Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

BART Disables Cell Service To Disrupt Protests

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the government-you-deserve dept.

Censorship 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."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Welcome to Fascism (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37075696)

Enjoy your stay.

Re:Welcome to Fascism (5, Insightful)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 3 years ago | (#37075920)

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:Welcome to Fascism (1)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#37076142)

A well played David Bowie reference.

Re:Welcome to Fascism (1)

Douglas Simmons (628988) | more than 3 years ago | (#37076186)

Wow check out the low UID on that guy!

Re:Welcome to Fascism (1)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#37076226)

Earlier today I saw 56 [slashdot.org]

Re:Welcome to Fascism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37076292)

he bought it: linky [slashdot.org]

Re:Welcome to Fascism (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37076236)

She was 17 and a junior at the time, I was a softmore in the second semester. Her name was
Susan and she had an ass to die for with nice rounded tits and brown shoulder
length hair. I have a normal sized cock (people lie at this website) at 6 in.
and I was going to be her second time. I was watching House Party and we were both
getting hot and she was thinking about it more then me cause' before i could say
a word she unzipped my fly. She told me she had missionary position sex but wanted
me to give her anal sex. I didnt have a comdom but wasnt thinking about STD's at
the time anyway. I tried to enter but it was tight as hell so licked her tight hole
till she mooed and told me she was ready. I decided to push really hard and get it all
in at once. I almost came on the spot as her hips moved against my dick. Soon after she orgasamed
and I roughly started to ram my cock up her ass as she moaned with pain and pleasure.
I came less then I thought I would remembering that i fantized about Rob Malda before the date.
I never saw her again and her parents came home half an hour after i left

Re:Welcome to Fascism (1)

digitig (1056110) | more than 3 years ago | (#37076300)

Look at his user name. He's the eternal hero. (You'd have thought he'd be too busy for /. but there you go.)

Stupid slope (5, Insightful)

White Flame (1074973) | more than 3 years ago | (#37075710)

How long will it be before they just gas a place with knock-out gas in order to "keep the peace"?

Re:Stupid slope (3, Insightful)

Duradin (1261418) | more than 3 years ago | (#37075742)

I hear they are coating their slopes with teflon now.

Re:Stupid slope (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37075778)

Wow that is incredibly racist.

Re:Stupid slope (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37075846)

Only if you want it to be...

Re:Stupid slope (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37075860)

I agree. People should stop being so insulting to "they"/"them", since it offends everybody.

Re:Stupid slope (1, Informative)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 3 years ago | (#37075870)

The protests are about a cop shooting a man as he was restrained on the ground. Granted, I think it's pretty clear from the video that it was an accident, but you could argue that knockout gas would be a step up from what they've already done.

Re:Stupid slope (-1, Troll)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 3 years ago | (#37075900)

No accident. The Pig is a killer.

Re:Stupid slope (4, Insightful)

capnkr (1153623) | more than 3 years ago | (#37076036)

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 or wherever I can, to protect myself. No accident at all, with intention; the intent to stop you from hurting me. If it kills your dumb ass, that is just too effing bad for you, and not my fault. Justifiable kill, IMO. There is no need to disparage the officer by calling him a "Pig".

Re:Stupid slope (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37076126)

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.

Re:Stupid slope (5, Insightful)

capnkr (1153623) | more than 3 years ago | (#37076204)

This:

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:Stupid slope (2, Insightful)

Duradin (1261418) | more than 3 years ago | (#37076210)

And there's those pesky major arteries in the legs.

Re:Stupid slope (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37076256)

I remember cringing during hunters safety class when they told a story about a guy who died while hunting because he accidentally cut his leg artery with his hunting knife.

Re:Stupid slope (4, Insightful)

Grekan (2349348) | more than 3 years ago | (#37076282)

Not to mention if you're going to use a tool designed to kill people, you should be fearing for your life. If you fear for your life you aim for center of mass. If you're really fancy you do 2 in the chest and 1 in the head. When you fire your weapon you should mean it. Don't shoot to injure or incapacitate. Shoot to kill.

Re:Stupid slope (1)

Majik Sheff (930627) | more than 3 years ago | (#37076212)

sadly you are better off killing his sorry ass so he doesn't sue you later for "pain and suffering".

Re:Stupid slope (2)

Ariven (256118) | more than 3 years ago | (#37076232)

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:Stupid slope (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37076334)

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.

There's more stupidity in this one sentence than in the entire post you're responding to.

If you pull out a gun and it can be proven that you weren't in fear of your life -- for example, by citing the fact that you aimed for someone's leg instead of center mass -- you are in a world of shit.

Re:Stupid slope (2)

Taty'sEyes (2373326) | more than 3 years ago | (#37076390)

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.

*******************
I'm curious if you are actually a gun owner. I have owned firearms since I was 13 years old (in my father's name) and have been around them since birth. I have also served 4 years in the Army. After I graduated from college, I received my permit to carry a concealed weapon. I have never, in all my training, ever heard to "shoot someone in the leg". It is always, "if you raise a firearm, it is to kill. Shoot center mass." The exception is bird hunting where you lead the bird by 3 inches (depending on distance and speed of course), but it is always to kill - not to maim.

Re:Stupid slope (2)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 3 years ago | (#37076404)

The rioters aren't impoverished, at least not all of them. [news.com.au] Don't romanticize it. Economic causes may have been the spark, but the rioting was greed. These were not Robin Hoods.

Re:Stupid slope (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37076164)

then you would go to jail. "Excessive Defense" is a crime you know.

Otherwise people would be able to "defend" themselves with a flamethrower against children who were "threatening them" with a popsicle.

And the sad part is, you go around armed, and don't even know this. You piece of shit.

Knife = Popsicle (1)

hamburgler007 (1420537) | more than 3 years ago | (#37076266)

Got it

Re:Stupid slope (1)

PCM2 (4486) | more than 3 years ago | (#37076294)

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:Stupid slope (2)

capnkr (1153623) | more than 3 years ago | (#37076310)

Like Jeremiah Cornelius, you must not have bothered to actually read the story either, certainly not the part where it explained that his partner had already been cut up by the knife-wielding man. This person was violent, and using his weapons to hurt and possibly kill people.

Re:Stupid slope (1)

MimeticLie (1866406) | more than 3 years ago | (#37076366)

Knives are considered lethal weapons in some jurisdictions (I know for sure they are where I live, it might be the same everywhere in the US). If someone comes at you with a lethal weapon, they are trying to kill you. That is a justification for using lethal force to defend yourself.

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've opened yourself to serious legal trouble by doing so). The guy you are replying to has the correct attitude. If you shoot someone, you must be prepared to kill them. Using lethal force in a situation where it is not required (i.e. a situation where you can get away with not killing the attacker) will get you sent to prison and/or absolutely destroyed in a civil suit.

Re:Stupid slope (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37076176)

Are you mentally retarded or just trolling? The great-grandparent post gives your lazy ass the description of the incident: The man was restrained on the ground, not a threat, and the cop shot him in the back. Whether or not it was on purpose, you clearly identify yourself as an ass by calling it a "justifiable kill." Eat shit you shallow fuck.

Re:Stupid slope (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37076216)

Oops. I take that back. Didn't read the story, and thought you were referring to the Oakland incident a few years back. I don't know the particulars of this incident, so... I guess I'll shut up and eat my humble pie.

Re:Stupid slope (-1, Troll)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 3 years ago | (#37076214)

Unarmed. Cuffed. Face down on the ground.

Shot in the back.

Go back to eating your doughnut, Pig lover.

Re:Stupid slope (1)

capnkr (1153623) | more than 3 years ago | (#37076262)

I invite you to read the story about this incident, and discover how incredibly wrong you are.

Re:Stupid slope (-1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 3 years ago | (#37076322)

Here. Watch the actual murder of Oscar Grant, by the coward pig, Johannes Mehserle.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Tmh9B8LVxM [youtube.com]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0P8TSP2YJU [youtube.com]

Oscar Grant was pleading with his friends to keep things cool - but Pigs are killers:
http://sfbayview.com/2009/oscar-grant-young-father-and-peacemaker-executed-by-bart-police/ [sfbayview.com]

Re:Stupid slope (2)

capnkr (1153623) | more than 3 years ago | (#37076398)

Again, the incident you reference (note the year on your last link, 2009) is *not* the incident referred to in this story. Neither is this the same law officer. Your prejudice is showing, and telling.

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, and I would think that you would be intelligent enough to differentiate between the/a statistically rare miscreant who happens to wear a badge, and the much, much larger percentage of officers who do a very tough job both well and fairly...

Re:Stupid slope (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37076222)

btw. On the police side is better if the guy gets killed. Death people cannot sue.

Re:Stupid slope (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37076110)

yeah, how dare he shoot someone who's attacking him with a knife.

Re:Stupid slope (5, Informative)

NiceGeek (126629) | more than 3 years ago | (#37075908)

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:Stupid slope (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 3 years ago | (#37076320)

Oops. Still BART though, and still worse than KO gas. But I would retract my post if that were an option.

Re:Stupid slope (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37075890)

Doh! Quit giving them ideas!

Moscow theater hostage crisis (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37076188)

How long will it be before they just gas a place with knock-out gas in order to "keep the peace"?

About 9 years ago.

"[Armed Chechens] took 850 hostages ... After a two-and-a-half day siege, Russian Spetsnaz forces pumped an unknown chemical agent into the building's ventilation system and raided it. 39 of the attackers were killed by Russian forces, along with at least 129 of the hostages (including nine foreigners). All but a few of the hostages who died during the siege were killed by the toxic substance pumped into the theater to subdue the militants. The use of the gas was widely condemned as heavy handed, but Moscow insisted it had little room for manoeuvre — faced with the prospect of 50 heavily armed rebels prepared to kill themselves and their hostages."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_theater_hostage_crisis [wikipedia.org]

Re:Stupid slope (1)

roc97007 (608802) | more than 3 years ago | (#37076318)

....on the suspicion that an event might take place...

1st! wooo (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37075736)

1st post

Eat my shorts! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37075738)

That is all.

Wow (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37075740)

BART= Backasswards Response to Threats

What is next? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37075746)

Arab Spring
English Summer
American Autumn

Re:What is next? (0, Troll)

sqrt(2) (786011) | more than 3 years ago | (#37075774)

Arab Spring, English Summer, and The Fall of America.

Won't BART be financially liable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37075752)

If someone needs to dial for help and they can't because BART has disabled cell phone service?

Re:Won't BART be financially liable (4, Insightful)

dmacleod808 (729707) | more than 3 years ago | (#37075780)

in my city (Chicago) this is a "Value Added" type of service, for most of my life there was no cell reception down there, they even rolled them out one carrier at a time, 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.

Re:Won't BART be financially liable (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#37075886)

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:Won't BART be financially liable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37075902)

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.

Re:Won't BART be financially liable (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#37076066)

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 (3, Insightful)

hawguy (1600213) | more than 3 years ago | (#37076166)

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 (3, Insightful)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 3 years ago | (#37076198)

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:Won't BART be financially liable (1)

dougmc (70836) | more than 3 years ago | (#37075910)

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 (4, Funny)

RobotRunAmok (595286) | more than 3 years ago | (#37076058)

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:Won't BART be financially liable (2)

Thansal (999464) | more than 3 years ago | (#37075858)

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:Won't BART be financially liable (1)

pongo000 (97357) | more than 3 years ago | (#37076154)

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.)

Solidarity (5, Interesting)

Beryllium Sphere(tm) (193358) | more than 3 years ago | (#37075770)

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 (1)

smithtodda (225580) | more than 3 years ago | (#37075894)

+1. Mod up. Bump. Whatever.

You hit the nail on the head.

Re:Solidarity (4, Insightful)

pizzach (1011925) | more than 3 years ago | (#37076018)

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:Solidarity (1)

IgnoramusMaximus (692000) | more than 3 years ago | (#37076132)

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 or otherwise) was automatically indigestible to the Western public spoon-fed the "we are the Free World" bullshit propaganda.

Now that the boogeyman against whom to measure the West is gone (China is nowhere near ideologically and in practice it is an oligarchic kleptocracy in all but name, a system that most powerful people in the West envy greatly) and so gone are all the constraints on the Western ruling classes as propaganda can now focus on fake "safety" from enemies downright medieval who do not even sport a functioning country of their own. Fascism redux is pretty much unavoidable except this time there will be no "good guys" to fight it and who knows how many technologically-assisted dystopian Dark Age centuries will follow.

We all can see this coming as its major elements are already in place. Denial is no longer an option for sane people.

also disables news (2)

bre_dnd (686663) | more than 3 years ago | (#37075784)

This will *also* disable any early / current news access. The London bus bombings a few years ago were widely reported on by people carrying cellphones w/ photo or video capability. News will still come out, eventually, but if it trickles out *as it happens* both citizens and law enforcement might also get an early heads-up.

Interesting, yet scary. (3, Informative)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 3 years ago | (#37075798)

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:Interesting, yet scary. (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#37075898)

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:Interesting, yet scary. (2)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 3 years ago | (#37075942)

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:Interesting, yet scary. (1, Insightful)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 3 years ago | (#37076200)

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. (5, Insightful)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 3 years ago | (#37076242)

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.

But (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37075800)

Isn't it called the "Underground" in London?

Re:But (2)

Dark$ide (732508) | more than 3 years ago | (#37075856)

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.

The London Underground is often known as the tube.

Re:But (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37076190)

Mind the gap.

Re:But (1)

hawguy (1600213) | more than 3 years ago | (#37076286)

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.

Safety Hazard? (4, Insightful)

abyssalson (2178044) | more than 3 years ago | (#37075818)

Blocking calls to 911 and other emergency calls people might have to make seems like it could cause some problems.

Egypt again (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37075820)

Remove the communications to prevent them from protesting, what is next firing into crowds.

This problem isnt' going to solve itself. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37075840)

Maybe would-be protesters should go write their Amateur Radio licence (it's super-dumbed down in the US) so they can broadcast on a whole heap of frequencies, instead of relying on industry run infrastructure and website services.

Actually no wait, the government will just jam that with spread spectrum blockers. Oh well.. I tried. Looks like we're fucked.

Mike

Wouldn't bother me so much if... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37075866)

It wouldn't bother me so much if they could switch it over to "emergency only" mode. What happens if somebody has a heart attack on the train? Can you say "lawsuit"?

Civil rights issues aside, BART screams like a banshee. It's much worse than the DC Metro. I can't imagine doing anything other than texting in there. Far and away it's the worst form of PT in the BA. I'd actually rather ride a bus.

moe's tavern is safe from prank calls (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | more than 3 years ago | (#37075924)

moe's tavern is safe from prank calls and all it took was cutting the phone lines.

Won't make too much difference (4, Informative)

oamasood (1754360) | more than 3 years ago | (#37075946)

I take the BART every day to work (Fremont to SF). While many stations are underground, when the trains leave the stations they are above-ground and can use normal (non-BART controlled) reception. Most of the time, the BART travels above-ground, not underground. (Also, even with the underground antennas on, the reception is still terrible, so you wouldn't want to make a call anyway.) Also, the wifi sucks, i just use tethering.

Re:Won't make too much difference (5, Insightful)

Mal-2 (675116) | more than 3 years ago | (#37076006)

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... (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37075974)

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? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37075984)

From the BART website:
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 ? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37076022)

"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...

Well then just shut down everything (1, Funny)

cvtan (752695) | more than 3 years ago | (#37076048)

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.

Unbelievable (1)

glorybe (946151) | more than 3 years ago | (#37076060)

To cut communications without a court order and disrupting the general public strikes me as being illegal. Also with medical issues and large numbers of people cutting off communications could easily kill someone. This seems to me to be actionable and someone needs a lawyer to get the ball rolling.

and in vancover they riot over losing a NHL game (3, Insightful)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | more than 3 years ago | (#37076076)

and in vancover they riot over losing a NHL game

Re:and in vancover they riot over losing a NHL gam (5, Funny)

hedgemage (934558) | more than 3 years ago | (#37076128)

Religion is important to a lot of people.

Re:and in vancover they riot over losing a NHL gam (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 3 years ago | (#37076238)

Wish I had mod points today - that was great!

Re:and in vancover they riot over losing a NHL gam (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#37076354)

BAH! In Chicago they riot when the team wins [washingtonpost.com] !

Statement from BART (5, Informative)

drew30319 (828970) | more than 3 years ago | (#37076096)

From TFA:

"BART’s primary purpose is to provide, safe, secure, efficient, reliable, and clean transportation services. BART accommodates expressive activities that are constitutionally protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Liberty of Speech Clause of the California Constitution (expressive activity), and has made available certain areas of its property for expressive activity.

"Paid areas of BART stations are reserved for ticketed passengers who are boarding, exiting or waiting for BART cars and trains, or for authorized BART personnel. No person shall conduct or participate in assemblies or demonstrations or engage in other expressive activities in the paid areas of BART stations, including BART cars and trains and BART station platforms."

Re:Statement from BART (2)

Spigot the Bear (2318678) | more than 3 years ago | (#37076264)

Paragraph 1: "We support the First Amendment." (It's scary enough that you even have to say such a thing nowadays)

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 (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37076302)

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.

Emergency (1)

tidepool (137349) | more than 3 years ago | (#37076102)

And then what happens when their is a medical, or otherwise, emergency that is not able to be 'dealt with' (in whatever way it needs dealing: Police, medical, etc).

Who shoulders the responsibilities when the phones go down on purpose?

Our society, as an entire world, is screwed.

Re:Emergency (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37076174)

You tell the conductor like the "entire world" did before there where cell phones. You know like on a plane.

Re:Emergency (1)

Eightbitgnosis (1571875) | more than 3 years ago | (#37076234)

What happens?

Liability lawsuits

and no one is doing anything about (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37076244)

are they? Nope they are going to wake up and go to their jobs and deal with it.
THis is just the beginning but by the time it really hits it will be too late. Keep on keeping on sheeples

Do they have emergency phone down there? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 3 years ago | (#37076278)

I haven't been to that part of the country at all myself; do they have emergency callboxes available? Most other mass transit systems I am familiar with have call boxes available so people without cell phones can still make emergency calls.

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.

911 service too? (1)

roc97007 (608802) | more than 3 years ago | (#37076380)

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 there was going to be civil unrest."

Prosecution: "Really? That's your defense?"

Defense: "Yes."

Prosecution: "Your honor, we would like to change the charge to 'Shutting down 911 service during a time when the defense expected there to be civil unrest.'"

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?