More

BART Protests Go On Without New Cell Phone Service Shutdowns

PAUL ELIAS   08/16/11 09:23 PM ET   AP

SAN FRANCISCO — The idea to cut wireless communications to quell a brewing protest – a tactic that has put San Francisco's subway system in the middle of a global free speech debate – first came to the agency's chief spokesman in the middle of the night.

Bay Area Rapid Transit spokesman Linton Johnson said Tuesday that he was lying awake early Thursday when he was struck by the thought of shutting off power to the agency's wireless networks.

He sent an e-mail to BART police, who had asked employees for all ideas – "good or bad, constitutional or unconstitutional," Johnson said.

BART Police Deputy Chief Ben Fairow responded that he liked the idea, and interim general manager Sherwood Wakeman, formerly the agency's top lawyer, signed off on the plan, Johnson said.

BART's board of directors was told of the tactic before 5 p.m. Thursday when it was deployed, he said.

The tactic is now at the center of a growing debate in the United States – and around the world – over whether BART officials acted properly to ensure commuter safety or overreached and violated free speech rights when it became the first U.S. governmental agency to shut off wireless service to disrupt protest.

The action has been compared unfavorably to Hosni Mubarek's attempt to shut down the Internet in Egypt before protesters forced him from office.

On Tuesday, Johnson said he had no regrets and BART reserved the right to cut power again if faced with the same circumstances.

The agency kept the power on during a rowdy protest Monday that prompted the brief closure of four San Francisco stations during the evening commute.

Johnson said that's because "the information we had Monday didn't meet the constitutional standards" to cut communications like it did last week.

On Thursday, protest organizers posted instructions for the demonstration on websites and on Twitter, indicating more instructions would be issued electronically just before the demonstration was to start.

The demonstration was planned after BART police shot and killed Charles Hill, a 45-year-old transient, on July 3. BART police said he lunged at officers with a knife.

On Monday, organizers simply called for protesters to gather on the Civic Center station platform at 5 p.m. Cutting communications wouldn't have helped police control the situation, Johnson said.

That demonstration was called in response to the communication cut last week. About 50 demonstrators massed on the platform with free speech signs chanting "no justice, no peace." One protester was walking around with a toy phone shouting "can you hear me now."

While Johnson's idea has drawn criticism from some civil libertarians and free speech advocates, others inside and out of the agency supported the decision.

BART board president Bob Franklin said cutting communications led to a safe, uninterrupted commute Thursday night after the protest failed to materialize.

Franklin said doesn't see BART ever again shutting the wireless network to quell a brewing protest. That's because he believes future protesters won't rely on their cell phones to organize, knowing BART has the capability to cut communications in its station.

"I don't see a need to do it again," Franklin said.

In an interview Tuesday, Franklin defended the agency's actions to cut communications, saying it was legal and appropriate to ensure commuter safety.

"It stopped the protest," Franklin said of the action.

Franklin said BART's lawyers also believe its strategy Monday was a legal way to ensure safety on its crowded platforms.

Nonetheless, Franklin said he expects BART will get hit with a lawsuit, even though he thinks the issue of cutting communications to quell potentially dangerous demonstrations needs to be decided on a national level.

"It's an interesting issue of free speech," Franklin said. "The debate is now well beyond BART."

Civil libertarian groups have backed away from threats to legally challenge BART over the issue, even though advocates fear other government agencies will use similar tactics if the practice isn't challenged in court.

The American Civil Liberties Union met with BART's police chief Monday even as demonstrators protested the agency's previous action to block wireless reception.

After the meeting, ACLU attorney Michael Risher said the organization had no plans to immediately file a lawsuit and he was disappointed that he didn't extract a pledge from BART to refrain from similar tactics in the future. He planned to keep meeting with the agency.

"While the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California is not currently in the process of filing a lawsuit against BART for shutting down wireless service, we have not entirely ruled out the possibility," ACLU spokeswoman Rebecca Farmer said Tuesday. "This is a rapidly evolving situation. We are in conversation with BART, and our analysis will change depending on BART's actions going forward."

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, too, said it was unlikely to file a lawsuit over the disabling of wireless reception for three hours.

Still, the shutdown of wireless towers in stations near the protest Thursday raised questions about the role that social networks play in helping people, from Egypt to London, organize online. In the U.S., with its history of free speech, critics are saying BART's move was unconstitutional.

Elijah Sparrow, one of the protesters Monday night, called the demonstration "one of the defining battles of the 21st century over who is going to control communication."

BART's actions Thursday night prompted a Federal Communications Commission investigation, and a hacking group organized an attack on one of the agency's websites on Sunday, posting personal information of more than 2,000 passengers online. The group Anonymous called for a disruption of BART's evening commute Monday.

BART officials said they were working on a plan to block any efforts by protesters to disrupt the service, which carries 190,000 passengers during the morning and evening commutes every day.

BART experienced several large protests that turned into riots after a white transit officer shot unarmed black commuter Oscar Grant on New Year's Day 2009. Johannes Mehserle resigned from BART and was later convicted of involuntary manslaughter.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST SAN FRANCISCO

SAN FRANCISCO — The idea to cut wireless communications to quell a brewing protest – a tactic that has put San Francisco's subway system in the middle of a global free speech debate &ndash...
SAN FRANCISCO — The idea to cut wireless communications to quell a brewing protest – a tactic that has put San Francisco's subway system in the middle of a global free speech debate &ndash...
Filed by Carly Schwartz  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 61
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3  Next ›  Last »  (3 total)
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dbrett480
11:19 PM on 08/19/2011
BART provides cell phone service in the tunnels as a courtesy. If it wasn't unconstitutional to lack cell phone service, then it isn't unconstitutional to take it away.
09:00 PM on 08/16/2011
Here is my lawsuit. Every protester owes me 100 MILLION dollars for inconveniencing me as I commuted yesterday evening. What about my rights? What gives these fools the right to disrupt the commute and inconvenience so many thousands of people just because they had their twitter communications link shut off to stop them from creating mayhem.
Take the protesters and ship them to China where I can assure you they will be exterminated quickly for their civil disobedience.
08:54 PM on 08/16/2011
So would the solution be to stop the service all together so this doesn't become a problem in the future? I am sure it would save the transit authority some money if they discontinued the service. At least then it would affect everyone rather than the few who were trying to organize an illegal protest.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
WHTrout
Thou shalt keep thy religion to thyself!
11:43 AM on 08/17/2011
I think cell-phone service in the BART/MUNI tunnels is a very bad idea to begin with.
Remember those bombs that exploded in the Madrid subway a few years ago?
Detonated by cell phone. 'Nuff said.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MyNinja
N.W.A. Ninjas With Aptitude
08:28 PM on 08/16/2011
If you shoot your little brother with a bb gun, doesn't Mom take it away? So you can't use the train station's internet to screw with other people's commutes. Imagine if someone had been knocked onto the tracks while these Yahoo's were busy protesting police brutality. Who's gonna protest the protesters brutality?
08:03 PM on 08/16/2011
Oh ya I used to write into the EFF... guess someone took over their job
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
breezyxoxomarie
08:01 PM on 08/16/2011
Oh no! NO CELLPHONES?! What are they going to do?! How can they communicate?! Psh please.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
fattrucker
06:51 PM on 08/16/2011
the world is their video game, we make plans predicated on our access to comunication, picking up our kids, family emergencies, work, social functions, it's not a privelige, we need to be in touch. these wonky types have always championed the "freedom" of cyberspace and now they want to interfere with our access in favor of their cause du jour.
06:20 PM on 08/16/2011
The whole idea of the electronic and digital age is promoted as a way to ease our burdens and improve productivity. The problem is as we become completely dependent on computers for banking, medical, finances and communication there becomes the opportunity for those in control of it to manipulate it all in any way they see fit. Eventually we will be so reliant on all this technology that any time anyone in control needs to herd the population in a different direction they will use this as a means of control.. If people do not 'toe the line' so to speak, they will be punished, maybe by cell phone service being cut or bank accounts frozen or refusal of credit. A drive is under way to make everything electronic, including money, once that has been accomplished control of the population becomes easier. At least control of those who want to participate, there will always be protesters and fighters for freedom,
but they better have control of some of the satellites and a hacker system ready to do battle. This brings it's own issues, as those in control shut down systems to gain control those opposing them shut down systems to protest and the whole thing falls down around all our heads. Then again maybe I'm just being too cynical?
06:16 PM on 08/16/2011
It is not a RIGHT to carry and use a cell phone, it is a PRIVILEGE.

For those who say "what if an emergency had occurred"...emergencies occur all the time. Some people don't own a cell phone...What do they do? Die? I think not, they handle the emergency as many generations before us have...with common sense and other methods!


For those saying "they infringed on my freedom"...no, they did not. You have the freedom to carry that cell phone anywhere you want. You do NOT have the freedom to use that means of communication to organize an event that is going to endanger any other person. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theatre either.

The first amendment DOES NOT guarantee that you can endanger people while you are demonstrating your rights. Once you cross that line, you are no longer protected by the first amendment to the constitution.

Perhaps many of you need to re-read our constitution and it's amendments. Then, perhaps, once you pull your heads out, you'll realize that BART was within its authority to shutdown a service that THEY OFFER!!!

Then again, you probably won't, because you seem to think that the electronic device in your hand gives you carte blanche to do whatever you want, whenever, and however, without any regard to laws.

Just don't come to Wyoming...we don't even have full coverage in the state, above ground! You all would absolutely DIE without 24/7 access...
mc81360
3rd Bn 60th Infantry Bravo Co.
06:11 PM on 08/16/2011
No phone service today comrades and if you keep it up we will cut off your soylent green .
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Craig Meyer
Independent and proud of it!
05:43 PM on 08/16/2011
Bart did not interrupt the customers service, they simply removed a service to their customers that were on the trains. It was a free service, no different that going to a WIFI enabled Starbucks. Who would protest if Starbucks stopped their free service? These protesters being rude to people trying to get home are just thugs looking for a fight.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
elarue111
Proud Christian, Gay Liberal
04:34 PM on 08/16/2011
This is a major question we will see more and more of in the future. Is it ok to interupt cell phone service to stop a POTENTIALLY dangerous situation and who makes the decision. I think BART had the legal right but maybe not the proper grounds to block service. I think much more will come of this issue and I belive the power to stop communications should be left to officials much higher up than a transit authority official. Certainly we have been forced to give up many of the pre 9/11 freedoms we took for granted, many for good reason. However, with every new intrusion on our rights and freedoms, we become a little more like the 3rd world countries we push to give their people rights. The dangers involved must justify the actions taken, and in this case, I feel the officials actions were too extreme.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
excaderesdesire
I have spread my dreams beneath your feet...
05:16 PM on 08/16/2011
I couldnt have said it better.... I totally agree!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
2012Diogenes
Some of you really need to get out less often.
04:30 PM on 08/16/2011
50 people wanted to disrupt the commute of 20,000 to protest the police handling two years ago of a mentally ill man with a knife on a train platform.
04:22 PM on 08/16/2011
if faced with the question, "do you support the dissemination of information utilized to form a gathering for illegal purposes"? How would you respond?

The initial reasoning behind cutting of electronic services was a group was organizing a protest of which that same group had been disruptive (criminal) last July in the SF area.

This wasn't a kneejerk response but rather a legitimate issuance for public safety reasons. If people had been injured, the same critical group would be asking why authorities didn't take more firm measures against the hooligans..
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
sophie M
ANTI WAR./animal rescue
03:53 PM on 08/16/2011
people have become so addicted to their phones, i pads etc.
i would be mad too.
however.....very scary to realize how reliant we are on our phones etc..