>>>>>>>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
>
>I understand that jamming is an indiscriminate physical-layer DoS - but in theory isn't intentionally shutting off the power to the towers result in the same thing? No one at all can make a call at that point so same end result right?
>
>How about this possibility:
>BART officers beat up and/or shoot another innocent person
>BART receives credible news of a protest
>BART turns off cell service
>Someone at the stations has heart attack (or any other medical emergency, heck any emergency at all) - no one can call 911 so person dies.
>BART gets sued for shutting off cell service
>
>..or if that doesn't work they can shutoff the TV stations, Radio stations and then start (errr..continue) shooting people. If anyone tries to record the action ..well then they can go after them for illegally filming the cops.
>
>Personally I'd rather take my changes with the service ON than OFF - not to mention it's America and we have this thing called the 1st Amendment.

Like I said, from a legal POV it's interesting. Heavy-handed? Arguable. Violation of 1st Amendment? Arguable. That's why we pay armies of lawyers minimum wage ;-)