>>>>>So cut off cell phone communications to quell a protest?? This IS the United States isn't it?
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/techchron/detail?entry_id=95300
>>>>
>>>>Your title is provocative - BART did not "jam" cell signals.
>>>
>>>Well what do you call it? ".... BART temporarily interrupted service at select BART stations as one of many tactics to ensure the safety of everyone on the platform..." http://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2011/news20110812.aspx
>>
>>Service interruption is not active jamming. You know that.
>>
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_signal_jammer
>
>Ah yes I see that they didn't JAM the signal - they simply removed the power to underground service towers...which I would *think* is still illegal - surely the FCC has such rules (I'm trying to find out).
>A government agency turning off mobile-internet and phone service to quash a possible demonstration — sounds familiar doesn't it? Just like the speech suppression used by Middle Eastern dictators to quell dissent. It's nothing more than unlawful suppression of First Amendment speech!

I was pointing out that it wasn't jamming, which to my mind is much more serious - in effect, an indiscriminate physical-layer DoS attack.

The possible legal implications are interesting, I agree. How about this scenario:

- BART receives credible news of potentially dangerous protests
- BART considers shutting off cell service, but decides not to
- During protests, people are injured or killed
- BART gets sued for not shutting off cell service

A couple of other things worth thinking about:

- Metro transit systems are "soft targets" that are choice targets for terrorist activities
- My understanding is cell phones are currently the triggers of choice for bombs or other devices