Posted on 08/12/2011 6:21:11 PM PDT by tje
The decision by Bay Area Rapid Transit officials to cut off cellphone service Thursday evening – to forestall a planned protest – raises a fundamental question: Do Americans have a basic right to digital free speech or to digitally organized assembly?
Because July protests against BART police shootings had turned violent, BART officials took the unusual step to protect public safety, they said. The tactic may have worked: No protests took place Thursday night at BART stations.
Temporarily shutting down cell service and beefing up police patrols were "great tool[s] to utilize for this specific purpose," BART police Lt. Andy Alkire told Bay City News Friday. The protests, planned for sometime between 4 and 8 p.m. in transit stations, would likely have disrupted service for many of the 341,000 daily BART passengers.
(Excerpt) Read more at csmonitor.com ...
How dare they stop a riot!
They should be sued.
lol
Too bad that some segments of the population have been abusing their access to electronic messaging to create mischief and destruction.
What if the powers that be decided to selectively terminate service depending on caller ID?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2762991/posts
I’ve been wondering how that can be done.. All in all not a good thing..
I’ve been wondering how that can be done.. All in all not a good thing..
Typical Government service. Give the people free cell phones then cut them off...
Cell service is a constitutional right?
Several years ago a court case came up proclaiming that phone service was a right, final result ... you can turn off phone service (for none payment) with the exception that 911 access must be maintained. This was for residential phone service; don’t know how this will affect mobile service.
If you have a cell phone 911 should work whether or not you have service.
BART action not gonna fly.
Since cutting cell phone service stops rioters, then maybe we should rid the country of guns to stop gun violence.
The cell phones aren’t the problem.
But, according to at least this source, this was exctly what was done.
Cell service is a constitutional right?
125 years ago could the government come into your house and smash your printing press? 50 years ago could the government come into your house and remove your telephone?
This will not end well for the freedom of speach.
I’m fine with that, as long as you can get guns out of the hands of criminals first.
No it is not legal per the FCC. To jam cell phones, you have to transmit 'white noise' on the frequencies used by the cell phones. Cell phone companies purchase the licenses for cell phones to operate, therefore if you jam the phones the cell phone companies can sue. Plus there is the unintended consequence of jamming phones that are trying to dial a 911 emergency.
You'd still have to have a cell signal. It appears that the city's approach was, probably necessarily, ham-handed in that they simply shut off the equipment. They have no access to the actual carrier's multiplexing equipment where they could in a more elegant manner turn off the exact services they wanted to. Hence the 911 interruption. I doubt if this is over...a significant test case may come from it.
http://www.globalgadgetuk.com/
Comes in handy at movie theaters when the person behind me attempts to narrate the entire movie to his buddies. Cuts him off in under 10 seconds and leaves him with a "Out of Service Area" until I turn the jammer off.
To me the solution is to leave the service, but bring as much police force as necessary that is ready and willing to use their guns.
doc1019:I'm fine with that, as long as you can get guns out of the hands of criminals first.
To doc1019: WTH??? I thought there was a RKBA. Period.
Explain your answer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.