independent and unofficial
Prince fan community site
Wed 21st Aug 2019 6:43am
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > Politics & Religion > Bay Area subway asked wireless operators to suspend service before protest
« Previous topic  Next topic »
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Author

Tweet     Share

Message
Thread started 08/12/11 1:45pm

V10LETBLUES

Bay Area subway asked wireless operators to suspend service before protest

The interenet has been quite a nifty tool for comanding the masses. Easy to see why Iran, China and North Korea clamp down on it.

Twitter/social media was called out as the single biggest factor in Mubarak's ouster. Some have called what happened in Tunisia and Egypt the “Facebook Revolution.”

http://www.fastcompany.co...g-in-egypt

Shaping the narrative

In situations of chaos, the upper hand goes to the group that can shape a narrative and get it to stick. History is written by the victors, after all--now, even in real time. When looting began over the weekend, the narrative could easily have shifted in favor of the government: Hooligans were turning the city upside down. Order needed to be restored. Clamp down.

But word started getting out via Twitter that hastily arranged neighborhood watch groups were apprehending looters who, it turned out, had police IDs on them. This might or might not have been true--it wasn’t possible to confirm the statements--but it certainly shed a different light on the looting. Certainly, other regimes have been known to hire young men to go out and toss a city, to make it look like protesters have turned ugly, giving them an excuse to clamp down.

But the tweets belied that narrative. And indeed, on Saturday, a New York-based Egyptian blogger interviewed by CNN, suggested as much. She “appealed to the media to not fall for what she described as a Mubarak regime plot to make the protests in Egypt seem like dangerous anarchy,” according to the New York Times’ blog The Lede. “I urge you to use the words ‘revolt’ and ‘uprising’ and ‘revolution’ and not ‘chaos’ and not ‘unrest," she said. "We are talking about a historic moment.” The narrative was reset. Soon thereafter, CNN changed its on-screen headlines from “CHAOS IN EGYPT” to “UPRISING IN EGYPT

In London the narrative has been easier to manage, calling out Blackberry and other social media as the "enabler" of the chaos was a little easier to swallow by some.

So the chapter on the subject is just beginning.

Bay Area subway asked wireless operators to suspend service before protest

The operators of the Bay Area Rapid Transit subway system asked wireless providers to suspend service in four downtown San Francisco stations to prevent activists from protesting in stations last night, a BART spokesman said today.

"BART asked wireless providers to temporarily interrupt service at select BART stations as one of many tactics to ensure the safety of everyone on the platform," said a statement provided to CNET via e-mail by James Allison, deputy chief communications officer for BART.

"Cell phone service was not interrupted outside BART stations," said the statement. "In addition, numerous BART Police officers and other BART personnel were present during the planned protest, and train intercoms and white courtesy telephones remained available for customers seeking assistance or reporting suspicious activity."

Cell service was suspended from about 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. PT in Embarcadero, Montgomery Street, Powell Street and Civic Center BART stations, he said.

Asked to comment on whether the move was legal, Allison told CNET:"We are well within our legal rights."

The suspension of cell service prevented protesters from organizing and the protest failed to materialize.

Activists had planned to protest the fatal shooting of Charles Blair Hill, who BART police said went after them with a knife before an officer shot him on July 3. A protest about a week later disrupted service on BART.

"BART's primary purpose is to provide, safe, secure, efficient, reliable, and clean transportation services. BART accommodates expressive activities that are constitutionally protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Liberty of Speech Clause of the California Constitution (expressive activity), and has made available certain areas of its property for expressive activity and has instituted the following rules," the BART statement said.

"Paid areas of BART stations are reserved for ticketed passengers who are boarding, exiting or waiting for BART cars and trains, or for authorized BART personnel. No person shall conduct or participate in assemblies or demonstrations or engage in other expressive activities in the paid areas of BART statins, including BART cars and trains and BART station platforms."



[Edited 8/13/11 8:07am]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #1 posted 08/12/11 3:27pm

rudedog

avatar

Good, that protest was stupid. They are potested a guy who had a four-inch blade and broken beer bottle in front of a cop. I understand Oscar Grant, but ppl need to have common sense, if you bring a knife to a gun fight, you will lose...especially if its against a cop. Now I agree BART police should have ONLY stun guns, not real ones. But some ppl are just asking for it.

"The voter is less important than the man who provides money to the candidate," - Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens
Rudedog no no no!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #2 posted 08/12/11 4:05pm

V10LETBLUES

rudedog said:

Good, that protest was stupid. They are potested a guy who had a four-inch blade and broken beer bottle in front of a cop. I understand Oscar Grant, but ppl need to have common sense, if you bring a knife to a gun fight, you will lose...especially if its against a cop. Now I agree BART police should have ONLY stun guns, not real ones. But some ppl are just asking for it.

I have no opinion on the protest itself, I just think overall impact of the internet and social networks have opened a surprise can of worms full of cans of worms.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #3 posted 08/13/11 4:13am

V10LETBLUES

This is history just repeating itself. The communications revolution has been going on since the dawn of man I guess.

The invention of the printing press did the same thing, only difference is, like the telephone, like the internet, it is instantaneous. And now, added to the instantaneous nature of the internet, is that it is now mobile and portable.

So, I guess it's not really opening any "new" cans of worms, we can just lump this on top of the mountain of all the other issues regarding freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of expression....all that.

From it's inception, the printing press got right down to work much like the internet in organizing and educating and mis-educating the masses....

Martin Luther started printing pamphlets critical of the church. He was able take on the mighty Catholic Church..and WIN!

Martin Luther, along with the printing press were instrumental in the formation of the Protestant religion

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/apocalypse/explanation/martinluther.html#ixzz1Uu9HlgQu

The printing press is discovered and put into action in 1450. ... Luther would have just been one more reformer in a small area if it had not been for the printing press. But thanks to the printing press, Martin Luther became the bestseller throughout the empire. He out-published all of his Catholic opponents. ... He discovered the power of the press in ways that no one else had used it up to that point: everything from woodcuts being used in a polemical way, ditties and rhymes. He mastered this new medium; he used it to spread and turn what would have been a local affair into an international movement. ...

Can you see it now? Angry mobs in Texas with signs, huddled over a bonfire in good ol'fashioned cell phone burnings.

The last step in the communications revolution is telepathy,... make a cube spacecraft and travel the Delta Quadrant so we can spread our divine "democracy"

"resistance is futile"

[Edited 8/13/11 17:13pm]

[Edited 8/14/11 10:29am]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #4 posted 08/13/11 8:05am

V10LETBLUES

BART’s Interference In Subway Protests, A Step In The Wrong Direction For Digital Freedoms

bart-train

As many may be aware by now, Bay Area Rapid Transit, also known fondly as BART and San Francisco’s version of a municipal subway system, has been on the receiving end of quite a bit of criticism over the last 24 hours. The criticism stems from BART temporarily interfering with cell service in four of its stations in order to stifle potentially violent protests that centered around an earlier shooting by a BART police officer.

The incident, which occurred on July 3rd, involved 45-year-old Charles Blair, who was shot and killed by a BART officer after the (apparently homeless) man pulled a knife and rushed the officer and his partner, according to SFGate.com. Organizers and activists had organized a protest in select BART stations to speak out against what they deemed to be another rash and unjustified response by authority to violence in its transportation systems.

Unfortunately, this is something that BART has been through before, with the much-publicized killing of Oscar Grant in 2009. After a fight in a BART station, officers attempted to detain Grant, whereupon one officer drew his gun and shot Grant in the back. The whole incident was captured on cellphone cameras, was then later posted on YouTube, reaired on national news, and was viewed hundreds of thousands of times.

As CNET reported at the time, many people took to Twitter and other forms of social media to receive updated information on the incident and ensuing trial, in which the officer was convicted of involuntary manslaughter. Many disagreed with the verdict, however, and the many protests and violence that followed this case was no doubt prompted by the mass availability of information (including the sensitive footage of the actual killing) on the Web and social media. For good or ill.

That is not to say that BART had reason to censor cell phone activity in this most recent situation, but there’s no doubt they were fully aware of the precedent, and it wouldn’t be ridiculous to assume that this (and other situations liked it) may have influenced their reaction.

Now, as to the legality of BART’s cell communications jamming, as has been reported by SFAppeal among others, BART did not necessarily employ blocking methods that are explicitly outlawed by the FCC and, instead, according to a statement issued by the transit authority, simply “asked wireless providers to temporarily interrupt service at select BART stations as one of many tactics to ensure the safety of everyone on the platform.” Which is not necessarily out of line.

However, as CNET and tweeters have pointed out, it is still difficult to avoid comparisons to Egypt’s dictator Hosni Mubarak, who ordered Egyptian carriers to essentially turn of the Internet to prevent citizens from organizing. Naturally, Twitter has already created its own hashtag for the BART kerfuffle: #MuBARTek. Although the comparison may be a little dramatic, it’s certainly understandable.

Even if one takes the stance that BART was acting under the law, and acknowledges that BART will probably regret its actions (if it doesn’t already), the United States was outspoken in its condemnation of Mubarak for the Egyptian government’s interference in digital communication and, while this certainly isn’t an incident of nearly the same scale, it does make the U.S. look hypocritical, as the U.S. government pushes for macro web freedom and freedoms in all forms of digital communication. If we are to supposedly hold ourselves to high (or higher) standards, then this kind of action is really not acceptable.

As Marvin Ammori, an oft-ci...itten post, though many have been up in arms over BARTgate being a prime example of a glaring first amendment violation, in the big picture, it’s hard to argue the case. There’s a lot of wiggle room in the courts for scenarios in which a government agency suppresses free speech not because of its content, but in content-neutral terms to protect citizens from violence or danger. Higher courts will often rule against it being some kind of sweeping violation of first amendment rights.

As Ammori points out, BART officials believed that protests in its stations “could lead to platform overcrowding and unsafe conditions for BART customers, employees and demonstrators”, which do indeed “sound like content-neutral reasons”.

Of course, as Ammori goes on to say, BART did indeed turn off “the phone network at a specific time that it expected a protest, and a protest directed at transit police”. And the transit authority’s reasons for doing so were certainly due to the fact that they expected that the protests could potentially turn violent. Thus, “if BART was trying to suppress speech because of its content or to stop violence”, he says, “it likely can’t meet the constitutional test and has violated the First Amendment”.

Whether or not BART is guilty of violating first amendment rights, and is eventually taken to court, many experts are calling for further FCC scrutiny of this decision, and there likely will be.

And as scrutiny, investigation, and analysis of these types of incidents are slow-moving, especially when they involve a government agency, many hackers have of course already begun tweeting in support of the protestors, and Anonymous has already released a digital flyer with the hashtag #MuBARTek, as first reported by CNET.

Whatever the case, many of us can likely agree that this is a step in the wrong direction for freedom of speech in the U.S., especially as it relates to freedom of communication by digital means and cannot allow the silencing or interference of government agencies in protests or demonstrations. How, if not for potentially violent demonstrations, would this country have accomplished any sort of civil, philosophical, or governmental progress forward?

Undermining the authority of Internet or cellular discourse, no matter how small the incident, sets the wrong precedent and sends mixed signals to other countries and burgeoning digital communities around the world. It’s just not good policy, and it makes us look stupid.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #5 posted 08/13/11 8:55am

V10LETBLUES

Friday poll: Hands off my social (protest) network?

Following the shocking riots in Britain this week, Prime Minister David Cameron told Parliament his government is looking into whether social media services should be shut down when there's unrest.

"When people are using social media for violence we need to stop them," Cameron said. "So we are working with the police, the intelligence services, and industry to look at whether it would be right to stop people communicating via these Web sites and services when we know they are plotting violence, disorder, and criminality."

Indeed, as the country picks up the pieces and looks for culprits, Facebook, Twitter, and BlackBerry Messenger have come under heightened scrutiny as facilitators of chaos. Home Secretary Theresa May is to meet with the companies.

Britain does have legal provisions to protect against network users suspected of inciting violence, but it would require new legislation to prevent online incitement to crime in real time, according to a lawyer quoted by The Guardian.

Social networks are being used to identify rioters, and even Manchester police are using Twitter to publicize those convicted.

But are authorities justified if they try to shut down online activity, as Egypt did in January, to ward off threats?

On Thursday, operators of San Francisco's Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) subway system shut down cell service to deal with a protest over a shooting by a BART Police officer. BART said its move was meant to avoid service disruptions.

The ACLU of Northern California condemned the action, saying, "Shutting down access to mobile phones is the wrong response to political protests, whether it's halfway around the world or right here in San Francisco. You have the right to speak out. Both the California Constitution and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution protect your right to free expression."

What do you think? Is shutting down online communication ever justified? Vote in our poll and leave your comments below.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #6 posted 08/13/11 9:25am

V10LETBLUES

UK teen arrested for illegal BBM, social media crackdown gains steam

Lending further gravity to the proposed crackdown being bandied about in British parliament, an Essex teen has been arrested for sending a BBM that ran afoul of the Serious Crime Act of 2007. The 18-year old, now free on bail, allegedly used the service to encourage copycat attacks of the violent rioting that's swept London, and is set to appear in court on September 1st. It's the second known case to put RIM's private messaging service -- "popular among urban teenagers" as a cheap texting alternative -- in the UK's legal hotseat. For its part, the Canadian electronics maker has since reached out to police, promising to aid the investigation "in any way [it] can." Although no decision has yet been made to extend law enforcement's powers over social media services, such as Twitter and Facebook, arrests like these seem to indicate a murky free speech future.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #7 posted 08/14/11 9:31am

SUPRMAN

avatar

San Francisco cell shutdown spurs debate

SAN FRANCISCO — An illegal, Orwellian violation of free-speech rights? Or just a smart tactic to protect train passengers from rowdy would-be demonstrators during a busy evening commute?

The question resonated Saturday in San Francisco and beyond as details emerged of Bay Area Rapid Transit officials' decision to cut off underground cellphone service for a few hours at several stations Thursday. Commuters at stations from downtown to near the city's main airport were affected as BART officials sought to tactically thwart a planned protest over the recent fatal shooting of a 45-year-old man by transit police.

Two days later, the move had civil rights and legal experts questioning the agency's move, and drew backlash from one transit board member who was taken aback by the decision.

"I'm just shocked that they didn't think about the implications of this. We really don't have the right to be this type of censor," said Lynette Sweet, who serves on BART's board of directors. "In my opinion, we've let the actions of a few people affect everybody. And that's not fair."

Similar questions of censorship have arisen in recent days as Britain's government put the idea of curbing social media services on the table in response to several nights of widespread looting and violence in London and other English cities. Police claim that young criminals used Twitter and Blackberry instant messages to coordinate looting sprees in riots.

Prime Minister David Cameron said that the government, spy agencies and the communications industry are looking at whether there should be limits on the use of social media sites like Twitter and Facebook or services like BlackBerry Messenger to spread disorder. The suggestions have met with outrage — with some critics comparing Cameron to the despots ousted during the Arab Spring.

[EDITED FOR COMPLIANCE]

But there are nuances to consider, including under what conditions, if any, an agency like BART can act to deny the public access to a form of communication — and essentially decide that a perceived threat to public safety trumps free speech.

These situations are largely new ones, of course. A couple of decades ago, during the fax-machine and pay-phone era, the notion of people organizing mass gatherings in real time on wireless devices would have been fantasy.

BART Deputy Police Chief Benson Fairow said the issue boiled down to the public's well-being.

"It wasn't a decision made lightly. This wasn't about free speech. It was about safety," Fairow told KTVU-TV on Friday.

BART spokesman Jim Allison maintained that the cellphone disruptions were legal as the agency owns the property and infrastructure. He added while they didn't need the permission of cellphone carriers to temporarily cut service, they notified them as a courtesy.

The decision was made after agency officials saw details about the protest on an organizer's website. He said the agency had extra staff and officers aboard trains during that time for anybody who wanted to report an emergency, as well as courtesy phones on station platforms.

"I think the entire argument is that some people think it created an unsafe situation is faulty logic," Allison said. "BART had operated for 35 years without cellphone service and no one ever suggested back then that a lack of it made it difficult to report emergencies and we had the same infrastructure in place."

But as in London, BART's tactic drew immediate comparisons to authoritarianism, including acts by the former president of Egypt to squelch protests demanding an end to his rule. Authorities there cut Internet and cellphone services in the country for days earlier this year. He left office shortly thereafter.

"BART officials are showing themselves to be of a mind with the former president of Egypt, Hosni Mubarak," the Electronic Frontier Foundation said on its website. Echoing that comparison, vigorous weekend discussion on Twitter was labeled with the hashtag "muBARTek."

Aaron Caplan, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles who specializes in free-speech issues, was equally critical, saying BART clearly violated the rights of demonstrators and other passengers.

"We can arrest and prosecute people for the crimes they commit," he said. "You are not allowed to shut down people's cellphones and prevent them from speaking because you think they might commit a crime in the future."

Michael Risher, the American Civil Liberty Union's Northern California staff attorney, echoed the sentiment in a blog: "The government shouldn't be in the business of cutting off the free flow of information. Shutting down access to mobile phones is the wrong response to political protests, whether it's halfway around the world or right here in San Francisco."

On Saturday at the station where cell phone service was disrupted, passenger Phil Eager, 44, shared the opinion that BART's approach seemed extreme.

"It struck me as pretty strange and kind of extreme," said Eager, a San Francisco attorney. "It's not a First Amendment debate, but rather a civil liberties issue."

Eager said many of his friends riding BART on Thursday were upset with the agency's actions, some even calling it a "police state."

Mark Malmberg, 58, of Orinda, Calif., believes that BART could've used a different approach instead of shutting down cellphone usage.

"Even though it sounds like they wanted to avoid a mob gathering, you can't stop people from expressing themselves," Malmberg said. "I hope those who protest can do so in a civil manner."

The ACLU already has a scheduled meeting with BART's police chief on Monday about other issues and Thursday's incident will added be to the agenda, spokeswoman Rebecca Farmer said.

But others said that while the phone shutdown was worth examining, it may not have impinged on First Amendment rights. Gene Policinski, executive director of the First Amendment Center , a nonprofit educational organization, said freedom of expression can be limited in very narrow circumstances if there is an immediate threat to public safety.

"An agency like BART has to be held to a very high standard," he said. "First of all, it has to be an immediate threat, not just the mere supposition that there might be one. And I think the response has to be what a court would consider reasonable, so it has to be the minimum amount of restraint on free expression."

He said if BART's actions are challenged, a court may look more favorably on what it did if expression was limited on a narrow basis for a specific area and time frame, instead of "just indiscriminately closing down cellphone service throughout the system or for a broad area."

University of Michigan law professor Len Niehoff, who specializes in First Amendment and media law issues, found the BART actions troublesome for a few reasons.

He said the First Amendment generally doesn't allow the government to restrict free speech because somebody might do something illegal or to prohibit conversations based on their subject matter. He said the BART actions have been portrayed as an effort to prevent a protest that would have violated the law, but there was no guarantee that would have happened.

"What it really did is it prevented people from talking, discussing … and mobilizing in any form, peaceful or unpeaceful, lawful or unlawful," he said. "That is, constitutionally, very problematic."

The government does have the right to break up a demonstration if it forms in an area where protests are prohibited and poses a risk to public safety, Niehoff said. But it should not prohibit free speech to prevent the possibility of a protest happening.

"The idea that we're going to keep people from talking about what they might or might not do, based on the idea that they might all agree to violate the law, is positively Orwellian," he said.

———

Associated Press reporters Tom Murphy in Indianapolis; Gene Johnson in Seattle; Jonathan Cooper in Portland, Ore.; and Cassandra Vinograd and David Stringer in London contributed.

Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved

I don't want you to think like me. I just want you to think.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #8 posted 08/14/11 9:33am

SUPRMAN

avatar

I've been 'discussing' this with my former BART coworkers.

Naturally, we don't see eye to eye.

This is a dangerous road to be exploring. We need to develop the mindset that this isn't an option for government(s).

I don't want you to think like me. I just want you to think.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #9 posted 08/23/11 4:17pm

rudedog

avatar

SUPRMAN said:

I've been 'discussing' this with my former BART coworkers.

Naturally, we don't see eye to eye.

This is a dangerous road to be exploring. We need to develop the mindset that this isn't an option for government(s).

I think in certain situations like this, where citizens are put in danger, the gov. should be able to work with private companies to keep ppl safe. I take BART everyday and if you have hundreds of ppl jamming trains during rush hour for the sake of a protest....you are asking for a riot. There are better ways to protest and screwing your fellow citizens is NOT the way to do it. They should be protesting increased ferry service across the bay. No one ever got shot or stabbed by BART police by taking a ferry.

"The voter is less important than the man who provides money to the candidate," - Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens
Rudedog no no no!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #10 posted 08/23/11 4:59pm

IshmaelB

rudedog said:

that protest was stupid. They are potested a guy who had a four-inch blade and broken beer bottle in front of a cop.

According to the cops. And what about the cops? They had loaded guns. There are clearly homicidal, adrenaline addicted cops, high on donut sugar, walking around crowded subway stations SHOOTING PEOPLE (with impunity) who don't have these weapons! Why is that not alarming?

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #11 posted 08/23/11 5:20pm

XxAxX

avatar

imo this is taking crowd control to a scary new level. people paying for wireless service shouldn't have their service suspended like that.

this issue could very well polarize the industry

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #12 posted 08/24/11 10:46am

rudedog

avatar

IshmaelB said:

rudedog said:

that protest was stupid. They are potested a guy who had a four-inch blade and broken beer bottle in front of a cop.

According to the cops. And what about the cops? They had loaded guns. There are clearly homicidal, adrenaline addicted cops, high on donut sugar, walking around crowded subway stations SHOOTING PEOPLE (with impunity) who don't have these weapons! Why is that not alarming?

Oh i agree that BART rent-a-cops should not have guns, tasers at the most. The protest, itself, was stupid. The protestors paid to get INTO BART, so money has been spent to get the platform, jamming up the trains does nothing to BART itself, just pisses off and hurts fellow BART riders just trying to get home after work. So overall the protestors gave BART money to fuck fellow BART riders that had nothing to do with a BART police shooting...nice.

"The voter is less important than the man who provides money to the candidate," - Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens
Rudedog no no no!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #13 posted 08/24/11 11:22am

V10LETBLUES

rudedog said:

IshmaelB said:

According to the cops. And what about the cops? They had loaded guns. There are clearly homicidal, adrenaline addicted cops, high on donut sugar, walking around crowded subway stations SHOOTING PEOPLE (with impunity) who don't have these weapons! Why is that not alarming?

Oh i agree that BART rent-a-cops should not have guns, tasers at the most. The protest, itself, was stupid. The protestors paid to get INTO BART, so money has been spent to get the platform, jamming up the trains does nothing to BART itself, just pisses off and hurts fellow BART riders just trying to get home after work. So overall the protestors gave BART money to fuck fellow BART riders that had nothing to do with a BART police shooting...nice.

You're right in that we cannot take away how incredibly stupid it is for anyone to organize a protest inside a public transportation facility. All of us should do everything within our means to keep these places safe instead of instigating crap like this.

So, a lot of heat has to go to whomever thought this a good idea. But this does bring up a lot of interesting new questions regarding freedom of speech that will have to be addressed sooner or later.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #14 posted 08/24/11 11:36am

IshmaelB

rudedog said:

Oh i agree that BART rent-a-cops should not have guns, tasers at the most. The protest, itself, was stupid. The protestors paid to get INTO BART, so money has been spent to get the platform, jamming up the trains does nothing to BART itself, just pisses off and hurts fellow BART riders just trying to get home after work. So overall the protestors gave BART money to fuck fellow BART riders that had nothing to do with a BART police shooting...nice.

Killer cops piss off and hurt fellow BART riders.

Protests are about getting attention within a system set up to ignore/control/dis-empower the majority. If letter writing actually got things done then I'd agree with you.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #15 posted 08/24/11 3:09pm

V10LETBLUES

BART tackles its 'Big Brother' moment

By: Elinor Mills August 24, 2011 1:50 PM PDT


http://news.cnet.com/8301...=cnetRiver

OAKLAND, Calif.--Bay Area Rapid Transit should only interfere with public communications in extreme emergencies, a director for the agency said in a special meeting called here today to discuss its cutting off of cell phone service to block an anti-police violence protest a few weeks ago.

"The First Amendment and the right to have a communications channel are what people are looking for because it's part of this democratic society we live in...We can't sit back like Big Brother and say we don't like the message," said Lynette Sweet, a member of the board of directors for the San Francisco area subway agency, also known as BART.

"If we are going to shut off cell service ever, it needs to be under the most extraordinary circumstances...at the 9-11 level. Not the protests we thought were going to happen on August 11," Sweet said at a meeting at BART headquarters. "It has to be a dire emergency. We don't get to stop people from communicating with one another, even if it is for protest."

The room of about 70 attendees broke into applause at her words, but several of her colleagues on the board disagreed, arguing that cutting cell service to head off a protest a few weeks ago was justified to protect the safety of passengers.

BART's move has provoked strong public backlash, including several protests that turned out peaceful but prompted BART officials to close San Francisco stations during rush hour commutes.

BART Board of Directors President Bob Franklin said he supported the cell service shutdown when briefed by the BART police beforehand because of the possibility for harm to passengers.

"We received news the day before that this was going to be a ramped-up protest," he said. "Although it's hypothetical that someone is going to get hurt...It's my opinion, and why I supported [BART Police Chief Ken] Rainey's tactic, that we couldn't take that chance."

Click the link for a whole lot more.

[Edited 8/24/11 15:13pm]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #16 posted 08/24/11 3:33pm

rudedog

avatar

IshmaelB said:

rudedog said:

Oh i agree that BART rent-a-cops should not have guns, tasers at the most. The protest, itself, was stupid. The protestors paid to get INTO BART, so money has been spent to get the platform, jamming up the trains does nothing to BART itself, just pisses off and hurts fellow BART riders just trying to get home after work. So overall the protestors gave BART money to fuck fellow BART riders that had nothing to do with a BART police shooting...nice.

Killer cops piss off and hurt fellow BART riders.

Protests are about getting attention within a system set up to ignore/control/dis-empower the majority. If letter writing actually got things done then I'd agree with you.

You're absolutely right, but you don't have to start a letter writing campaign to get things done. Protest the HQ, have a rally....those things don't hurt regular citizens that just want to get home.

"The voter is less important than the man who provides money to the candidate," - Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens
Rudedog no no no!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #17 posted 08/24/11 3:34pm

rudedog

avatar

http://blogs.sfweekly.com...ohnson.php

Holy crap! This is getting ugly!

"The voter is less important than the man who provides money to the candidate," - Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens
Rudedog no no no!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #18 posted 08/24/11 4:03pm

IshmaelB

rudedog said:

IshmaelB said:

Killer cops piss off and hurt fellow BART riders.

Protests are about getting attention within a system set up to ignore/control/dis-empower the majority. If letter writing actually got things done then I'd agree with you.

You're absolutely right, but you don't have to start a letter writing campaign to get things done. Protest the HQ, have a rally....those things don't hurt regular citizens that just want to get home.

"Regular citizens??" People this concerned about killer cops are therefor "irregular citizens?" Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but this protest is concerning everyone who uses public transportation -- i.e. just about everyone in civil society. The point is to get these folks involved. You'll be much later getting home after work if you're wounded or killed by an armed trigger-happy uniformed donut-eater.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #19 posted 08/25/11 11:38am

rudedog

avatar

IshmaelB said:

rudedog said:

You're absolutely right, but you don't have to start a letter writing campaign to get things done. Protest the HQ, have a rally....those things don't hurt regular citizens that just want to get home.

"Regular citizens??" People this concerned about killer cops are therefor "irregular citizens?" Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but this protest is concerning everyone who uses public transportation -- i.e. just about everyone in civil society. The point is to get these folks involved. You'll be much later getting home after work if you're wounded or killed by an armed trigger-happy uniformed donut-eater.

Ya, definitely a misunderstanding. I have nothing against protestors, just their methods are questionable. As much as I dislike BART police (especially after Oscar Grant), i think your thinking is a bit extreme. I just don't believe protestors like these really know how to accomplish things, i mean nude photos of spokemen, paying to get into BART just to disrupt services for BART riders? Posting private & personal information of BART riders?? Why are we the enemy??

[Edited 8/25/11 11:39am]

"The voter is less important than the man who provides money to the candidate," - Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens
Rudedog no no no!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Politics & Religion > Bay Area subway asked wireless operators to suspend service before protest