>>>>>>>>>>>Who provides and pays for the service at the BART stations? If BART does, then I guess they have every right to shut it off if they like. If not, then disrupting somebody else's service should be a no no.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>We, the cell phone consumers, are the ones paying.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I guess I was wrong about this one -"....BART owns the cellphone antennas inside its network, part of which is underground, and it rents the space to cellphone-service providers. Mr. Johnson said BART's contracts with those companies gives the agency the authority to shut service when it deems necessary, and that it did so first and then notified the companies about its move...."
>>>>>>>>>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904253204576510762318054834.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I still don't think it's legal though - they're restricting everyone's free speech in the area for something they THINK might happen.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Well, my take on it is that if they own it and they allow people to use it, then they have a right to shut it down. Same as a bus line. They own it, they allow people to use it, but if they decide to close a bus line, I assume they have that right. Would they have the right to never have had cellphone antennas inside their network? Could you sue them for not having provided it in the first place?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Well - I don't think it's really that simple. Once BART made the service available, cutting it off in order to prevent the organization of a protest constitutes prior restrain on the free speech rights of every person in the station, whether they’re a protestor or a commuter. Freedom of expression is a fundamental human right.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So they should never have made it available? I still feel that if I provide a service that I allow other people use, I should retain the right to withdraw that service if I like. If BART was not the owner of the service, then I'd be absolutely on your side, but if I don't have the right to control my own services, then what's the point of owning them? Might just as well declare them public domain and step out of the picture. If there is a problem with the service at some point, then let the users fix it.
>>>>>
>>>>>From what I understand BART owns the property but the towers are the carriers and BART turned them off and THEN called the carriers to tell them what they did. Either way I still find it censorship because they turned them off on the speculation that something might happen (which it didn't) and thus it's restraining free speech. What if the TV camera were there filming another shooting and they turned off the TV towers cause they were afraid someone would protest? Like I said a very, very slippery slope.
>>>>
>>>>Maybe nothing happened because they turned off the towers. It's far too easy these days to create a flash riot through wireless messaging and I think that if there is a real and valid suspicion that something like that is going to happen, then circumventing it is acceptable. We have all kinds of rights infringed in the name of law and order, and sometimes it's valid and sometimes not. If done for the right reasons and with the right intent, then I accept that. I'll howl when I think it was done for other sorts of reasons.
>>>
>>>Of course we'll never know though because they turned them off. Perhaps next it will be a radio station or a TV station because they 'might' broadcast something that 'might' cause a problem? Hey what not just turn off a whole ISP backbone in case someone 'might' use an internet connection to 'maybe' do something... I agree that sometimes you have to take steps in the name of law and order but there was no law and order problem here - until they turned off the towers (which I still think is illegal).
>>
>>IMHO, there is a fair difference between what news might be reported on the radio that might cause a problem, and a deliberate creation of a flash mob over the net. If we could remove the net from the hands of jerks and idiots who think rioting is fun, then maybe we could ignore perceived threats. Until then...
>
>Right..until some radio DJ tries to organize a protest. Anyway wouldn't you feel safer having a phone / internet service than not? Seems to me they created more of a safety hazard than they solved.

I spent the far greater part of my life without a cell phone and the internet, and somehow, difficult as it was, I managed to get by. I hate to bring up the old saw, but what did people do before cell phones and the internet? I know the answer to that because I was there. Life went on. Now that I think about it, it seems to me there were far fewer riots and far less looting.

>
>>>>>>>And now BART has implemented this new rule: "...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..." so I guess you can't talk to each other now either.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Its a rather slippery slope if you ask me. Don't make calls, don't use messaging, don't touch the internet, don't talk to each other. Like WTF?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Well, I think you'll still be allowed to talk to each other. Remember too that for all intents, the paid areas of the system are not truly public areas. How about we all go to the theatre, pay to get in, and then demonstrate in the aisles? Should the theatre owners be allowed to curtail our free speech? I know the BART and the theatre seem like very different situations, but I contend that from the POV of the owner, they're not that different.
>>>>>
>>>>>BART is tax funded and publicly owned though right? And the rule is rather vague and rip for abuse I think. Plus I was under the impression we had a right to assembly.
>>>>
>>>>Absolutely, and it's a precious right. But I don't think that right was intended to apply "wherever you feel like it" and regardless of the kind of 'assembly' you have in mind.
>>>
>>>Yes I agree that makes sense - but the rule says "No person shall conduct or participate in assemblies or demonstrations or engage in other expressive activities". Its the "other expressive activities" part that I have an issue with - heck that can mean just about anything! What next? Wave goodbye to someone - hey that's an expressive activity - so the BART cops come and arrest or kick you out? ...oh my mistake....decide to shoot you..
>>
>>I have a sneaking suspicion that if that happened, it would only happen once and the BART cop(s) would be out of work. It's easy to think up ridiculous end games, but happily, reality is usually far less interesting.
>
>Well it's not a ridiculous as a BART cop shooting an unarmed person though is it?...which of course has happened more than once. Heck that the whole reason this mess started to begin with! Don't forget, while BART may have lessened the likelihood of a flash riot, the world is still watching everything that happens through the collective lens of their cell phones.

Yes. And like I said, that BART cop is no longer working there and because of his conviction and further ongoing investigation, the likelihood of another BART cop doing the same is hugely diminished.

>
>>>>>>>>>>>I wish the GO system (commuter train) here would shut down the service so I wouldn't have to listen to people making phone calls just to say, "I'll talk to you when I get home." Believe me when I rode the GO, I heard nonsense like that all the time. And don't get me started on people who are convinced that everyone in adjoining provinces want's to hear their pointless babbling.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Ya I just put on some headphones and attempt to ignore everyone else (well..except for the blonde girl that rides the same bus as me in the morning....hahaha)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>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