, but the bomb is detonated by the handler. Via cellphone.

Next thing you know, the right to yap-yap-yap away on a cell phone in public will be a 1st Amendment right.

Agonizer
08-14-2011, 18:29
I see nothing wrong with what was done by BART. Smart move.

ACLU is *****ing about free speech. In my book, this has nothing to do with it. ACLU gets fired up about everything but the second amendment.


Joe Citizen

madcitycop
08-14-2011, 18:56
Shut em all off and deal with no signal like most other cities. When you were a kid and you hit your brother with your nee toy mom took the toy a way. last i checked cell service fRom a tower specifically owned by an entity isnt protected under the constitution or bill of rights.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

msu_grad_121
08-14-2011, 19:28
I find it ironic that those whining about BART shutting down the cell towers are the same ones that are most likely to be complaining and demanding proactive policing should something have happened.

You can't have it both ways, folks. Don't be mad that they beat you at the game you tried to play.

x_out86
08-15-2011, 01:57
Wow, hopefully BART gets sued and loses a ton of money. The government has no right to shut down communications lines. This is statism at its finest. What if someone needed to dial 911? I'm backing the ACLU on this one.
Your confusing a privilege with a right....BART owns the system and can do with it as they so please. I think you will be hard pressed to find any law that REQUIRES the system provider of this type to distribute their service in a certain way. Its a private system...nothing says that they had to provide it in the first place.

Freedom of speech does not mean that you can compromise public safety to get your "point" across.

dano1427
08-15-2011, 04:28
The sticky point is that BART is a Govt. entity, which pisses-off the privileged protestors even more.

Fireplug
08-15-2011, 04:42
BART did good. Possibly kept someone from being "squeshed". :thumbsup:

For those of you who don't agree with BART's decision...shame on you! You would rather have protesters/flashmob jeporadizing citizens safety by having a protest on the platforms, restricting their freedom of movement and so on.

In other words...Too bad the a-holes didn't have the means to communicate and organize their ILLEGAL actions.

When I was watching the news coverage of the London riots they stated the rioters were using the cell service to organize their actions. I thought, TURN THEM OFF!! But that's me.

CAcop
08-15-2011, 06:33
Onr of the interesting things about BART too is that you have to pay to get to the trains and most of the stations are on the pay side. There is no right to be on most of BART property without paying to be there. Even then they can throw you off.

merlynusn
08-15-2011, 10:02
When I was watching the news coverage of the London riots they stated the rioters were using the cell service to organize their actions. I thought, TURN THEM OFF!! But that's me.

But I think the difference between BART and the UK is huge. BART is a privately owned company that OWNS the repeaters in the stations. They have every right to cut them off. Do I think it can be a slippery slope? Yes. But it is their right since they own it.

For the UK to cut off all cell service, they do not own the towers and/or the air. That would be more of an issue for me than BART doing it. Do I think our government would shut down cell service if they wanted to? Absolutely. Do I think it's legal? Nope. The other thing about the UK is they are subjects of the Crown. Their rights are different than ours.

Patchman
08-15-2011, 13:32
For the UK to cut off all cell service, they do not own the towers and/or the air. That would be more of an issue for me than BART doing it.

The other thing about the UK is they are subjects of the Crown. Their rights are different than ours.

I was informed that in the UK, cellphone service comes in tiers, based on priority. In an emergency, the gov't can choose to turn off service for the appropriate tier/priority.

IIRC, they did just that in the aftermath of the July 2005 London tube bombing.

Trigger Finger
08-15-2011, 13:58
Wow, hopefully BART gets sued and loses a ton of money. The government has no right to shut down communications lines. This is statism at its finest. What if someone needed to dial 911? I'm backing the ACLU on this one.

Yea, I guess you really don't get out much or read at all Eric SF!!!
BART said if you needed to call 911 just look around for a BART Officer, they were all over the place in mass. AND BART had ambulances standing by in case of an emergency! These Anonymous PUKES should have there hacking fingers cut off!!
As has been said, it's BART's system. Don't like it, then don't ride it.

EOD3
08-15-2011, 14:53
[DEVILS_ADVOCATE]

I see a lot of folks here using the word "riot" as a suitable substitute for "protest" :dunno:

Preemptive enforcement visited on 100% of the citizens to control a "rather" specific sub-segment of the population. :dunno:

Unless I'm mistaken (it's happened before), ALL cellular transmitters are licensed by the FCC as "In the public interest". Arbitrarily disabling them is maybe not the best idea. :dunno:

[DEVILS_ADVOCATE/]

dano1427
08-15-2011, 15:00
But I think the difference between BART and the UK is huge. BART is a privately owned company that OWNS the repeaters in the stations. They have every right to cut them off. Do I think it can be a slippery slope? Yes. But it is their right since they own it.

For the UK to cut off all cell service, they do not own the towers and/or the air. That would be more of an issue for me than BART doing it. Do I think our government would shut down cell service if they wanted to? Absolutely. Do I think it's legal? Nope. The other thing about the UK is they are subjects of the Crown. Their rights are different than ours.

BART isn't a private company. It's a Govt. multi-county transit district.

merlynusn
08-15-2011, 15:40
I was informed that in the UK, cellphone service comes in tiers, based on priority. In an emergency, the gov't can choose to turn off service for the appropriate tier/priority.

IIRC, they did just that in the aftermath of the July 2005 London tube bombing.

I stand corrected. But that's the difference between the UK and the US.

As to my earlier statement that BART was a privately owned company. That's a misprint. I meant that it was a company (even though government owned) that operates as a private company.

But again, a good analogy would be. Does a bank have the right to prevent cell phone service in their bank? I'd argue they do. Any company has a right to control what occurs on their property.

Again, do I agree with them doing it. eh, not really. I can see why, but I can also see the use of this tactic spreading.

Patchman
08-15-2011, 19:41
Now-a-days, depending on the emergency, it'd be crazy for a public transport system (great targets: soft, guaranteed media attention, etc...) or LE not to have that ability.

Standard OP for any self respecting freedom fighter is to have secondary (or even tertiary) IEDs. Set off by cell phones. So for responding LE, a mobile signal jammer is mandatory. Or at the very least, ability to have the cell providers very, very quickly cut off service to the affected area(s).

Best yet, don't allow freedom fighters to set off IEDs on your property in the first place.

DaBigBR
08-15-2011, 21:41
I think it's funny that people claim that shutting down the phones is so detrimental to public safety.

Ten years ago cell phones most likely did not work where this system is in place at all. Ten years before that, nobody that had to ride the subway could afford a cell phone in the first place.

Amazing how society changes.

CAcop
08-15-2011, 23:28
BART isn't a private company. It's a Govt. multi-county transit district.

It is and it isn't. It is technically a joint powers association. There is a park district in the East Bay that is somewhat similar. They both span different counties and cities and therefore the need to create a regional government that also runs like a business. Realistically it is a business that runs like a government agency.

Straight Pipe
08-16-2011, 16:15
Doesn't the Patriot Act cover this? DHS should set up a cellular monitoring station and have armed SWAT teams waiting for the yutes to arrive at the designated locations.

Wow, a SWAT Team acting like terrorists. What would Ron Paul say? Oh, I know: he'ld like to put them on trial.........

Straight Pipe
08-16-2011, 16:24
Wow, hopefully BART gets sued and loses a ton of money. The government has no right to shut down communications lines. This is statism at its finest. What if someone needed to dial 911? I'm backing the ACLU on this one.

Let's see if I understand your thinking.... If I have WI-FI (what-ever) in my house and I know one of my neighbors is using it without my permission but I allow them the use of it because it is MINE, and I discover that said neighbor was using MY WI-FI to inform his friends that I was going to out of town for the weekend so they could break into my house... Yeah, I can see where you're coming from. :upeyes:

Straight Pipe
08-16-2011, 16:28
Reading is fundamental Eric.

I think you may have lived in SF too long. :wavey:

:agree: Understanding property rights is also fundamental.