close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

BART PD shuts down cell service...

Discussion in 'Cop Talk' started by Sam Spade, Aug 14, 2011.


  1. Sam Spade

    Sam Spade
    Expand Collapse
    Lifetime Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2003
    14,744
    1,968
  2. Cochese

    Cochese
    Expand Collapse
    Most mackinest
    CLM
    1. The JBT's

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2004
    11,925
    798
    Location:
    Unmarked Rustbox
    Good move by BART.

    Its THEIR system. If the flash mob ******bags want to use that system against BART, well tough tittties. Maybe those jamokes should invest in some FRS radios or can and string.
     

  3. Agent6-3/8

    Agent6-3/8
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2006
    7,546
    105
    Location:
    The ramparts of civilization
    +1


    Its BART's system. They can pull the plug on it just the same as Eric can pull the plug on GT if he so chooses.
     
  4. Eric SF

    Eric SF
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2010
    166
    0
    Location:
    People's Republic of Kalifornia
    Wow, hopefully BART gets sued and loses a ton of money. The government has no right to shut down communications lines. This is statism at its finest. What if someone needed to dial 911? I'm backing the ACLU on this one.
     
  5. eracer

    eracer
    Expand Collapse
    Where's my EBT?

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2011
    6,711
    2
    Location:
    Tampa, FL
    Doesn't the Patriot Act cover this? DHS should set up a cellular monitoring station and have armed SWAT teams waiting for the yutes to arrive at the designated locations.
     
  6. boomhower

    boomhower
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2010
    3,323
    2
    Location:
    North Carolina
    It's their system so they have the right to shut it down. It would be different if they ordered a Verizon tower shut down it would be a different story. They are just *****hurt they couldnt use BART's own system against them. Get over it.


    Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine
     
  7. dano1427

    dano1427
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2001
    588
    33
    BART turned off the cell sites in the tubes. Since cell companies lease these from BART, it was BART's call. Nothing was jammed/interfered with, so there was no FCC issue.

    One of the big three (Verizon, Sprint, AT&T) doesn't even have a presence in BART, with no service at all. And remember that all SF BART stations are underground, so no overhead cell sites work.
     
  8. wprebeck

    wprebeck
    Expand Collapse
    Got quacks?

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    8,477
    2,103
    Location:
    Mm..looks like heaven
    You don't read much, do you?


    So, the government doesn't have a right to close down something it owns? How exactly does that work in your little world?
     
  9. bccop

    bccop
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2004
    830
    10
    Location:
    People's Republic of Kanuckistan
    If someone needs to call 911 they can use one of the many emergency call boxes available at subway stations and on trains.
     
    #9 bccop, Aug 14, 2011
    Last edited: Aug 14, 2011
  10. MeefZah

    MeefZah
    Expand Collapse
    Cover is Code 3

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2008
    3,951
    307
    Location:
    Lost Coast, Cali
    I'm torn, honestly.

    On one hand, I am okay with a shutdown of the cell service to keep violent protests from being coordinated. That's a good move by BART so as to further an agenda of public safety and general peace.

    On the other, I understand the concern people have. Yeah, BART owns the cell service, and legally they can shut it off same as they might choose to shut off the lights, or stop a train. It's their stuff. But shutting down lines of communication does have more broad social implications than shutting off a light, especially in this day and age - the comments regarding Syria, Egypt, etc., are accurate in that regard.

    I guess ultimately the cop in me (who makes all my decisions in the end anyway) would say this: "if you don't like what BART is doing, don't ride the train".
     
  11. merlynusn

    merlynusn
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2007
    3,941
    219
    Location:
    NC
    :agree:
     
  12. Sharky7

    Sharky7
    Expand Collapse
    Boomshakalaka

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2009
    3,199
    17
    Yikes! If someone needed to call 911 on a cell phone.

    Wait...What did people do in 1990 before cell phones were in every pocket?
     
  13. CAcop

    CAcop
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2002
    19,461
    2,163
    Location:
    California
    I rode on BART for the first time in a long time last week. I was surprised that you could get 3g cell service in the stations and tunnels.

    I just goes to show you how addicted people are to their phones. They have to have service everywhere and to yank it is an affront to their rights.

    What if a commercial building set up their building to be able to get cell signals in but then shut it off when protestors came? Amusement parks? People would still *****.

    As far as I am concerned BART does not have to offer cell service in the tunnels. They do it as a convienince to their riders. IF they get sued and loose I would shut down all service. I would call it a safety hazard. There are plenty of call boxes on the trains and stations. Also many of the big stations have police stations in them and at least 16 cops are on the trains at all times.
     
  14. nelsone

    nelsone
    Expand Collapse
    rank amateur

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2008
    676
    0
    Location:
    Beaverton Oregon
    Legality is one thing - and it appears that BART has an ironclad right to shut off their transmitters. Maybe Verizon will sue to get some of their lease fee back, but I can't see any other serious repercussions.

    Appropriateness of the action is another, given that there was no riot, no unrest, nothing but an institutional fear of flashmobs. Hey, I share their fear, but there's a difference between being proactive and engaging in prior restraint.

    It's ironic that cell phones in prisons are such a huge and intractable problem, since FCC forbids jamming. You'd think that the long-recognized need for cell-service denial in prisons would trigger some kind of response, but instead what we get is people who have broken no law and aren't in prison being denied their cell service instead.
     
  15. S.O.Interceptor

    S.O.Interceptor
    Expand Collapse
    Khem-Adam

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2004
    2,356
    49
    Location:
    The Rock of Eternity
    If BART was smart they would just eliminate the service all together. BART is under no obligation to the public to provide that service. It's a privilege, not a right. People survived just fine prior to having cell phone service in subways, and they can do it again.
     
  16. CAcop

    CAcop
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2002
    19,461
    2,163
    Location:
    California
    It has only been since My 2004 that cell service has been on train stations and tunnels. You had a cell phone before that? Well it was going to do you no good in the stations and tunnels.
     
  17. mrsurfboard

    mrsurfboard
    Expand Collapse
    The Anti-Glock

    Joined:
    May 23, 2010
    4,395
    46
    Location:
    NJ
    BART will not hear the end of this. Lawsuits will be coming. Cutting lines of communication will be the first thing the government does when they are about to close their fist around it's citizens.
     
  18. Brucev

    Brucev
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2009
    9,189
    5
    Yes, bart has the legal right to do as it pleases with its property. In this case, stupid move. Don't live in sf and would not likely ever want to. Prefer the east coast. But very much do not think it wise for any govt. bureaucrat to have the power to cut off communications of legitimate law abiding persons simply because they suspect someone might do something that they consider untoward. Given the choice, I will always opt for such bureaucrats to be restricted... require of them a court order before they could proceed, allow only in the case of a genuine emergency rather than such people having the power to make such decisions on their own at their own discretion. In this case, all who made the decision need at a minimum to be disciplined... loss of pay/benefits, etc.
     
  19. Sam Spade

    Sam Spade
    Expand Collapse
    Lifetime Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2003
    14,744
    1,968
    It was legal, there was an impending flash mob that had said it was going to use cells, there was no requirement to get any court order and they confered with the lawyers.....and you want them to be disciplined, at a minimum.

    Can you explain the springboard you used to leap between what was and what you want?
     
    #19 Sam Spade, Aug 14, 2011
    Last edited: Aug 14, 2011
  20. m2hmghb

    m2hmghb
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    May 27, 2002
    8,623
    18
    Location:
    Livin in the country of NJ

    See you said "legitimate law abiding persons" which in this case the people targeted are not. I'd hate to hear you screaming how they could have done more if one of the flash mobs got unruly and someone was pushed onto the tracks.