Cellphones blocked in SF to hinder transit protest

[quest7]

SAN FRANCISCO – Transit officials said Friday that they blocked cellphone reception in San Francisco train stations for three hours to disrupt planned demonstrations over a police shooting.

Cellphones blocked in SF to hinder transit protest - Yahoo! News

What about other reasons to have our phone service on?

The FCC is reminding the public that such devices create "serious safety risks" by blocking access to public safety services.


http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/FCC-Moves-To-Crack-Down-On-Cell-GPS-Jammers-112657

 

[gvillager]

The FCC is reminding the public that such devices create "serious safety risks" by blocking access to public safety services.


FCC Moves To Crack Down On Cell, GPS Jammers - Reminds Public Devices Can Block Necessary 911 Communications | DSLReports.com, ISP Information

They didn't really "block" the signal. They just simply turned off the distributed antenna system in the subway.

 

[RiverOfIce]

cough, Pwnie Express :: Wired, wireless, and 3G pentesting dropboxes cough. Stupid cold.

 

[OutofDate1980]

Darn ... Out of Stock!

 

[OutofDate1980]

They didn't really "block" the signal. They just simply turned off the distributed antenna system in the subway.

Just as effective, more efficient, and cheaper. Who said government doesn't work.

 

[Frisco]

Darn ... Out of Stock!

You may not have noticed the date online orders will resume.

Get yours today while supplies last!

 

[noah way]

So much for the first amendment.

 

[Frisco]

So much for the first amendment.

I think this would be an interesting case.

 

[A.Nonymous]

They didn't really "block" the signal. They just simply turned off the distributed antenna system in the subway.

Potato, potahto.

 

[quest7]

SAN FRANCISCO

 

[A.Nonymous]

SAN FRANCISCO

 

[OutofDate1980]

So much for the first amendment.

"there are legal nuances to consider, including whether under the law BART is considered a government agency

 

[noah way]

NYPD forms new social media unit to mine Facebook and Twitter for mayhem

 

[quest7]

If you protect safety by stamping on free speech rights have you really done something worthwhile?

I totally agree with you.

 

[Dark Jedi]

If you cant go without cell service for a few hours then you have a serious problem. We did just fine not knowing of emergencies before we had cell phones. Trampling on first admendment rights highly doubtful. As not being able to speak on a cellphone don't keep you from speaking period. What about buildings that you can work in that can't get a signal inside. Is that the company owners fault? Are they hindering your first admendment rights there? Sshould they go out their way to provide a signal for you inside the building? Having a cell phone is a convenience and nothing more. How many people gets along just fine without a cellphone. So stop using the excuse of cellphones to just throw that first admendment card.

 

[gvillager]

Just as effective, more efficient, and cheaper. Who said government doesn't work.

True, I was just simply pointing out that they didn't "block" the signal as implied by the dslreports link.

 

[Bob Maxey]

If you cant go without cell service for a few hours then you have a serious problem. We did just fine not knowing of emergencies before we had cell phones. Trampling on first admendment rights highly doubtful. As not being able to speak on a cellphone don't keep you from speaking period. What about buildings that you can work in that can't get a signal inside. Is that the company owners fault? Are they hindering your first admendment rights there? Sshould they go out their way to provide a signal for you inside the building? Having a cell phone is a convenience and nothing more. How many people gets along just fine without a cellphone. So stop using the excuse of cellphones to just throw that first admendment card.

I agree, DJ . . . some people forget that there are sometimes good reasons for making it impossible to speak whatever is on their little minds and it is not a violation. Some people do not know our founding fathers or have read their words and sometimes, they scream constitutional violation, rather than think things through.

I lived a fairly good and productive life before the cellular phone arrived. I can go without mine for a few hours.

And a private concern can fully restrict your supposed rights and it is not a violation, as many people often maintain.

 

[Bob Maxey]

NYPD forms new social media unit to mine Facebook and Twitter for mayhem

Very good to hear. I hope it becomes routine and widespread.

 

[Bob Maxey]

If you protect safety by stamping on free speech rights have you really done something worthwhile?

No violations, not a problem, get over it.

 

[RiverOfIce]

freedom of speech only applies to times of peace, not illegal activity. As for the social media unit, oh well, it will not help. but once we lose a liberty it can never be regained.

 

[A.Nonymous]

If you cant go without cell service for a few hours then you have a serious problem. We did just fine not knowing of emergencies before we had cell phones. Trampling on first admendment rights highly doubtful. As not being able to speak on a cellphone don't keep you from speaking period. What about buildings that you can work in that can't get a signal inside. Is that the company owners fault? Are they hindering your first admendment rights there? Sshould they go out their way to provide a signal for you inside the building? Having a cell phone is a convenience and nothing more. How many people gets along just fine without a cellphone. So stop using the excuse of cellphones to just throw that first admendment card.

You're missing the point. If they had decided that people talking on cell phones during the commute was problematic so they shut off the system, no one would have any First Amendment issues.

What they did was different than that though. People said they were going to show up to protest. In response, BART shuts down cell service to prevent the protestors from being able to organize. How is that any different that Tunisia or Egypt? It's the reason and intent behind their actions that makes a difference.

 

[A.Nonymous]

freedom of speech only applies to times of peace, not illegal activity. As for the social media unit, oh well, it will not help. but once we lose a liberty it can never be regained.

It's not illegal to protest.

 

[RiverOfIce]

It's not illegal to protest.

yes it is in a non-traditional public forum, by definition of the law. Further more, the government has the right to limit protests by time, place and manner, when it interference with public safety, governments ability to function, and can cause directly physical civil damage to property. Once the test of public safety has been crossed, the activity is illegal civil disobedience. In addition to, the government must make it clear where the proper place to have a traditional public forum can happen. Once again. The protesters are mounting a protest which is meant to disrupt the function and normal government and which directly places other in an unsafe position. The protests are illegal, by every definition of the law.

 

[RiverOfIce]

How is that any different that Tunisia or Egypt? It's the reason and intent behind their actions that makes a difference.

There is no difference. The government is trying to break up protests over what they feel is a unjust cause. We could argue the cause, but the government is doing what it feels is necessary to limit the protestors ability to organize. Is it wrong, I dont know. Is it draconian, yes it it. Should we care, yes we should. But we have given up this right a long time ago, do not expect to get it back.

 

[A.Nonymous]

yes it is in a non-traditional public forum, by definition of the law. Further more, the government has the right to limit protests by time, place and manner, when it interference with public safety, governments ability to function, and can cause directly physical civil damage to property. Once the test of public safety has been crossed, the activity is illegal civil disobedience. In addition to, the government must make it clear where the proper place to have a traditional public forum can happen. Once again. The protesters are mounting a protest which is meant to disrupt the function and normal government and which directly places other in an unsafe position. The protests are illegal, by every definition of the law.

That's all fine, but at the point they made the decision, nothing had happened. If these people were actively engaging in illegal civil disobedience, then you might have a good argument. It is not illegal to show up in a public place and protest.

They built an arena here in town recently. It was unpopular with a certain segment of the population. They decided they wanted to protest the opening of the arena. How did our city respond? They roped off an area in front of the arena and designated it for the protesters. They hired security to ensure that the protesters stayed in their designated area. No one's free speech was hindered and there was no disruption of business.