|
Videos
August 29, 2011 By News Staff
An emergency filing sent Monday, Aug. 29, to the FCC is asking the commission to swiftly rule that local governments don’t have the authority to shut off wireless communications systems — a direct rebuke of an incident earlier this month on San Francisco’s public transit.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Center for Democracy and Technology in Government, and several other organizations asserted in the emergency petition that Bay Area Rapid Transit’s (BART) purposeful shutdown on Aug. 11 of wireless service used by passengers engendered public safety and infringed on citizen rights.
Both the FCC and BART have already said they would investigate the circumstances and legality of the shutdown. The advocacy groups commended the FCC for initiating an inquiry.
“However, the recent statements by BART directors, as well as the possibility that other local jurisdictions may act to interfere with CMRS service [commercial mobile radio service] in similar situations, demonstrate that the Commission must not wait on the outcome of its investigation into this specific incident to clarify the law generally,” according to the petition.
BART turned off cell service at four underground stations on Aug. 11. BART officials said the temporary shutdown was due to information they had that mobile devices would be used to organize a rush-hour protest over the shooting deaths of two men by BART police.
Turning cell service off created a firestorm of freedom-of-speech claims, including from the activist group “Anonymous.” The group fired back at BART on Aug. 14, hacking the Mybart.org website and leaking the personal and login information of that website’s users. Mybart.org remains temporarily shut down by BART.
The hacking incident was followed by an additional protest, organized by Anonymous on Aug. 15, of about 100 people that caused the shutdown of various BART stations. Anonymous is also alleged to have leaked the personal information of BART police officers on Aug. 17. On Aug. 22, an additional protest was held on San Francisco’s Market Street after BART officials closed the Civic Center and Powell stations. BART warned passengers that another protest may disrupt service on Monday, Aug. 29.
The National Journal reported on Aug. 15 that the FCC is in an information-gathering stage of its investigation.
“Anytime communications services are interrupted, we seek to assess the situation," an FCC spokesman told the Journal.
Concerns over the public outcry prompted BART officials to convene a special meeting last week to consider adopting an official policy allowing police to shut off cell phone service on BART in extreme public safety circumstances. Although no action was taken at the meeting, BART is expected to make a decision on the policy in the next several weeks.
You may use or reference this story with attribution and a link to
http://www.govtech.com/e-government/FCC-Asked-to-Disallow-Wireless-Shutdowns-on-Public-Transit.html
.jpg)
What is Big Data? What can it do for you? 
Discover the BI capabilities you already own.
So let me get this straight, these groups are asking the FCC to make it illegal to shut down communications but they advocate the rights of a group to impinge upon my personal freedoms by disrupting the transit system using these same communication systems. OK - make the shut down illegal but also make it illegal for any public protest to stop the normal flow of the public transit system. You have the freedom to protest, but not at the cost of my freedoms. One of which is my choice NOT to listen to your protest message.
I am in total agreement. If the communication systems contribute to civil unreat then the service has no right to stop communications unless it is a threat to society at large. Stopping communications means someone living near the Embacadero in SF cannot call family to say they are being dumped in the Mission because there is no transportation service to downtown stations. Why are regular commuters inconvenienced so dramatically because there is a Public Safety alert? I think the protesters have a right to say what they want to but not in the Bart station or on the platform. Keep services operational and deal to the issues on the street.I see tourists really admiring SF for disrupting their travel plans. Rod McPherson
Those who commit civil disobedience are very aware of ensuing penalties. Disruption carries a known price to pay. However, the decision to blanket out all communication within an area on 'information' of a possible protest possibly involving civil disobedience is a dangerous presumption of authority by local government. Can such 'possibilities' be readily trusted and is not such a response expedient overkill?
If the threats were being made using actual speach, the only person to be silenced would be the person making the threat. There is no excuse for cutting off ALL mobile communication to everyone in the area simply because one person might use it to break a law. If we do that, every mobile site should be shut down for fear of terrorism, pedophilia, etc. Also, since transit is a public place, nobody actually can expect people to behave any differently than any other public place.
So how did cellular coverage underground suddenly become an unalienable right? Nothing happened to the cell system coverage above ground during the protests. Underground coverage didn't even exist just a couple years ago and is only possible because BART is allowing cell companies to use BART's facilities.
"Stopping communications means someone living near the Embacadero in SF cannot call family to say they are being dumped in the Mission because there is no transportation service to downtown stations" Not really, Rod; all that this person would have to do is exit the BART system and make his call from the street.
Mike, BART is not a private company owning all services and properties but a multi-county, special governmental agency created by the State of California, with elected officials as directors and a budget supported partially by taxes. What they offer IS your right because it is your system. BART governance made a bad call here and chose an easy way to address a possible problem by limiting the rights of too many. Not saying their job is easy, just that it shouldn't be that easy.