this week in San Francisco, where government officials disabled four cell locations along the BART public transportation system in response to chatter about anarchist groups organizing there to protest the fatal shooting of Charles Blair Hill by BART police on July 3. The move effectively silenced underground subway cell service from 4 to 7 p.m. on Thursday evening and the protests ultimately did not materialize as planned.
I think it’s bullshit. They don’t give too many details on the “anarchist” groups protesting, or whether the groups were violent. I think until they have done something illegal, they should be allowed to keep all of their rights.
The problem is that the BART communication system (since it’s public transportation) is most likely government funded. And what the government giveth, the government can taketh away.
They are not censoring anything, they are turning off a service they provide for free to the public. Thats no differant then me disableing my public wi-fi at work becuase I don’t like the kind of shit people are looking up on my network. I don’t think its cool, but its their network, they can do whatever the hell the want with it.
And if this is all illegal than so is turning off your cellphone or router and stopping people from connecting to you
and what the hell are you talking about here none the less what the hell does it have to do with what you posted.
I could see the issue if it was a broader scope, but they turned off a service that they implemented as a courtesy to people who travel via the underground.
I could see the big issue if they turned off service in a whole city or a whole area, but turning off their network at their discretion to possibly avoid a riot is well within the rights to do so, as I said its no differant then me turning off my Public access points because I don’t like what people are doing. It’s not like your home ISP or your Cell service you pay for, they did not turn off Verizons/AT&T/Sprints towers, they turned off their repeaters (im assuming their simply cell repeaters)
I don’t think that it was something they needed to do or was necessary in any way but they did not realistically violate any rights.
This is yet another battle in the war of over-sized and growing government and its intrusion into our daily lives. People have the right to organize and protest no matter the group or the cause. The group was not planning violent protests but merely a gathering with homemade signs demanding the officer involved in the shooting be fired. The authorities response was that this would be dangerous for BART customers and thus the censorship was carried out. If the police received this chatter then why not step up patrols on BART platforms instead of shutting down service for the masses. Basically the actions of a few affected everyone.
By taking away the cell service that, realistically, they provide in this situation if the service was just installing repeaters so a cell company’s service can reach underground, they did something that cost less money than other options to “suppress” the situation.
Although the BART/SF government owned the “service”, it is unconstitutional to take away one’s right to assemble.
They did not take away their right to assemble, its not like the government completely blocked the pathways to do so outside of the transit system, they simply blocked all service to keep the possibility of some asshole on the train reading it and going apeshit
I dident say I think it was right, I just think people taking this as being unconstitutional or a violation of human rights a bit to far.
I don’t disagree with the tactics necessarily but only in extreme instances where there is an imminent threat to the public should service be interupted. Some pissant anarchist group talking about assembling with signs doesn’t warrant censorship in my opninion. A few extra cops on the platform is a far as this should’ve gone.
Actually, yea, they did. The removed a form of possible communication required to assemble.
If people can not get word out that they are assembling for a lawful protest due to government interference, it is taking away their right to assemble.
They internet kill switch they are trying to pass or did pass, now that if ever used even in a time of civil unrest where it could be used during an “uprising” would be unconstitutional and a violation of human rights
How did people do it before the internet and cell phones then?
Again its not like they shut down verizon/sprint/ATT etc… They shut down a service they provide as a convenience to people (I’m sure there was a “saftey” facotor to that as well in case something happend to someoen udnerground)
I guess companies blocking access to social media sites so that people actually work, or me turning off my public wifi is a constitutional and human rights violation.
Ways of communicating change with the times. Give up your phone for a week and try smoke signalling to your clients or friends. It’s technology that is a part of our daily lives.
If it was Shady’s Private Rail Transportation, then yes, you could constitutionally turn off your WiFi and what not. But the key word is that it is PUBLIC transportation.
Private companies and individuals can take it away anytime, as it is legitimately private and even though you say “public wifi”, you still own it, thus privately owned.
Still does not change the fact that its a Public Service they offer to people for convenience while traveling underground, they do not have to offer Cell/Internet while on their transit, in a sense its privately owned, its not like they shut down a cell provider or filtered a provider in the area.
While it may be governement owned its by no means a RIGHT to us for them to install a means for us to use our devices while traveling.
I’d agree with you 100% if it was a cell providers service being used that they told them to shut down as its a service you pay for, but im assuming its simply a “repeater” type deal they set up in which case they have every right to turn it off if they so choose. To use that service is not a right.
Again they did not shut down anyones means to assemble, while outside of the subway anyone/everyone could get ahold of that information, the government did not block it, they did not block the ability to obtain that information through ones own means
Again when they start telling cell providers and ISP’s to block and filter things then it becomes an issue.
And unless I’m wrong and maybe I am, its not a Law or a regulation or even a RIGHT for the government to offer any sort of cell service/ISP service (yet) to people.
They offer a free public service to those who ride the public transportation system in San Francisco. It’s usually working all times of day/night, and anyone with a cell phone can take advantage of this public service.
They take away that service from law abiding citizens for the sole purpose of preventing an assembly of people for a lawful protest.
Maybe it’s just the liberal vs. conservative viewpoints, but in my humble opinion, taking away the free to anyone service for the sole purpose of preventing them to gather for a lawful protest, is unconstitutional.
Cossey, belive me man, i see what your saying and I do agree with it, I don’t think its right. The thought of the internet kill switch thats going through congress scares the shit out of me and shit like this seems like a prologue to that…
but I think taking the act of them shutting off a service they provide as a convenience/privileged whatever to people who use public transit as a violation of their rights or the constitution a bit to extreme.
It’s not like its an ISP or a Cell Provider (simply a means for people to connect with their providers in an area where it would otherwise be unavailable) that the government owns and can regulate however they want, that IMO would be wrong.
Again, if it was a verizon service an ATT service a sprint service whatever that was setup and the government pulled the plug that would be wrong as you PAY for that service (yes in a way people pay for this too) but its not, its a service they setup at their own discretion as a convenience to people.
If that service itself was a constitutional right or some sort of federal mandated law or regulation then yes I would agree with you in it being unconstitutional.
How is it different than not allowing people to travel public roads to get to destination?
Stopping trains carrying those passengers that wanted to gather or identifying them and not letting them in to the system?
They are shutting down a public service to prevent individuals from using it to execute their right of gathering and protesting for “the better good”. Think of this as an extension of the patriot act further acting on limiting people and their freedoms for the obscure “common good”.
They are purposely shutting people up in whatever manner they can.
It doesnt matter what other options they had, obviously this action foiled their plan at the time.