BART Disables Cell Service To Disrupt Protests 440
1729 writes "Yesterday, in an effort to disrupt rumored protests at Bay Area Rapid Transit stations, BART officials disabled cell phone and internet access within most of the BART system by shutting down the antennas that enable reception in the underground stations."
Stupid slope (Score:5, Insightful)
How long will it be before they just gas a place with knock-out gas in order to "keep the peace"?
Re:Stupid slope (Score:4, Insightful)
I hear they are coating their slopes with teflon now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Stupid slope (Score:5, Informative)
Incorrect. The incident you are referencing took place in Oakland, not SF and it was over two years ago. This protest was about the shooting of a guy who was brandishing a knife on the subway platform. http://blogs.kqed.org/newsfix/2011/07/21/bart-to-release-video-of-civic-center-shooting-on-the-web-at-3-p-m/ [kqed.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Stupid slope (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't know if you saw the same video I did. What I saw was no accident - it was an execution.
That "taser" excuse doesn't wash; if the suspect is face down on the ground with a cop kneeling on his back, what's the taser needed for?. The only "mistake" that happened that day was that the killer cop didn't think that he'd be filmed as he executed the black guy.
Re:Stupid slope (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Stupid slope (Score:5, Insightful)
I would shoot you in the leg.
You'd better be a damned good shot with that pistol. Most people aren't. Not enough to intentionally hit the smaller parts of an advancing target in a threatening situation, when adrenaline is pouring through your bloodstream and you have absolutely no control over the situation or the actions of the person who's coming at you with a weapon fast, and noise and stress and recoil are playing hell with your careful, gun-range shooting practice skills and he's almost on you...
Your plan sounds all good and idealistic and I'd also like to think that it can happen that way, but remember Moltke: "No battle plan survives first contact with the enemy." Try to kill me, and I'll try to kill you right back.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And there's those pesky major arteries in the legs.
Re:Stupid slope (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Stupid slope (Score:5, Insightful)
When you fire your weapon you should mean it. Don't shoot to injure or incapacitate. Shoot to kill.
No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
You shoot to end the threat.
If when all is said and done they are no longer metabolizing oxygen, fine. But if you plant a round center mass and they drop their weapon, turn tail, and run. You better cease fire, the threat has been stopped, cuz the next shot you fire they are the victim.
You shoot to end the threat.
You shoot to end the threat.
You shoot to end the threat.
You shoot to end the threat.
You shoot to end the threat.
You shoot to end the threat.
Re: (Score:3)
A dead man doesn't testify.
According to my father, that's what he was taught as a soldier in Poland. Shooting to wound can lead to legal trouble, and if you're only looking to wound, you probably don't have grounds to be shooting at all, guns should always be a last resort if you ask me, as in, your absolute last chance.
Not to mention, Im sure its nearly impossible not to "shoot to kill" in an actual deadly situation, you can't honestly expect someone to be 100% calm and dead accurate when in a life or deat
Re:Stupid slope (Score:5, Informative)
I'm a police office and we are taught to shoot to end the threat.
To use deadly force you need 3 things:
>Means: they have to have the means to cause great bodily harm or death.
>Ability: They must have the ability to cause great bodily harm or death.
>Eminence: The threat must be eminent.
If you don't have all three you don't have a deadly force situation.
If the threat is no longer eminent, ie they turn tail and run, you don't have a deadly force situation.
Being able to keep a clear head in a high stress situation and recognize if you have all three elements is the responsibility of carrying a firearm.
Shoot to kill gets you sued to.
Wait till you get on the witness stand and the lawyer for the family of the person you shot is questioning you.
"Sir is it true that you are a trained killer?"
"Is it true that when you drew your weapon you intenteded to kill the only son of my client?"
That shit looks really good in front of a jury.
Never confuse the training soldier gets with the training law enforcement gets. Just because both carry guns doesn't mean they're trained to use them the same way.
Re: (Score:3)
As a soldier, he should have been taught to shoot to wound. Any soldier will easily be able to explain to you why: You don't want a dead enemy. You want a wounded enemy. A dead enemy puts one enemy out of action. A wounded puts three men out of action, is a perfect locating device (unless somehow silenced) and also pretty bad for their morale.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wrong. Dawrin award. This is NOT is what is taught in self-defense classes.
Watch videos of real handgun fights. A person will NOT in general immediately drop their weapon with a single hit, and a single hit does not always incapacitate. You ascertain if there is no longer threat while emptying your gun into the threat.
You ascertain if there is no longer threat while emptying your gun into the threat.
You ascertain if there is no longer a threat while emptying your gun into the threat.
Re:Stupid slope (Score:4, Insightful)
When you fire your weapon you should mean it. Don't shoot to injure or incapacitate. Shoot to kill.
No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
You shoot to end the threat.
If when all is said and done they are no longer metabolizing oxygen, fine. But if you plant a round center mass and they drop their weapon, turn tail, and run. You better cease fire, the threat has been stopped, cuz the next shot you fire they are the victim.
You shoot to end the threat.
You shoot to end the threat.
You shoot to end the threat.
You shoot to end the threat.
You shoot to end the threat.
You shoot to end the threat.
I think you don't understand.
"if you plant a round center mass" you just shot to kill! Congratulations. Period. Full stop.
You seem to be confusing "shoot to kill" with "shoot until they stop breathing." "Shoot until they stop breathing" is not a policy of any respectable military or police force I know of, but "shoot to kill" rightfully is. It means you are not shooting for anything less, and that's the way it will go down in a courtroom too.
You don't shoot to threaten, warn, maim, incapacitate, hurt, etc.
Want to know why?
What's the difference between those, and MISSING? See, that's why we need laws and policies that are black and white here.
A "warning" shot gives an armed opponent every reason to engage you. A thug shouldn't be able to get less than attempted murder because he missed. Police shouldn't attempt to use a firearm to incapacitate suspects because deadly force was not warranted.
It's pretty obvious why "shoot to kill" policies exist if you really stop and think about it guys.
Re: (Score:3)
Good luck with that attitude. I suspect, however, that it will result in you removing yourself from the gene pool.
It reminds me of the early western movies where the good guys always shoot the gun out of the hands of the bad guys, as if that were an easy thing to do. It is not.
"Turning tail" doesn't always mean they are running from the fight. It could also mean that they are seeking cover from which to continue their attempt to attack and/or kill you. You did not "end the threat". You've watch to
Re: (Score:3)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
sadly you are better off killing his sorry ass so he doesn't sue you later for "pain and suffering".
Re: (Score:2)
And in some areas shooting to wound and not to "stop the threat" can put you at risk of being arrested... you aren't supposed to use your lethal force for "malicious wounding" (as I have heard it referred to by an instructor), but just to stop the threat of imminent bodily harm or death to you or another (and that "another" is a sticky situation too unless you know all the particulars)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Come at me threateningly with a couple of knives and a broken glass bottle, throwing one of the knives at me when I am telling you to stand down, and I'll shoot yer ass, too, center mass
This.
It's stupid fucktards like you that give responsible gun owners like me a bad rap. You see, if you came at me with a knife, or throwing knives, I would shoot you in the leg. Poblem solved. You get to live, in severe pain likely for hours, then possible suffer permanent mobility issues for life.
See, you'd get to live. To face justice. I'm not a vigilante, nor a murderer. I hope that if you ever do shoot someone "center mass", even in self defense, that the authorities reference your post and take it into consideration that you've always wanted to kill someone.
Your rhetoric turns my stomach just as much as those Limey's saying the Cops should be shooting and beating the impoverished rioters. You are the scum of the Earth.
You are way off base, buddy, and your +whatever moderators too. You never, EVER fire a weapon at someone you don't intend to kill, just as you don't point a weapon at something you don't intend to shoot. THAT is responsible use of a firearm. You're not going to convince the courts you didn't have intent to kill simply because you hit someone in the leg, so you BETTER be sure you are justified in killing when you pull that trigger. A responsible gun owner needs to know the law.
Please, please, don't liste
Re: (Score:3)
not a responsible gun owner if you don't know much about either your marksmanship capabilities or of knife fights. As a former range officer who has fired tens of thousands of rounds in practice, and was former state champion, let me tell you that you can not reliably hit the leg of a leaping or running person who attacks with a knife from a distance of ten feet or less. You will get stabbed. You must shoot to incapacitate, which means center-of-mass.
Re:Stupid slope (Score:5, Insightful)
Educate yourself, multiple center of mass hits that are the *only way* pistol defence is taught, because that is the only correct way. It is taught to police that way, it is taught to grandmas that way. you can't reliably hit moving arms or legs with a handgun, you'll mostly miss. You will not reliably stop nor incapacitate an attacker with a handgun hit in the arm or leg, they will keep on coming. you will not reliably stop an attacker with a single shot either. if you must use a gun to defend yourself, you must aim at center of mass. you must fire until the threat stops. This is what is taught, it is how handgun self-defence works. there is no other way that will protect you from a threat of severe or lethal harm. If there was not a threat of severe or lethal harm, you had no business pointing your gun at someone, let alone firing your gun.
Do you have some hollywood nonsensical idea that handguns lift people up and throw them back, or open them up, or remove entrails, or that a single shot always stops someone? those are all rubbish, fantasy.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I do agree that what happened to Oscar Grant is worse than bad, and totally unjustified. But this incident, the one being talked about in this Slashdot discussion, is far, far different, as are the actions of the person you denigrate as a "Pig". Not all officers are the same as the one who killed Oscar Grant,
Re: (Score:2)
I dispute the claim that "Bad Cops" are statistically rare. Simply put, any Cop who KNOWS about a Bad Cop, but doesn't 'retire' them, is a Bad Cop, too.
Knife = Popsicle (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
then you would go to jail. "Excessive Defense" is a crime you know.
I've never heard that phrase used in the United States. I don't think there is any law that uses that language. In many states, you would be perfectly within your rights to use lethal force to deal with an attacker armed with a knife if you felt your life was in danger.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
And to the AC above who talks about shooting the guy in the leg, I sincerely hope you aren't actually a gun owner. If you can shoot someone without the intention of killing them, you shouldn't have shot them at all (and you'v
Re: (Score:2)
If you can shoot someone without the intention of killing them, you shouldn't have shot them at all
What if you felt that they were indeed a threat to your life, but couldn't kill them (either because you would feel bad, or because you simply didn't want to for some reason)? Why isn't that possible?
The guy you are replying to has the correct attitude.
Some might disagree.
Re: (Score:2)
Slashdot really needs a self mod option, a "-5 redacted" that you could only apply to your own posts, since there are people like me.
What is next? (Score:3, Funny)
Arab Spring
English Summer
American Autumn
Solidarity (Score:5, Interesting)
When Poland's workers organized to protest the Communist government, one of the government's countermeasures was to disable the phone system.
My mother remarked at the time how unimaginable it was to live in a place where the phones could stop working because the government wanted them to.
Re:Solidarity (Score:5, Insightful)
The irony is that the communist government likely in many instances uses the same reasoning to explain to the people their reasons for doing what they do. (Papers please!) When you flip a coin over, it may have a different picture to appease you into thinking it is something different, but in reality it is only the other side of the same thing.
Re: (Score:2)
What you seeing here is the inevitable end result of the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact block falling apart as they were the only thing holding back the Western authoritarians and autocrats from enacting their visions of "Law and Order" (with rich and connected people on top).
That is because in their panic fear of the worker slaves in the 1930s they painted themselves into a corner by equating the Soviets with the Devil and so anything even remotely resembling the activities of the Politburo (bad, good o
Re:Just where do you think "rich and connected" we (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, no. The unique feature of the Soviet system was that while the top connected individuals were indeed surrounded by privilege, they were never technically rich. Most top Soviet officials and their families lived in apartment buildings which were tiny compared to a typical house of an even minor Western industrialist or a politician.
The aphrodisiac of the Soviet system was raw unchallenged power over others, not wealth.
It is only after the system collapsed when the "oligarchs" "buying" entire national industries for pennies on a dollar during Yeltsin's drunken binges appeared.
Which precautions have clearly failed in the West. Hence my point. Democracy and its "checks and balances" are now completely circumvented for good. Results are sure to follow.
I think that particular fallacy is called "It Can't Happen Here!". Lots of "Good Germans" swore by a similar idea. Note to the history-challenged: pre-Nazi germany was a Western (by definition) Constitutional Democracy (called the Weimar Republic).
Most people did not have a "bulled in the pan" in Germany in 1930 either.
But when my memories of crossing the Soviet border (something you clearly never did) circa early 1980s compare favourably with those of the USA border of 2010, something is clearly wrong with this picture, don't you think?
Absent an armed revolution, Fascism is not an all-or-nothing, black-or-white deal when one day you live in a freedom-loving, personal-liberties-cherishing place and the next morning a Fascist Dictatorship. Instead, Fascism (or systems like it) are introduced via a creeping progression, always.
And the West has been creeping towards it for two good decades, at first slowly, now rapidly accelerating. Just use your head: in the 1950s USA the "porn scanners" and "full body gropes" (of children, no less) would have been unthinkable and would have been - quite correctly - seen as an idea straight form a Soviet or a Nazi playbook. Fast forward to 2011....
Also when one talks about Fascism, or Fascism-like progressions, it is given that there will not be an exact repetition of the events of the mid 20th century. History never repeats itself exactly, it merely plays on the same theme. The new rendition of the oppression will be quite different in technical details, but very much the same as far as its victims are concerned (for example its most likely it will be Moslems in the camps - which will be euphemistically called something entirely different, instead of Jews).
Re:Solidarity (Score:5, Interesting)
What is interesting is it didn't take our country very long to leap to this kind of tactic. This "protest" didn't even make national radar and they are ready to start pulling stuff like this off on people? Nobody got fired for this, there isn't even an outcry from any authority figure.
I am afraid the facade of freedom in this country is about to come tumbling down. Authority figures here will NOT be intimidated, and if you make them afraid, they will destroy you. You had better learn to do as your told. This last decade this country has changed for the worse. Its nothing like I grew up in, this is not your parent's America.
If you think you are going to protest here if they don't want you to, you are insane. Take a look at the G8 riots here. We have state of the art crowd control and the political will to use it. They will use the military on us, they have used the military on us and got away with it. This is a fight that was lost long ago at the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago. When the authorities were allowed to get away with that, our fate was sealed.
All the pieces are in place. Follow the propaganda from outfits like Fox News. They have marginalized the "entitlement" people already, they are ready for them to riot so they can dispose of them. They have been tying the London rioters to our "entitlement" people, it falls into their agenda to demonize "the liberals" and this fosters a transition to fascism, as they have someone to "get rid of to make it all better". This is very much history repeating itself. If you don't think it can happen here, you are a fool. No country woke up thinking they could ever slip into this kind of nightmare, but it happens and can happen very fast.
I have never seen America so polarized, both sides are charged up, it's potentially more charged I feel than the 60s, because this has been a slow cooking pot of trouble. Well, this is America, we don't do things in half measures, when it blows up here, the world will be in awe. What people haven't considered is how much information about making weapons and bombs is on the Internet. You find videos of it all over the Internet. This was rare, hard to find information when I was a kid and we still had a few that played with it.
Think of what crazy kids here have at their disposal? Forget guns. Guns would be actually more forgiving, considering the lack of armor piercing rounds available. When it gets ratcheted up to improvised bomb launchers that are combination armor piercing and anti personal, our riot cops will get shredded into hamburger in the streets.
This is why I find this BART action to shutting down the tech to be alarming. If the authorities clamp down on peaceful protest, they just make people in more angry, and increase the chance of escalating this. If people can vent, and feel they are being heard, this goes a LONG ways towards perpetuating a lawful society. If you shut people down, after they have been told all of their lives that they are a free people and have the right to assemble and be heard, you become their enemy. This gives people a reason in it's self to hate you and want you gone. Stack that up on top of any legitimate or perceived to be legitimate grief they have and you start having a recipe for revolt.
also disables news (Score:3)
Interesting, yet scary. (Score:4, Informative)
The subway sections of BART contain special cell antennas to allow service underground -- these were recently added in the past few years.
Given this, it seems like on the one hand that the service is a privileged. It certainly didn't exist more than 5 years ago, and people got along fine without underground cell service.
On the other hand, disrupting cell service seems like a violation of free speech. It may not be necessary for free speech, but it's still a method people use to communicate.
Re: (Score:2)
Previously people didn't count on it being there. It's sort of like how different things changed when pagers were introduced. Suddenly the hospital could get in touch with a doctor even if they weren't in the office or at home.
Re: (Score:3)
There was a time when the only mode of communication was to write a letter and pay a guy with a horse to carry it for you, and people made do. That doesn't mean that all modern communications are a privilege and that the government would be within its rights to shutdown the internet, phone service, radios, organized mail carriers, and the interstate highway system.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Absolutely. But even at the pace of modern life, it's a bit silly to argue that something only a couple years old could be necessary for free speech. Obviously people got by for (let's say) 10 years without it. Why is it a requirement all of a sudden?
Re:Interesting, yet scary. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not that it's a requirement. If they took it down because it was too expensive, or it needed lengthy repairs, or whatever, I'd be fine with that. But when they cut off a mode of communication specifically to prevent people from communicating, that's when it becomes a problem. I expect that in Syria or Iran, not in the US.
Re:Interesting, yet scary. (Score:4, Insightful)
I think we are actually getting off topic here a little.
This has nothing to do with Free Speech. All Free Speech grants us is the right to the *opportunity* to speak freely to whomever can hear us. It says nothing that we shall be provided with communication capabilities to do so. Even, all the way back then, I don't think the Founding Fathers intended that every man shall have free and reasonable access to pen, ink, paper, a horse, and another man to effectively transmit your speech farther than the sound of your voice.
Aside from the 1st, there is the 14th and various laws designed to prohibit discrimination. So all people shall have equal access and be treated equally under the law.
Another poster pointed out that disrupting the cellular service in totality endangered the lives of citizens by preventing their access to emergency services during times of crisis or public disasters.
This does not have anything to do with the government with the big "G". This is not shutting down all communications during elections, or massive unrest and protest against unpopular legislation, etc.
What happened is that a few people, the supervisors of a transit system, made the decision to deny everyone access to communications (that we take for granted) in an area that until recently, would not be considered suitable for mobile and personal communication devices. It makes no difference if it is TCP/IP, Cellular communication, or pay phones back in the 70's.
The decision was made for a single reason........ disrupt the ability of organized protest against a transit system by the employees. Affecting their customers, and endangering them, would of required forethought, judgment, and intelligence. Clearly, these supervisors have none of these attributes. Additionally, their behavior clearly indicates a hostile and unreasonable stance on intelligent discourse between two parties to reach a mutually beneficial and accepted agreement.
As much as I would like to take the opportunity to rant about communications, power, infrastructure, and food production capabilities being too centralized and easily controllable by government, this is not an example of it.
For the protesters to use Free Speech as a strategy to combat this decision is a mistake, and the appropriate action is to enforce any laws that do exist to protect protests by workers, especially in private business, but also applying to government workers as well.
This is about unions, organized and collective bargaining rights, etc.
If these laws don't exist, then the correct action is bring attention that legislation needs to be introduced to protect it.
Of course, it would also be pretty smart to point out the public endangerment by those officials/supervisors and just get them straight fired and deal with the new people that take over their jobs.
The 1st Amendment does not give me free Verizon service. Just the right to say what I want on Verizon's network to anyone willing to listen. Verizon also has the right to refuse me service, as long as the grounds are not provably discriminatory.
Under normal circumstances, any business has the right to terminate communications service at will. Starbucks could disable their WiFi tomorrow, along with McDonald's and we would not be bitching about the 1st and the Man is harshing our mellow.
Where this is different, is that it caused two situations, both probably prohibited by policy and legislation:
1) It interfered with a protest by workers against a company. Either through civil court, or existing regulatory bodies, restitution and remediation can be found.
2) It endangered the public without a reasonable cause. A reasonable cause being, that it needed to be taken offline for 10 minutes for maintenance, or that hardware failure caused it.
Sorry, we can't rally around this to scream about Free Speech and the government taking away our rights on this one. Wrong situation.
In other news, delays blamed on "failed router" (Score:2)
In other news, delays blamed on "failed router"
Testing?
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2011/08/09/bart-says-faulty-network-router-caused-massive-monday-night-delays/ [cbslocal.com]
-- Terry
Safety Hazard? (Score:4, Insightful)
moe's tavern is safe from prank calls (Score:2)
moe's tavern is safe from prank calls and all it took was cutting the phone lines.
Won't make too much difference (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Won't make too much difference (Score:5, Insightful)
Further, the only thing shut off was BART's own equipment. They were transparent enough to say "we shut off our gear rather than let you use it to organize against us", rather than blaming the outage on some sort of convenient hardware failure (or vandalism, which probably would have passed the sniff test under the circumstances). I can't imagine the cell sites outside the paid platform (which were left on) have zero spillover, so those who absolutely needed it could stand at the periphery while waiting for the next train.
Just so we're clear... (Score:3, Interesting)
If an unfriendly group (let's call it a "terrorist cell") wanted to disrupt phone & internet service for an attack, they just have to let BART know in advance that they're planning a protest? Hmm - not sure if they thought this one through...
The rest of this story is business as usual. The disruption of emergency service makes this a serious boner on their part.
Do you live/work in the Bay Area? (Score:5, Informative)
Comments and Complaints - 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday-Friday, 24/7 voice mail 510 464-7134
Better yet, here is the contact information for BART's Government & Community Relations folks -- drop them a note and CC your local representative:
ALAMEDA COUNTY REPRESENTATIVE
Walter Gonzales, wgonzal@bart.gov, (510) 464-6428
Representing the following BART stations: North Berkeley, Downtown Berkeley, Ashby, Rockridge, MacArthur, 19th Street, Oakland City Center/12th Street, West Oakland, Lake Merritt, Fruitvale, Coliseum/Oakland Airport, San Leandro, Bay Fair, Castro Valley, Dublin/Pleasanton, Hayward, South Hayward, Union City and Fremont.
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY REPRESENTATIVE
June Garrett, jgarret@bart.gov 510-464-6257
Representing the following BART stations: Orinda, Lafayette, Walnut Creek, Pleasant Hill, Concord, North Concord/Martinez, Pittsburg/Bay Point, El Cerrito Plaza, El Cerrito Del Norte and Richmond.
SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY REPRESENTATIVE
Molly Burke, mburke@bart.gov 510-464-6172
Representing the following BART stations: Embarcadero, Montgomery St, Powell St, Civic Center, 16th Street, 24th Street, Glen Park, Balboa Park, Daly City, Colma, South San Francisco, San Bruno, San Francisco International Airport (SFO) and Millbrae.
LEGISLATION
Paul Fadelli, Legislative Officer, pfadell@bart.gov 510-464-6159
DEPARTMENT MANAGERS
Kerry Hamill, Department Manager of Government and Community Relations, khamill@bart.gov 510-464-6153
Roddrick Lee, Division Manager of Local Government and Community Relations, rlee@bart.gov 510-464-6235
ADMINISTRATION
Lisa Moland, Goverment and Community Relations Specialist, lmoland@bart.gov 510-464-7227
Mailing Address:
Bay Area Rapid Transit District
Government and Community Relations Department
300 Lakeside Drive, 18th Floor
Oakland, CA 94612
Fax Number: 510-464-6146
What would Spock say ? (Score:2, Insightful)
"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the ass clowns"
Many people trying to get home meanwhile the ass clowns...being ass clowns...
Re: (Score:3)
So your convenience trumps their right to peaceably assemble?
Well then just shut down everything (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Since crime must be prevented, everything should be shut down to prevent all sorts of crime. Never mind about protests. What about real crimes like bank robbery and murder? Phone shouldn't work, guns shouldn't fire, TVs should turn off, and cell phones, FaceBook, Twitter, should all be silenced. Then there's that whole internet thing... Everyone please just stay home and be safe! Think of the children.
Look, protesting is not a crime in any degree and should not be lumped next to them even when trying to make an example.
BART was pretty clear that they would have accommodated a protest. BART was attempting to prevent a shutdown of the system, which would be a major hassle for hundreds of thousands of people. This happened a couple weeks ago, it was chaos and there is no alternative to BART for the majority of its riders. I don't know whether shutting down some of their own equipment was effective, or outrageous, or appropriate, or what, but I am glad for everyone who was able to pick up their kids at camp or make other c
and in vancover they riot over losing a NHL game (Score:4, Insightful)
and in vancover they riot over losing a NHL game
Re:and in vancover they riot over losing a NHL gam (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Wish I had mod points today - that was great!
Statement from BART (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Paragraph 2: "No First Amendment activities in the trains, boarding areas, or any other part of our property." (I love the "expressive activities" buzzphrase in this one)
Re:Statement from BART (Score:4, Insightful)
Paragraph 2: "No First Amendment activities in the trains, boarding areas, or any other part of our property." (I love the "expressive activities" buzzphrase in this one)
No, the statement is that the platforms and trains are not public spaces, and if you interfere with the trains, you are de facto trespassing and they will have you arrested. I support PETA doing their thing on the sidewalks and in the parks, but I would take action if they ended up in my living room or if they disabled my vehicle.
Re: (Score:3)
And I'd be there for you, if it were IN your HOUSE.
Seems to me that the ongoing 'Privatization' of commons spaces is the problem here; if asked, most people would say BART is a public agency, regardless of the nuance of corporate/governmental ownership. Likewise, most people are surprised to learn that stadiums (built with public money, often), malls (which used to get considerable tax breaks), subdivisions, post offices (some of 'em) and so many other places aren't public.
And don't get me started on 'desi
Re:Statement from BART (Score:4, Insightful)
How can the platforms and trains of a public transport system (that is tax supported and even run by a state agency) not be public areas? This is explicitly not about interfering with the trains, it is about "expressive activity" i.e. exercise of everybody's constitutional freedom of speech. If you have a valid ticket you are not "de facto trespassing" either. Freedom of speech cannot be limited to "certain areas", it is either a universal, fundamental right or it makes no sense at all. If to exercise your freedom of speech you are required to go into a "Free Speech" cage, what kind of freedom is that?
They are not public areas in the sense that the area behind the counter of the DMV is not a public area. In order for it to function, there must be rules. You and 50 of your friends cannot just walk into a DMV and hang out in the back office simply because it is run by the government. Have you been to a BART station in San Francisco? They are tiny and completely packed. There is no conceivable way to hold a protest on one of the platforms below Market Street without shutting it down. It's like insisting on holding a parade on the only 1-lane road that is used by 100,000 people an hour. It's not going to be allowed. Set up shop on the side of the road, or set up shop in the BART station, but not on the platform. These are all fine.
Re: (Score:3)
No, paragraph 2:
"We don't want protesters interfering with the actual running of the system. Feel free to protest, but don't do it where people are actually trying to use the transportation system."
As someone who actually uses BART to get around, I very much appreciate them doing this.
Tough noogies. You live in a free society and freedom ain't free. One of the costs of that freedom is suffering the right of people to protest. The entire point of protesting is to get up in the way of regular people and make them notice. If BART were 100% private property, you'd have an argument. But being a government subsidised form of public transportation putting up with the occasional group of people doing their civic duty is part of your civic duty.
point of protest (Score:3)
I roughly agree with your sentiment, but I wonder just how much "get[ting] up in the way of regular people" should be allowed. That's a long spectrum with many shades from, say, carrying signs to detonating fertilizer bombs next to government buildings.
The point of protest/demonstration doesn't seem to me to be to cause pain or even inconvenience. It's to make visible your opinion. A 10,000-person march per se, if could do it without creating traffic problems or scaring people, would achieve the goal.
Cau
Re: (Score:3)
Every time a protest gets in my way, I ask myself: how much harm am I willing to suffer just to harm the cause of these people for revenge?
Getting into people's way is stupid; it just makes into your enemies. That might work for neo-Nazis and other groups built around persecution complexes; but if you have a legitimate cause, the last thing you want is for people to associate it with public disorder.
Re: (Score:3)
Do they have emergency phone down there? (Score:2)
Of course, for some reason we know consider facebook updates to be "emergency" matters. I wouldn't want taxpayer money going to help someone post an up-to-the-minute "ZOMG! UR HAIR IS DA BOMB" on facebook from the subway.
Re: (Score:3)
Of course, for some reason we know consider facebook updates to be "emergency" matters. I wouldn't want taxpayer money going to help someone post an up-to-the-minute "ZOMG! UR HAIR IS DA BOMB" on facebook from the subway.
What, pray tell, is taxpayer money supposed to be used for if not infrastructure, relief to the people in need and ensuring stability and security?
My point, if it was too difficult for your cowardice to grasp, is that an emergency call can be made with a phone. An emergency doesn't need text or video to get through to a dispatcher. A system of callboxes that go straight through to 911 would be more than adequate for actual emergencies. Such systems have worked for decades; they worked long before facebook boy was ever born (let alone since he came up with a great new way to waste time and resources) and will continue to work fine into the future.
911 service too? (Score:2)
Hang on, since they did this by shutting down the antennas, didn't this also include 911 service?
So, when does the class action lawsuit begin?
IANAL, just a citizen who has had occasion to use 911 when another citizen was in immediate peril. I'd think the first move would be to get an injunction to prevent this from happening again. And then sue the living crap out of the BART transit authority for emperiling the public.
Defense: "Your honor, we shut down the cellular system in response to a report that th
Totally Illegal (Score:4, Interesting)
I thought Internet access was a human right? (Score:5, Interesting)
OMFG for months we've been hearing western nations cry bloody murder over Middle eastern government oppresive measures against their own telecom infustructures...
This colminated with the fucking UN declaring Internet access to be a human right.
Now we have ourselves some relatively minor incidents of civil unrest and the very same (mostly european) countries are doing the very same shit they were previously so adamantly against.
I hope BART gets sued to hell.
Thing About Doing That (Score:3)
Most cell phones these days have wifi, too, and are capable of running their own ad-hoc networks. That's all you need for point to point text.
Re:Won't BART be financially liable (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If the infrastructure wasn't there that would be a completely different matter. The bus tunnel here doesn't have any capacity for wireless service.
But, I can imagine BART getting sued if a doctor that normally gets service in the tunnels can't be contacted at a vital time or if somebody needs to be able to call 911 and isn't able to due to the unusual measure. Things change when people expect to be able to count on getting a signal.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you assume that? Doctors typically don't need to show up immediately, they just need to be available to respond.
Doctors that have to be on premises that quickly typically aren't allowed to leave the grounds.
Re:Won't BART be financially liable (Score:4, Insightful)
what kind of doctor is poor enough to take a fucking subway/regional rail?
not a medical doctor who deals with emergency patient situations, for sure.
BART is not just for poor people.
But to answer your question...probably the kind of doctor that doesn't want to get stuck in the daily afternoon Bay Bridge traffic. For those that work close to downtown and live relatively close to a BART station, BART can be faster (sometimes *much* faster) than driving.
FWIW, I know a doctor who lives in the East Bay and takes BART, then walks to work. She's not an ER doc, but is called in to take on emergency Neurology cases at times. She could certainly afford to drive to work, but chooses to take BART for her 9-5 jobs, though she would drive in to take after hours emergencies.
Re:Won't BART be financially liable (Score:4, Insightful)
One that has better things to do than spend a couple hours of his life every day at a simple but stressful, not particularly rewarding task of piloting a personal transportation unit through the notoriously heavy traffic of the bay area.
Maybe he wants to read medical journals, or goof off playing video games instead. Lots of things are better uses of your time. You should be able to drive when you want to, not because you have to be a mini-bus-driver just to get to your real job.
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt they would be liable on a system that is not guaranteed to work since it is underground in a difficult place to get wireless communications.
And that's exactly why they added antennas and repeaters underground for it.
At least in the US, if this was done and somebody was seriously injured or died and couldn't summon medical attention because of it ... there would be lawsuits. As for if they would succeed or not, that would depend on the specifics of the cases.
Re:Won't BART be financially liable (Score:5, Funny)
At least in the US, if this was done and somebody was seriously injured or died and couldn't summon medical attention because of it ... there would be lawsuits.
D00d, in the US, there would be lawsuits because it's Tuesday and someone was wearing a green hat.
Re: (Score:3)
If someone needs to dial for help and they can't because BART has disabled cell phone service?
Though I'm not from the Bay Area I'm rather willing to bet that the answer is "Press the button that calls for help, or at least contacts the conductor".
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know about BART, but if you ride DART (Dallas Area Rapid Transit), that little button isn't worth a shit.
Proof:
"People were hitting the little button to talk to the conductor," Walker said. No information was coming back whatsoever. Nobody was talking to us." [wfaa.com]
(Funny thing for those too lazy to RTFA: DART had actually planned on charging the passengers who left the train with a crime.)
Re:Won't BART be financially liable (Score:5, Interesting)
If someone needs to dial for help and they can't because BART has disabled cell phone service?
No. There are telephones with a direct line to BART employees on every platform. If a problem occurs on a train itself, there are phones with a direct line to the train operator at both ends of every car of every train. The same phones are routinely used by BART maintenance staff to communicate with train operators, so with rare exceptions they are always available and in service. You are much better off alerting the train operator of a problem on a train than calling 911 and waiting for emergency services to find a way to contact the operator.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The London Underground is often known as the tube.
Re: (Score:2)
The London Underground has looked at enabling mobile phone access, but their tunnels aren't well suited to reception (they're deep, narrow and follow the roads). At the moment it appears that mobile phone access is going to be restricted to the above the surface lines and stations using regular ground based antennae.
None of that matters if they really wanted to provide phone service. The way this is typically done is to use hardwired repeaters and leaky coax throughout the tunnel. It doesn't matter if the tunnels are 10 feet underground or 100 feet underground, how wide they are or what path they follow.
Of course, with a large system like the London Underground, this type of system becomes quite expensive since many repeaters are needed.
Re:Welcome to Fascism (Score:5, Insightful)
Fascist! Turn from the left
Fascist! Turn to the right
Oooh, fascist!
We are the goon squad
and we're coming to town
Beep-beep
Beep-beep
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
bah. low UIDs just speak for how early you got in. It takes talent to get a short nick. At least that's useful. Saves so much time on logging in y'know. (or saves time so you can use a stronger password)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Egypt shuts down the internet to stop free speech.
The US shuts down phone communication to stop "protests," Britain wants to shut down the internet.
See a difference? Neither do fucking I.
Re: (Score:3)
Before I say anything else: what BART did is disturbing and objectionable, and I don't want to suggest otherwise. But, I think there's a real problem with describing any authoritarianism or overextension of police authority as fascism, because there is an important, recurrent phenomenon, best labeled as "fascism", which isn't simply right-wing extremism, and it isn't always connected to the establishment of a police state; people need to have some way to identify that particular phenomenon.
Fascism involves
The establishment is not obliged to be stupid (Score:3, Interesting)
If you're going to rebel, bring your own communications. If you want a handbook for this you could do worse than this [wikipedia.org].
And remember: the ultimate responsibility of a rebel is to provide a better system than he supplants, else history will judge him harshly.