iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

San Francisco Transit Blocks Cellphones To Hinder Protest

By TERRY COLLINS   08/13/11 05:37 PM ET   AP

SAN FRANCISCO -- A decision by San Francisco Bay Area transit officials to cut off cell phone service at some of its stations to thwart a planned protest drew angry response Saturday from one transit board member who said she was shocked that officials acted as "this type of censor."

Bay Area Rapid Transit officials have said they shut down power Thursday evening to cellular towers for stations stretching from downtown to the San Francisco's airport after learning protesters planned to use mobile devices to coordinate its demonstration.

"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 board. "In my opinion, we've let the actions of a few people affect everybody. And that's not fair."

BART Deputy Police Chief Benson Fairow on Friday told KTVU-TV that the agency decided to turn off underground cell service because it received reports that a rowdy group that had protested in July had similar plans.

"It all boils down to the safety of the public," Fairow said. "It wasn't a decision made lightly. This wasn't about free speech. It was about safety."

To some, BART's tactic drew comparisons to those of former president of Egypt to squelch protests demanding an end to his authoritarian rule. Authorities there cut Internet and cellphone services in the country for days earlier this year.

"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.

Michael Risher, the American Civil Liberty Union's Northern California staff attorney wrote in 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."

The ACLU already has a scheduled meeting with BART Police Chief Kenton Rainey on Monday over other issues and Thursday's incident will added to the agenda, spokeswoman Rebecca Farmer said Saturday.

Yet others said while the phone shut-down 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 cell phone service throughout the system or for a broad area."

BART officials were confident the cellphone disruptions were legal. It said in a statement that it's illegal to demonstrate on the platform or aboard the trains, and that it has set aside special areas for demonstrations.

"We had a commute that was safe and without disruption," BART spokesman Jim Allison said Friday.

The demonstrators were going to hold a second protest over the fatal shooting of Charles Blair Hill by BART police on July 3 at the Civic Center/UN Plaza station in San Francisco. Hill was shot in the torso by officers responding to reports of a "wobbly drunk" The officers claim Hill came at them with a knife.

Several protesters were taken into custody after a demonstration on July 11 disrupted service during the rush-hour commute and prompted the closing of BART's Civic Center station.

BART has been battling image problems after a white officer fatally shot an unarmed black passenger on New Year's Day 2009 at an Oakland train station that led to violent protests.

___

Associated Press reporter Tom Murphy in Indianapolis contributed

FOLLOW HUFFPOST TECH

SAN FRANCISCO -- A decision by San Francisco Bay Area transit officials to cut off cell phone service at some of its stations to thwart a planned protest drew angry response Saturday from one transit ...
SAN FRANCISCO -- A decision by San Francisco Bay Area transit officials to cut off cell phone service at some of its stations to thwart a planned protest drew angry response Saturday from one transit ...
Filed by Catharine Smith  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 3,621
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (63 total)
11:53 AM on 08/16/2011
I'm surprised this didn't happen during the London riots. Even though our police are liberal clerics, our police-state is still as firm as the US - minus the persistent police brutality.

Mark at http://www.idgconnect.com/blog
02:48 PM on 08/15/2011
Blocking of any transmission of radio signal, is illegal per the FCC. That's why teachers can't stop kids from cheating during tests in class. There are devices to stop texting but they are not legal for use in public.

Ben Levitan
Wireless Cellular Expert Services
www.BenLevitan.com
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
elcerritan
My bio is not micro
03:14 PM on 08/15/2011
BART didn't block any transmissions. They simply powered down some antennas for some of the downtown SF train platforms. Not illegal. Anyone above ground or in any other part of the station would have had no problem sending or receiving cell phone calls.
05:58 PM on 08/15/2011
It's pretty clear what BART's intentions were in shutting down power. Sorry, that argument won't wash in a court of law.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
lhanderson86
01:36 PM on 08/15/2011
"Bay Area transit officials to cut off cell phone service at some of its stations to thwart a planned protest"

If you can simply go above ground to get cell phone service, or walk down the street to a coffee shop, it's hardly thwarting a social-network-driven protest, is it? A pathetic attempt that just made people even angrier than before. You can't stop people from communicating. BART should be looking at the underlying issues of why people are protesting rather than "poking a bear with a stick"...
04:09 PM on 08/16/2011
Well said!
12:50 PM on 08/15/2011
As peer to peer cell phone networking capabilities are developed they will circumvent this kind of top down effort to squelch dissent.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ladywiccan
a wife, mother and grandmother
12:46 PM on 08/15/2011
the First Amendment is not at issue here, it's security and to disrupt train service because you have a bit*h about something, take your soap box stand on it a start talking,
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
elcerritan
My bio is not micro
12:53 PM on 08/15/2011
It's pretty clear that 99% of the people here who are frothing at the mouth about the First Amendment have no earthly idea what they're talking about. If they did, they'd at least have a passing acquaintance with the concept of "time, place, and manner restrictions," which obviously none of them do.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
kezaezy
12:35 PM on 08/15/2011
Corporations aren't just people, they're super people endowed with super rights. You and I may or may not be able to organize... depending on whether local officials can use the "national security' meme to good effect. Yet right wing radio and TV talk show hosts can call for violence, organize mobs and generally stir up emotions with lies and projection... and get away with it! All they have to do is hide behind the First Amendment and non one can see them.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
lhanderson86
01:39 PM on 08/15/2011
That's funny though, because BART is run by San Francisco, one of the most liberal cities/counties in the United States. It's public transit. Not a corporation.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
kezaezy
02:03 PM on 08/15/2011
True. SF has always been a leader when it comes to 'liberal causes.' I understand that this was a local law enforcement (if not political) decision. It's dusturbing. I was just pointing out the immunity that FOX, Limbaugh (and other corporate tools) enjoy.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
elcerritan
My bio is not micro
03:16 PM on 08/15/2011
BART is not "run by San Francisco" (either the city or the county).
MtnGeek
Partisan thinking is an oxymoron
12:09 PM on 08/15/2011
Is there any way to determine how many emergency or 911 phone calls were impacted by this poorly thought out decision? Putting people's lives in danger to avoid bad press is a recipe for disaster.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
elcerritan
My bio is not micro
12:59 PM on 08/15/2011
Since service was affected only on the platforms of downtown SF stations and on the trains (where until a few years ago there was no cell service anyway), and wasn't affected above ground or in any other parts of the stations (and certainly not OUTSIDE of the stations), my guess is ZERO.

People's lives would have been in more danger if the protesters had been allowed to overwhelm the transit system. BART wasn't putting anyone's life in danger to avoid bad press.
02:55 PM on 08/15/2011
There is no way to tell if any 911 calls were blocked. There are all sorts of "damages" that can be claimed by people who were on the trains and had an expectation of service. (Lost business, etc.)

The cell towers are NOT owned by BART. They are owned by the cell phone companies who installed them there with the permission of BART. I expect they lost a lot of revenue that night.

BART doesn't own those cell "towers" but in exchange for putting towers in the stations they probably earn about $4000 per month. Typically a cell phone company pays from $1,000 to $4,500 a month to put a cell tower on somebody's property,

Ben Levitan
Wireless Cellular Expert Services
www.BenLevitan.com
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
elcerritan
My bio is not micro
03:18 PM on 08/15/2011
You idea that people can make "business interruption" claims as a result of BART's action is incorrect.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:00 AM on 08/15/2011
Just a thought, but maybe they would be better served responding to and remediating the root cause of the demonstration, than developing tactics to suppress dissent?
photo
Sing Out and Slap Iron
What's that smell?
08:43 AM on 08/15/2011
The Orwellian undertones of this action are mind boggling.
11:12 AM on 08/15/2011
No doubt...I cannot believe that people aren't in a nationwide uproar over this, and this is in San Francisco no less.

I'm sorry, but I (and anywhere between 15 and 25% of Americans) don't have a landline specifically because cell phones have completely replaced them, and they just unilaterally decide (without a court order) to cut phone access for such a massive swath over the POSSIBILITY of a protest that MIGHT get out of hand? This is EXACTLY what the Constitution is supposed to protect against.

What about if there had been a REAL emergency? Heart attacks and strokes, murders and assaults, home invasions, school shootings, traffic accidents, baby deliveries, lost children...as horrible as it is to say it, I hope someone suffered a malady and couldn't reach the authorities because of this BS, because otherwise BART won't even receive a slap on the hand.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
elcerritan
My bio is not micro
12:03 PM on 08/15/2011
BART didn't cut service for "between 15 and 25% of Americans" or even for anyone outside of a BART station. It disabled service on the platforms in downtown SF and on the trains by powering down certain antennas. Big deal. Cellphone service above ground and on the upper level of the stations was not affected. Until a few years ago, there was no cell service on the platforms or on the trains anyway, until BART decided to provide it, and now it's some kind of "fundamental right"? Please.
12:17 AM on 08/15/2011
The beauty of this action is that you can't undo its effects. All BART needs to do now is weather the PR storm. People will still need to ride their trains, and what do they care if their website goes down for a few hours. People rely on their trains, not their site. Their mission has been accomplished. They will do this again and again. There is no government agency that will punish them, and Anton Scalia and his dickhead cohorts in the USSC will back them up 100%.
11:14 AM on 08/15/2011
Uh...this was cutting cell phone service for anyone within their stations, not their website.
A far more egregious act, I'd say.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
elcerritan
My bio is not micro
01:03 PM on 08/15/2011
They only cut service on the platforms of a few downtown SF stations and on trains. Service above ground, or in any other part of the stations, was unaffected. Until few years ago, cell service wasn't available on any of the plaftorms or trains anyway. BFD.
12:13 AM on 08/15/2011
Ridiculous.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
tmpl8
Avid newshound & data analyst
11:54 PM on 08/14/2011
To the right wingers that screams about how liberals deserve this, and this is what Democrats do (blah blah blah) I say this....

Unlike the blind allegiance and cowardly actions of Conservatives, Progressives & Liberals call out those in their own party when we don't like their actions.
This comment has been removed due to violations of our [Guidelines]
09:07 PM on 08/14/2011
YOU IDOTS IN THE SFO BAY AREA DESERVE EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE GETTING. STILL YOU WILL NOT LEARN ANY LESSON FROM THIS CENSORSHIP EXPERIENCE, LIBERALISM CAN AND DOES GO WAY TOO FAR, IT'S CALLED TOTALITARIANISM. You got what you've been seeking. Now, stop you complaing because you cannot use your cells. Hello! Can you HEAR ME NOW????
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
elcerritan
My bio is not micro
01:39 AM on 08/15/2011
Not providing cell phone service isn't censorship.
11:18 AM on 08/15/2011
Ehhh...deliberately disabling cell phone service because of the "possibility" of a protest that "might" get out of hand is pretty much spot-on censorship.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
tleon12265
A proud American Patriot -- and a Democrat!
08:11 AM on 08/15/2011
LMAO. A Hispanic Bagger? Total comedy.

So let me get this straight. First there was socialism, then Marxism, but now Obama is going for TOTALITARIANISM. Can you ignorant Baggers get your extremist terminology sorted out? You're starting to give me a headache with your clueless rantings.

Oh, and this pendulum that "is starting to swing from the far LEFT to the far RIGHT...." Umm, two words for you. Michelle Bachmann. The pendulum isn't going anywhere, Paco, and it never was at "the far left." More wingnut delusion-speak.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
raoulhubris
Subvert the dominant paradigm!
08:17 PM on 08/14/2011
Walk like an Egyptian.