Government Asks When It Can Shut Down Wireless Communications 267
Fluffeh writes "Around nine months ago, BART Police asked to have wireless communications disabled (PDF) between Trans Bay Tube Portal and the Balboa Park Station. That was because they knew a public protest was to take place there — and the service to the underground communication system was disabled. This affected not only cellphone signals, but also the radio systems of Police, Fire and Ambulance crews (PDF) within the underground. This led to an even larger protest at a BART station and many folks filed complaints along with the American Civil Liberties Union and Electronic Frontier Foundation. The FCC responded by launching a probe into the incident. The results were a mixed bag of 'To protect citizens!' and 'Only in extreme cases,' not to mention the classic 'Terrorists use wireless communications!' But even if the probe doesn't lead to a full proceeding and formal order, the findings may well be used as a guide for many years to come."
"Whenever you ask," say the telcos, of course (Score:5, Interesting)
it's clear that the big wireless companies are willing to shut down service—but they want the government to offer some direction. "Verizon Wireless understands that there may be some cases where shutting down wireless service to an area is necessary," the company wrote to the FCC on May 1. "In such cases, wireless carriers need a process for ensuring that the decision to shut down the network has been appropriately vetted and that the request comes from a single, reliable source."
In other words, as long as it comes from a recognized government official, we'll be happy to comply.
I think that's the same policy telcos have in Egypt and Syria, no?
So what's the answer, then? Never? (Score:3)
Given the narrow scope of the question, isn't this precisely how we expect the deliberative process on such a question to work?
Or is the answer always, "never"?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So what's the answer, then? Never? (Score:5, Insightful)
Which means that any authority trying to make things more convenient for users should never, ever, do it.
To know why it's an issue, realize that BART decided to install repeaters that they bought, and they operate so users of BART can have cell service where there was none before.
If as a result they can never, ever turn them off (barring stuff like it breaking down), then the take-away from all that is to never ever bother installing them in the first place and let users just live without their cellphones for their journey. In which case the only way to get service is to have the users petition cell providers to install antennas that cover the dead spots. Of course, the authority owning the land will probably not allow them to install it on the premises (see above) so there will be dead spots where existing antenna installations cannot reach.
I suppose that's the sad lesson to be learned - better to not provide, than to provide and get slapped with lawsuits should you fail to provide. And this applies to any place right now with bad cell service - including underground car parks and such where the building owner might want ot make their tenant's lives a little bit more convenient.
Now, if it's the carrier's own signals then yeah, you can't block it ever...
I don't disagree with the sentiment, but the flip side has to be considered as well. I suppose it's like providing a WiFi hotspot, deciding you don't like the crowds and turning it off, then being slapped with a lawsuit. Perhaps that's why government buildings don't have guest wifi.
Re:So what's the answer, then? Never? (Score:5, Insightful)
For me, freedom comes first. There is no reason to shut them down (just like there's no reason for the TSA or Patriot Act).
But I agree that the whole, "I can't think of an explanation, so none exist." argument isn't logical.
Re:So what's the answer, then? Never? (Score:5, Insightful)
The only time it could ever be acceptable would be if terrorists were actively using cellular phones to control the detonators for explosive devices, and even then, it should be shut down only long enough to sweep the expected target area for such devices. In all other circumstances, it should be disallowed. In other words, very nearly never.
Re:So what's the answer, then? Never? (Score:5, Insightful)
So organizing a protest where Innocent people getting off trains could be pushed onto electrified rails or in front of moving trains is not significant enough?
Nope.
If your reason contains the words "could", "might", or "possibly", then it is not reason enough. And if you know that innocent people will be pushed onto electrified rails or in front of moving trains, then it might be a better idea to arrest those people who plan to do so rather than shutting off cell service.
Re:So what's the answer, then? Never? (Score:5, Insightful)
[...] rights to assume safety in a public place, rights to peaceably assemble without violence of others, the right to leave trains without being harassed, etc
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. [imdb.com]
I wasn't aware that the "right to assume safety in a public place" was in the Bill of Rights. Damn those activist judges!
You do not have the right to shout "fire" in a crowded theater as the saying goes
Actually, you have every right to shout "fire" in a crowded theater. However, you cannot use "Free Speech" as a defense if you are brought to trial for the deaths of the people being trampled.
In short, I have every right to tell everyone to crowd into a BART station and shut it down. However, if someone is injured because of this, I can be held responsible.
For example, you say that "Overcrowding of a station will very likely cause safety issues." Again, there's that weasel word again, "very likely" (which I missed above). Nothing assured. Perhaps there will be no safety issue whatsoever. But it could happen.
Welcome to the exciting world of pre-crime! If something could happen, we must stop it!
Re:So what's the answer, then? Never? (Score:5, Insightful)
Overcrowding of a station will very likely cause safety issues.
Funny how such arguments come up so frequently for protests and not at all when trains are delayed during rush hour.
Re:So what's the answer, then? Never? (Score:4, Insightful)
And shutting down the cell phone network will prevent them from pushing people in front of trains? No, it won't. In fact, quite the opposite; it will prevent people from calling quickly for an ambulance after they do push someone in front of a moving train. In most cases, the added risk to safety caused by shutting down cell service greatly exceeds the benefit.
Maybe if we were talking about a team of gunmen coordinating a strike over the cell network, I could also see it. In general, the requirements should be:
In other words, if it's the sort of situation where the police would break into somebody's house without getting a warrant first, it might be acceptable. Otherwise, you'd better have a judicial order.
Re: (Score:3)
And shutting down the cell phone network will prevent them from pushing people in front of trains? No, it won't. In fact, quite the opposite; it will prevent people from calling quickly for an ambulance after they do push someone in front of a moving train. In most cases, the added risk to safety caused by shutting down cell service greatly exceeds the benefit.
Bart knew the protest was coming and had stationed people with radios that worked on every platform. Just because civilians can not call 911 does not mean that an incident will not be reported by the BART personnel who are tasked to do just that.
The protesters were sending out spotters and attempting to find stations that had fewer BART police in attendance. They were then going to call all protesters to these platforms. People were waiting on other platforms for text messages so they could get on a train
Re: (Score:3)
Did you actually read any of the articles explaining what BART did to deal with these situations?
1. There are free phones on every platform that are direct links to BART.
2. There were BART police officers on every platform with radios that used the BART system and were unaffected by the cellular shutdown.
3. Train operators have radios on the same system as the Bart police officers.
4. EMS uses the same radio system as BART.
So, even though the average citizen can not call 911 from the station, the situation w
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but only one of those can realistically be achieved.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, we can think of a few scenarios, but all of them would have you laughed out of office:
1.) Giant mutant space radishes take over the world, and use the cell-phone networks to communicate.
2.) Poltergeists use the cell-phone networks to possess the minds of young athletic women.
3.) Cell-phone signals cause cancer.
4.) A 31337 h@x0r is using the network to play cell-phone ping pong with another 31337 h@x0r overseas.
5.) The government wants the ability to tell its citizens what it can say, and when.
See? It's
Re: (Score:2)
Or is the answer always, "never"?
No, but I would hope the answer would be a little better than "As long as the guy asking has proper government credentials."
No, the answer is "never" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No, the answer is "never" (Score:5, Insightful)
Hell they already have abused it. Witness the whole BART fiasco we are talking about.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I wouldn't. I'd feel bad in general, having just lost a loved one or friend... but I wouldn't be blaming the protest. If anything, I'd be upset with the subway for not having some kind of barrier. What if you had a seizure and fell onto the tracks? Same trouble, but no third party to blame, there.
Re: (Score:2)
How about the (admittedly unlikely) case of a known bomb threat in a given region with a cell phone as its remote detonator? Or perhaps a known threat/disaster in an enclosed and highly crowded space where controlling information is necessary to prevent panic and facilitate an orderly evacuation?
The key is that such capabilities should only be exercised under extreme conditions where lives are in danger -- but never for mere political expediency (ie: impeding a legitimate protest).
Re: (Score:2)
You can just as easily make it trigger when it receives no signal as to make it trigger from a phone call.
Re: (Score:2)
But that's...LOGIC!
Seriously, how difficult is it to switch trigger mechanisms? Trivial or super-trivial?
Besides, after that one spam message prematurely set off a bomb in that Middle-Eastern country, I don't think any bomb maker is interested in using a cell-phone again (as a triggering device).
Re: (Score:2)
How about the (admittedly unlikely) case of a known bomb threat in a given region with a cell phone as its remote detonator?
Turning off cell service could just as easily CAUSE the bomb to explode.
Or perhaps a known threat/disaster in an enclosed and highly crowded space where controlling information is necessary to prevent panic and facilitate an orderly evacuation?
People in an enclosed highly crowded space don't need electronic devices to spread panic.
The key is that such capabilities should only be exercised under extreme conditions where lives are in danger
What keeps LEA from seeing a protest as an extreme condition? They could argue the risk of something extreme happening during a protest warrants action.
but never for mere political expediency (ie: impeding a legitimate protest).
Good luck codifying that.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd take the bomb threat over the J. Edgars any day.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Given the narrow scope of the question, isn't this precisely how we expect the deliberative process on such a question to work?
Or is the answer always, "never"?
Yes. Never.
We are supposed to be a FREE and OPEN society. When we start restricting people's communications, their RIGHT to peacefully assemble (blacking out communications aids in restricting protests), and having this whole BIG BROTHER - LAW and ORDER mentality, we are heading down a very dangerous road. Just because you don't like what protestors have to say or what their issues are doesn't mean we should silince them or dampen their ability to organize.
One day it will affect you - or a group that you
Re: (Score:2)
We are supposed to be a FREE and OPEN society.
Actually, you maybe were "supposed ...", probably by those who designed your constitution.
Albeit, it never really worked (e.g. discrimination by ethnic origin thwarting both 'FREE' and 'OPEN').
Cc.
Re: (Score:2)
They are not shutting off all communications. If a protester moved a couple hundred feet, to outside the station, their coverage would be fine. Equating blocking coverage in a dangerous area to blocking all communication is invalid. Do I think it is OK to limit my ability to organize a large protest in an area where people could die? Absolutely.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I would say never. Only because I cannot think of anytime they should do that. Can you?
Re: (Score:2)
Think about a few thousand angry protesters on a small platform. Do you think it is possible for people to be pushed in front of moving trains or onto the electrified rail? That is the safety issue that BART was trying to deal with. Had the protesters organized the protest to take place above ground where it was safe and their cell phones still worked there would not be a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Given you are essentially disarming the population and preparing for an attack of some sort noting short of Martial law should give the government such powers.
Re: (Score:2)
Given you are essentially disarming the population and preparing for an attack of some sort ...
So the wet dream of any BOFH (a data centre without users) would scale up to a government without a populace (a day after all those bloody nuisances have been wiped away)?
CC.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They didn't shut it down for the same reasons roads are sometimes closed (weather emergency or major accident). They shut it down to censor free speech & prevent a protest. The air belongs to the People and they have a right to use it. They should never be blocked from using their property, except for a real emergency.
(And before you claim the air belongs to someone else..... it does not. It is RENTED to companies, but the ownership remains with the people, from which all legitimate power derives.)
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed.
Re: (Score:2)
I think that's the same policy telcos have in Egypt and Syria, no?
I assume the new government in Egypt has not done anything to distinguish itself from Mubarak in that regard aside from maybe cross-their-heart, hope-to-die promising not shut down the Internet and cell phone service unless it's really really super-duper important?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, as long as it comes from a recognized government official, we'll be happy to comply.
The simpler answer is to not absolve the wireless carriers of liability if they comply. The fear of lawsuits will keep them from making such a decision lightly, official request or not.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I didn't see anything in their response about any "due process of law." Sounds like they just want to make sure the request comes from a recognized government official or office (presumably so they can blame it all on them if there's a PR backlash).
Never? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
There is no justifiable reason to shut this service off, ever.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
That being said, there are a number of examples where explosives have been detonated by cellphone. Imagine what a neat and tidy solution that would be if cell service was shut down on a grid where a bomb was placed, thereby negating the detonator... it's wishful thinking at best, sure -- you and I know that -- but we do need to at least attempt to acknowledge this kind of scenario in order to properly combat the arguments of people in favor of th
Re: (Score:2)
Have there between any examples that weren't part of the plot in a police procedural show?
Re: (Score:2)
Think about that logic for a minute. And they will detect that the explosive has a phone detonator how? And disabling a phone number, instead of blacking out the service when they find it is invalid how exactly?
Now, I really want you to do some reading (but I have doubts you will do so). How many cell phones on legitimate cell phone networks do you think are responsible for the IED explosions in Afghanistan or Iraq? Sorry, but the Jihad does not have the funding to pay for monthly phone plans.
This is pr
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine what a neat and tidy solution that would be if cell service was shut down on a grid where a bomb was placed, ...
... while at the same time shutting down a health and disaster aid network probably in place. Good deal!
CC.
Re: (Score:2)
we all could come up with scenarios where it might save lives to cut off service
The only one I can think of is a situation where a bomb will be triggered by a cell phone receiving a call. Except that a bomb could just as easily be triggered by a cell phone call ending, so shutting the network down would only really work once or twice.
Of course, that is not the situation that we saw in the BART case. The point of shutting down the phone network there was to stifle protest. Since the government will always claim that protesters are terrorists, the short answer is that the governm
Re: (Score:2)
and that if the government will start doing so we will need to deploy networks with a less centralized topology
Shortly followed up with them actively jamming. Believe me, they won't have the power restrictions the rest of us have, so there would be no way to get through that jamming.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not to stifle process, it's to stop people from live-streaming evidence of police brutality or uploading videos to YouTube before they confiscate and erase / lose / impound your memory card.
You have to remember where this stems from -- someone filmed 5 RCMP officers engaging in premeditated murder against a Polish Immigrant. If not for the pesky video, the police would have been able to stick to their story since it was the word of 5 police vs one dead guy (or perhaps a handful of "confused, non-exper
treat them like they treat you. (Score:2)
You have to remember where this stems from --
Yeah, a BARTcop shooting a customer who was compliant to orders and lying on the ground.
Oh, and a handful of miscellaneous other beat-downs, too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But when you point that out, DHS goes "See Congress? There are 'terrowists' (said the same way Elmer Fudd says 'Rabbits') right here @home!"
Your paranoid 'rulers' are paranoid. And their advisers are bad, and they should feel bad.
Re: (Score:2)
While I cannot think of a scenario that would warrant wireless service shutdown I'm sure there are some. I'm also pretty sure that those situations would be severe enough that they should also probably shut down passenger service as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Why are you trying to bring a well reasoned and nuanced ideas into Slashdot?
I apologize. I started drinking early today and it appears to have affected my posts ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, a bomb can also be triggered by a call ending, so either we stop having cell phones or else we acknowledge that there is no legitimate reason for the government to cut off service.
Re: (Score:2)
How, exactly, do you know they work that way? That makes no sense to me. One intelligent design is every time the phone rx a txt message, the reset button on a 5 minute timer is pushed. So 5 minutes after they decide to stop sending texts, or 5 minutes after the phone network is shut down, boom. Seems blindingly obvious to a programmer type. No reason the boom can't be a "OR" function of the txt timer OR a plain ole phone call.
All I can say is cellphone telemarketers must be a headache for people who d
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A bomb can be triggered by a call starting, ending or not being attempted withing a time lapse and combinations.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"We could all come up with scenarios" is not an argument. If it's so easy, then post an actual situation! I challenge anyone to come up with one that is remotely realistic.
How about all the rioting and all that that took place in England back in 2011? Rioting seems to me a logical time to shut down cellular communication, as rioters could use cell phones to communicate between groups and avoid police crackdowns, move to new areas, or form new groups/get more people to join. I'm not talking Occupy protests, or what happened in Tahrir Square. I mean when you have major property damage, violence, and injuries. At the very least it would make it that much harder for the riots
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yup and we could save lives by only letting truckers and buss drivers on the roads. Life is a risk accept that. Now I am all behind the existing system were the government can prioritize there own wireless traffic in an emergency.
Re: (Score:2)
we all could come up with scenarios where it might save lives to cut off service
Then come up with some if it's so easy. You made a bold statement without anything to back it up. As for me, I can't imagine that cutting communications could be helpful in any emergency.
Re: (Score:2)
Surprise Surprise (Score:2)
Why shut it down? (Score:2)
Why not just restrict the services that can be used down to emergency services only?
To put it another way (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I guess my point was why completely disable the system which is easy to make an argument against rather than restrict it to emergency services which is harder to argue against.
Basically since they are lazy and by shutting it completely down they are having a harder time justifying their actions.
Your point about them infringing on our freedom of speech is the correct argument to be making though.
Jamming (or cutoff) is bad, mmkay? (Score:2)
Unless you are protecting a military asset, keep your hands off the jammer / wire-cutters. Period.
Find another solution.
Property rights, contract law (Score:2)
In the theater (Score:2)
I think this is flat out a first amendment issue (Score:2)
The government wants to be able to squelch protests.
I think the answer is NEVER.
BART you say? (Score:2)
when (Score:3)
Martial law is declared.
Re: (Score:2)
Martial Law (Score:3, Insightful)
Seems like an easy answer to me -- the government has the authority to inhibit free speech any time they declare martial law.
Its really a simple question... (Score:2)
...who is it that has a problem with the 1st amendment?
There is no complicating this simple straight forward question with any additional babel!
There is a simple and straight forward reason why it's the FIRST Amendment, not the second or third or any other.
Terroists also use AIR (Score:2)
It is weak argument that terroist use something so it can be denied everyone. It is one step closer to a police state. Closing down communications also closes down 911 calls, which in that city are I believe numerous and important. If something goes down in a tunnel, people have a right to protect themselves with communications, (like they seem to be able to with concealed weapons in other states).
Content Neutral? (Score:2)
Pretty obvious that would not be a content-neutral restriction on the rights of american citizens.
Big 1st Amendment problems with shutting down phone lines or radio lines ONLY because you want to keep certain people from talking.
Re: (Score:2)
I've seen some real good comments out of you in the past, is this some sort of rhetorical question or just troll bait?
Do you really want an answer to this question?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Cell phone disruption is a standard practice of cracking down by totalitarian governments.
Has the US government scolded any country for doing that?
Re: (Score:2)
Any time you want, man. Just rent a bulldozer and you're good to go.
Re: (Score:2)
Here is a simpler question: when can I, an individual citizen, shut down wireless communication?
That's easy, just call in an anonymous tip that there's something that goes "boom" attached to a cellphone, obviously.
This in itself is an interesting attack vector. You see, this will train people that when the cell service goes down, that means they are in extremely close proximity to a bomb thats about to go off, TSA goons are about to swoop in and beat everyone in sight, etc.
So the "real" attack vector is to build and plant absolutely nothing, select a nice crowded area, call in a completely fake threa
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Might makes right.
Re: (Score:2)
The same case exists with the police and internal affairs departments
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. You, hitherto known as 'the serf,' are a piece of property, to be used and eventually sold with the estate. They, hitherto known as 'the authority,' are your lords and masters, and their job is to tell you how to live, and when you may die. In the course of their duties, they may lie to you, beat you, steal from you, use your family members as hostages, and in general do whatever they life; in return, you might live to see another day. Remember, it's join with the oppressors, or be oppressed!
Their a
Re: (Score:2)
They may own it but it does not give them the right to shut it off. Emergency calls must make it through, the system does not care if the phone has an account was stolen etc 911 just works. They took down part of an emergency service with no technical reason. Wireless services are using the public space to make money that comes with responsibility.
Hopefully the FCC does it job to insure this never happens again. Doubtful but I can hope. Protesters in a public space, is that not part of what public spac
Re: (Score:2)
Hell did you see that doing so cut off police, fire, and medical response radio as well? What the hell, BART!?
Re: (Score:2)
Hell did you see that doing so cut off police, fire, and medical response radio as well? What the hell, BART!?
Yea, that kinda blows the whole "public safety" lie out of the water, doesn't it?
Re: (Score:2)
If they own the antenna's and repeaters, then it is their property and they should be able to shut it down when they want.
Governments must never be allowed to prevent people from speaking, nor must they be allowed to stifle protests. Even if the government owns the communication system in question, they must not
Re: (Score:2)
If they own the antenna's and repeaters, then it is their property and they should be able to shut it down when they want.
Unless they're under contract to provide a service.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They don't penetrate ground very well. BART radios have repeaters in the stations so their radios still work.