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 Keeps Cell Service Despite Protests

Unknown Lamer posted more than 3 years ago | from the be-glad-dissent-is-permitted dept.

Censorship 196

Okian Warrior writes "After taking heat from the ACLU and being hacked by Anonymous for shutting down cellphone service to four stations last week, BART kept cell service on during Monday's protests. Officials at Bay Area Rapid Transit decided Monday that cutting cellphone service to thwart another planned protest would cause more trouble than the protests themselves. Instead, four stations were temporarily closed, creating a chaotic rush-hour commute."

cancel ×

196 comments

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

Baby with the bathwater (1, Insightful)

jythie (914043) | more than 3 years ago | (#37110922)

What a bunch of babies... dealing with protests by first cutting off people's ability to communicate, then when people get annoyed by THAT, they just shut stations completely? Then again this is an organization that looks out for its own and is not comfortable being questioned.. so not too surprising.

Re:Baby with the bathwater (4, Insightful)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 3 years ago | (#37111006)

dealing with protests by first cutting off people's ability to communicate, then when people get annoyed by THAT, they just shut stations completely?

Eh, I can't blame them for closing stations, considering that the stations they closed had protestors on the tracks, blocking trains from leaving. Which was a pretty stupid way to protest anyway since you're just going to piss off the other commuters, people who could have been on your side. Now all they'll remember is how those stupid protestors screwed made them late for work or late getting home (bearing in mind that they were already disrupting service).

Re:Baby with the bathwater (0, Troll)

jmorris42 (1458) | more than 3 years ago | (#37111258)

> considering that the stations they closed had protestors on the tracks, blocking trains from leaving.

Easy problem. Toot Toot, chugga chugga. They WILL get out of the way because even a douchebag hipster knows who wins train vs meatsack. It is an attitude problem, nobody has the balls to make the choo choo go anymore so a few idiots can bring civilization to a halt.

What idiots. They leave the cell phone repeaters on and stop the trains. Hello! What is the primary purpose of BART? Phones or trains/buses?

Re:Baby with the bathwater (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#37111442)

Not that easy, you might want to read up on history.
While you are toot, toot, chugga, chugga, the protester is lying down sure that you will stop.
And it's no win for BART. The catch enough hell if some jumps in front of a train at the last minute. Accidental killing a protester? they would be screwed, even if they weren't' at fault.

They lesson here is: only build systems with powered rails~

" What is the primary purpose of BART? "
To serve the peoples transportation need; which includes cell phones and data connection.

Re:Baby with the bathwater (4, Insightful)

newcastlejon (1483695) | more than 3 years ago | (#37111928)

" What is the primary purpose of BART? " To serve the peoples transportation need; which includes cell phones and data connection.

Trains
Subways
Buses
Cell-phones
Trams

One of these things is not like the others.

Re:Baby with the bathwater (1)

Golddess (1361003) | more than 3 years ago | (#37112090)

One of these things is not like the others.

Is it buses? I've not seen a bus operated by over-head lines, but everything else is (or can be).

In all seriousness, yeah, seems a little odd to say that the purpose of BART is to serve the peoples physical and virtual transportation needs.

Re:Baby with the bathwater (2)

sjames (1099) | more than 3 years ago | (#37111312)

Pix or it didn't happen. I have seen video of police closing doors and generally impeding the flow of the crowd, and of the media with bulky cameras and lights crowding out a train car, but no protesters on the tracks (wouldn't they tend to bump into the 3rd rail?) blocking trains.

It seems from what I can see anyway, more likely the stations were closed so the inconvenience could be blamed on protesters.

Re:Baby with the bathwater (1)

badboy_tw2002 (524611) | more than 3 years ago | (#37111998)

Wouldn't the inconvenience be on the protesters either way?

Previous protests have blocked the stations from effectively being in service as passengers had trouble getting on/off the trains, and servicing those stations put the entire system behind schedule. Not to mention that putting protesters in contact with irate passengers who are late for work or whatever might cause a few fist fights, thus requiring the intervention of the trigger happy BART police, thus causing more "accidental" shootings, thus causing more protests...

You can see why a pragmatic manager might just snip this in the bud and inconvenience a lesser percentage of passengers.

Re:Baby with the bathwater (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37112084)

How about climbing on the trains?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vryXEo6Coc [youtube.com]

Re:Baby with the bathwater (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 3 years ago | (#37111348)

Which was a pretty stupid way to protest anyway since you're just going to piss off the other commuters, people who could have been on your side.

I don't know about that. Few details have been released, but what we do know is that the guy had a knife and was acting really stupidly. If you're going to start a protest because you're certain that the cops murdered an innocent man, based on THAT evidence, you probably have a lot of free time and aren't going to work.

It's northern California anyway. Protests here aren't about making your message heard, they're about feeding your own ego. "Hey, I hear migrant farm workers are being mistreated... lets go protest at the Trader Joes!!! On the way, lets stop at starbucks for a tripple whip soy french cream decaf mochalatte for $20."

Re:Baby with the bathwater (1)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 3 years ago | (#37111586)

They aren't protesting this incident except as an excuse to protest against past behavior. Most of the anger being displayed would probably be better directed at the killing of Oscar Grant where an unarmed and restrained man was shot at point blank range (presumably due to the officer unintentionally drawing his gun when he meant to draw his taser). Having another seemingly similar incident occur involving the BART police force is just fanning the flames that were started years ago.

Unfortunately, unlike the Oscar Grant case, there doesn't seem to be any video of the most recent incident. And given the number of coverups involving excessive use of force in recent years, people just don't trust the official line anymore. People hear things like "less than 25 seconds after officers arrived on the scene officers fired three rounds into Hill's chest, foregoing the use of an available taser" and they start to wonder about the circumstances regardless if the doubt is really warranted in this particular case.

Re:Baby with the bathwater (1)

Sir_Eptishous (873977) | more than 3 years ago | (#37111678)

Make my tripple whip soy french cream decaf mochalatte "skinny".

Re:Baby with the bathwater (1)

Ruke (857276) | more than 3 years ago | (#37111434)

You're absolutely correct: now people will remember the protest. They might be pissed off, but they'll know there was a protest, and there's a good chance they'll find out what the protest was about. It's a hell of a lot more effective than handing out pamphlets, or putting a card in BART's suggestion box.

Re:Baby with the bathwater (4, Insightful)

JordanL (886154) | more than 3 years ago | (#37111694)

And this is why protesting the US never made it past the "I want to be heard!" stage in the 70s. Active protesters in the US don't even see their goal as changing anything, they see their goal as protesting.

Protesting doesn't actually accomplish anything productive. It is a means to an end. That end never comes if you don't effectively convey your actual message to people in a way that asks them to consider if they agree.

In other words, I am not saying you are wrong, I am saying you are missing the point. If your goal is to protest, then by all means, your logic is sound. If your goal is to change something, your logic may be sound or unsound. It is entirely up to the people receiving the message if your logic is sound. If you are comfortable leaving it up to them, then fine. But keep in mind that it you, the protester, who has the message that is trying to be disseminated. You are the one with the passion and the information. You must accept that it is then your responsibility to communicate that in a way that others can effectively receive.

Protesting for the sake of protesting hasn't been effective at any kind of institutional or long-term change for decades. Why people continue to think it is productive is beyond me. If you are truly passionate about your message, actually go out on a limb and put in real effort. Any idiot with a sign can protest, but not any protester can be a Gandhi. You have to choose to commit yourself to your goal to do that, and speaking frankly, most protesters (like most people in general) are not willing to invest that much of themselves in committing to something that doesn't directly benefit them.

Re:Baby with the bathwater (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37111148)

What a bunch of babies... dealing with protests by first cutting off people's ability to communicate

You mean cutting off people's access to YOUR FREELY PROVIDED CELL REPEATERS that you own and operate at your expense. People were still able to use their cell phones when in range of their cell provider's towers.

Here's an analogy: Imagine people protesting Starbucks then complaining when Starbucks stopped giving out free samples because the protesters were eating them.

Just another case of stupid Internet Rage. Give the people something to be mad about so they can feel like they have a voice and distract them from the real issues.

Re:Baby with the bathwater (5, Informative)

Ossifer (703813) | more than 3 years ago | (#37111288)

The cell phone antennas in the BART tunnels and platforms are own and operated by the carriers, who pay a hefty sum of cash to BART as rent.

Re:Baby with the bathwater (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37111852)

BART operates those cell towers that it turned off. Prior to a few years ago, these same stations had no cell service. If BART chooses to turn off their own towers which affect people on their lines, I'm okay with that.

Re:Baby with the bathwater (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37112098)

Haha! Yeah, it apparently hasn't occurred to BART that shooting people to death in stations a little less often is an excellent way to avoid protests.

BART really doesn't like dissenting voices (0, Flamebait)

Ossifer (703813) | more than 3 years ago | (#37110934)

They'd rather shut down service than allow people to freely speak their mind...

This is clearly due to the BART police's influence on decision-making--it was originally a protest against violent police action, past and current.

Re:BART really doesn't like dissenting voices (1)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 3 years ago | (#37111208)

They'd rather shut down service than allow people to freely speak their mind...

Yeah, that's what this was all about. Next time try putting brain in gear before putting hands on keyboard.

Re:BART really doesn't like dissenting voices (0)

Ossifer (703813) | more than 3 years ago | (#37111250)

Yes, this IS what it's really about.

If you really think this was about safety, terrorism, or the limited set constitutional rights that BART officially recognizes, then you're dumber than your idiotic posts already reveal.

Re:BART really doesn't like dissenting voices (1)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 3 years ago | (#37111314)

Yes, this IS what it's really about.

If you really think this was about safety, terrorism, or the limited set constitutional rights that BART officially recognizes, then you're dumber than your idiotic posts already reveal.

I think that the person you just outed is yourself. It is completely about both safety, and the rights of people who just want to get from Point A to Point B to not be made part of your demonstration against their will. Those people have rights too.

Re:BART really doesn't like dissenting voices (1)

Ossifer (703813) | more than 3 years ago | (#37111456)

Your stupidity knows no bounds.

The safety red herring is unproven. Might as well blame them for child pron too...

As far as rights go, why not simply arrest anyone WHO ACTUALLY BREAKS THE LAW, instead of deciding all protesters must be stopped from legal protest?

And the kicker: if A->B rights are so important why close the four busiest stations in the entire system? BART is the only entity that prevent people from traveling on BART yesterday.

Re:BART really doesn't like dissenting voices (4, Informative)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 3 years ago | (#37111274)

Interesting but annoying.
From the news stories I read the person shot was said to be armed with a knife and one of the officers involved was treated for cuts. Is that not true? What is your source? In fact there is a video of him throwing a knife at the officer. A drunk throwing bottles and knives at officers in a train station where their are other passengers seems like a real threat to me. The bottle stuck to officer and the Officer fired on the man after he threw the bottle and was coming at him with a knife.
http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/bay-area/2011/07/bart-shooting-video-shows-thrown-knife-not-threat-man-posed [sfexaminer.com]
Frankly that data points to the officers reaction being reasonable IMHO. It isn't proof but there does seem to be some data that points in that direction and very little that points to this being an unjustified shooting.
Second where does someones rights end? Why do the protesters rights to free speech matter more than peoples rights to use public transit? The protesters set out to shut down the stations. They have every right to protest outside the stations but once they interfere with people using the station they are violating others rights.

I do not see what there is to protest about. It almost seems like vigilantly justice towards the police.

Re:BART really doesn't like dissenting voices (1)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 3 years ago | (#37111376)

I do not see what there is to protest about. It almost seems like vigilantly justice towards the police.

This is San Francisco. That's exactly what it is.

Re:BART really doesn't like dissenting voices (2)

Ossifer (703813) | more than 3 years ago | (#37111398)

Justified killing is still "violent police action". And justification is up for each and everyone to decide for himself.

Personally w.r.t. BART police killings, I think protests were in order for the Oscar Grant manslaughter (officer tried, convicted, served time), but probably not for the knife guy, even though the video clearly shows the cops shooting *after* the knife was already gone (no longer an actual threat)...

Re:BART really doesn't like dissenting voices (1)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 3 years ago | (#37111828)

The police report says the man had 2 knives and a broken bottle. 1 knife and 1 bottle had been thrown and the man was advancing towards them with the second knife in hand when they put three shots into his chest.

What isn't clear from the report or the video available:

How far away the guy was when they resorted to lethal force, could be considered important considering at least one of the officers was armed with a taser.
Where bystanders are in relation to the threat, was a man with a knife a bigger threat than firing a weapon on a crowded train platform?
Just how drink the guy was. Granted, throwing a knife isn't as easy as the movies look, but either the guy was pretty far away or very drunk based on the lack of accuracy on his throw (missed by a good 4 ft). I'd find it harder to believe a man who is falling down drunk is a legitimate threat

Re:BART really doesn't like dissenting voices (1)

shadowknot (853491) | more than 3 years ago | (#37111490)

Second where does someones rights end? Why do the protesters rights to free speech matter more than peoples rights to use public transit?

Because the right to free speech is enumerated in the Bill Of Rights whereas public transit is not. Public transit is a locally provided service that is a convenience, one that many have come to rely on in large metropolitan areas like the Bay Area, but a convenience nonetheless. It is _NOT_ a right.

Re:BART really doesn't like dissenting voices (5, Insightful)

PCM2 (4486) | more than 3 years ago | (#37111604)

Did you not read the headline of the story you linked? "Bart shooting video shows thrown knife, but not threat man posed."

BART police arrive on the platform in response to a call of a man being too drunk to stand. Within 30 seconds of arriving on the platform, they had shot the man to death -- apparently, for being drunk and mouthing off to police.

Apparently the man was belligerent, apparently he had a weapon, and he threw the weapon at them. What did the officers think he was -- a circus knife-thrower? Was he planning to pin the officers to the wall with knives, maybe? He was apparently too drunk to walk straight, so maybe he was planning to do that with his hand over one eye?

But hold on -- according to the story you linked, the man wasn't considered a threat because he threw a knife at police. He threw a bottle. I'd hardly call that a threat to the officers' lives. They say the bottle cut them. Well, show me the hospital report or boo fucking hoo.

But let's say he did throw a knife. Is that when you decide you have no recourse but to shoot a guy -- after he's thrown away his weapon? If he'd just tossed it down on the ground, presumably they would have still screamed "he's got a knife!!" and shot him?

But no -- the truth is, according to the very story you linked, the suspect didn't even throw the knife until after the officer shot him. If a belligerent police officer came out of nowhere and started shooting at you -- remember, police had arrived on the platform less than 30 seconds ago -- might not you also try to to defend yourself?

How did any of this happen? Did the officer not have time to say "halt"? Or "drop your weapon"? The drunk man, who was reported as being too drunk to stand and too drunk to walk straight, was such a threat to the officers' lives that even though they were armed and wearing body armor, as soon as they him, they realized they had just 24 seconds to shoot him dead?

And perhaps the most pertinent question: Why did they choose their firearms instead of their tasers? When Johannes Mehserle murdered Oscar Grant by shooting him in the back while Grant was face down on the ground and handcuffed, Mehserle's excuse was that he mistook his firearm for his taser. Many, many law enforcement experts came forward to say that this was highly unlikely, as officers are required to keep their taser and their handgun on opposite sides of their bodies. Mistaking the two would be tantamount to mistaking your own left hand for your right. Now this other officer chooses to draw his handgun and use lethal force on an inebriated suspect, while his taser sits in his holster, unused. That's an interesting coincidence, don't you think?

I've always thought it was interesting, too, that BART police officers seem to carry 2-3 extra magazines on their belts when patrolling trains. Just how many shots do they expect to have to get off on an occupied train or inside a subway platform, anyway? 45?

Might it not be that BART police training encourages officers to use their firearms as the first line of defense? And that BART needs to answer to this pattern of behavior by its police force? But that it chooses not to answer, because its police force is not answerable to any city's mayor or city council, and in fact is answerable to no organization but BART itself? And therefore the public's only real recourse is civic unrest?

I'm just floating the possibility out there.

Re:BART really doesn't like dissenting voices (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 3 years ago | (#37111938)

Apparently the man was belligerent, apparently he had a weapon, and he threw the weapon at them. What did the officers think he was -- a circus knife-thrower? Was he planning to pin the officers to the wall with knives, maybe? He was apparently too drunk to walk straight, so maybe he was planning to do that with his hand over one eye?

That would be a lot of thinkin for a person to be doing in a split second while a knife is flying at them. And it's worth noting that there were people behind the officer in that video that might have been hit with a knife. Risk own life and others on assumption that crazed drunken bum doesn't have another knife and won't get lucky, or shoot? My first instinct would probably be to shoot too.

You make an excellent point about training though. First move should be to their tasers. Cops have a duty to not shoot first and ask questions later.

Re:BART really doesn't like dissenting voices (2)

PCM2 (4486) | more than 3 years ago | (#37112012)

That would be a lot of thinkin for a person to be doing in a split second while a knife is flying at them

I hear you, but you missed one point: The knife was not flying at them. The officer shot the guy first, then he threw the knife.

If you read other accounts, there was some other Keystone Cops type stuff, where the guy threw the bottle, liquid spilled out of the bottle, and one of the officers slipped on the liquid and fell on his ass. That was when the second officer drew his weapon and reportedly fired two seconds later. If you read between the lines, it sounds like a pair of poorly trained, less-than-competent officers felt like they were losing control of a situation (with a crazy drunk, no less) and freaked out.

I mean, come on... this is who they were up against. [sfgate.com] And that photo isn't a mugshot, it's his driver's license photo. That's what he used to look like when he went to the DMV. In all honesty, I don't even know you, but I'm pretty sure you could take him.

Re:BART really doesn't like dissenting voices (1)

Ruke (857276) | more than 3 years ago | (#37111640)

Second where does someones rights end? Why do the protesters rights to free speech matter more than peoples rights to use public transit? The protesters set out to shut down the stations. They have every right to protest outside the stations but once they interfere with people using the station they are violating others rights.

The police would be well within their rights to arrest people found to be breaking a law. However, they're not allowed to prevent people from assembling or exercising their free-speech rights, even if they suspect that these will lead to crimes being committed in the future.

Re:BART really doesn't like dissenting voices (1)

scubamage (727538) | more than 3 years ago | (#37111682)

The first amendment guarantees freedom of speech and peaceful assembly. You don't have a right to public transit, that is a privilege. Please check the constitution.

Re:BART really doesn't like dissenting voices (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 3 years ago | (#37111700)

I have no question that the drunk threw a bottle, and perhaps a knife. It may have even cut an officer. They had every right to get physical with him and to arrest him. Summary execution was not, however, a reasonable response.

Lethal force is really only justifiable where there is a genuine threat to life that cannot be mitigated through retreat. For example, they could have backed off and come back in body armor. Or they could have backed off and turned a firehose on him. Or tasered him. Or thrown their clubs at him. Or even goaded him into throwing his remaining knife leaving him unarmed. Or they could have just waited for him to trip over his own feet and fall on his own knife. They could have even used the same snare pole animal control uses on large dogs.

I don't get this modern trend of cowardly cops resorting to lethal force (and wetting themselves) every time someone says boo. It's not only a disgrace to the profession, it's a danger to the public they're supposed to protect. There are times when lethal force is called for and many more where it is not. If they can't tell the difference, they are in the wrong profession.

Re:BART really doesn't like dissenting voices (1)

Raptoer (984438) | more than 3 years ago | (#37111986)

It's more like this:
The objective of the BART group is to run the trains, safely and on schedule.
A train station is a dangerous place during a protest. Protests, being large relatively immobile crowds have the possibility of pushing people into places where they shouldn't be. Between an enclosed space causing crush problems, the electrical lines for the trains, and the trains themselves, I wouldn't want to be in a train station during a protest.

Probably they decided to shut down the stations for two reasons: So that nobody would get hurt (which would then be blamed on BART's response) and so that hopefully the protesters would get bored and leave sooner so they could resume service.

Choices (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37110986)

"They made us choose between people's ability to use their mobile phones (and) their constitutional right to get from point A to point B."

-- quote from BART

Government officials simply cannot decide to choose to deny you what they openly admit is a constitutional right.

It's lawyerin' time.

Re:Choices (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37111352)

"They made us choose between people's ability to use their mobile phones (and) their constitutional right to get from point A to point B."

-- quote from BART

Government officials simply cannot decide to choose to deny you what they openly admit is a constitutional right.

It's lawyerin' time.

Hey BART, can you remind us which amendment is the right to travel by subway from point A to point B? I found the free speech one already, but that was easy since it's the first one.

Re:Choices (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37111502)

the people could talk all they wanted, the couldn't make cell phone calls. Which ammendment is that?
if so you better sue a whole bunch of mountains and caves.

Re:Choices (1)

Ruke (857276) | more than 3 years ago | (#37111504)

They misspoke; it's actually Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. So they're bound by federal law, not constitutionally-guaranteed rights.

Re:Choices (1)

andymadigan (792996) | more than 3 years ago | (#37111698)

Actually, the right to free speech in this case would be #14 (Federal) or #2 (Constitution of California). Parts of the bill of rights have been incorporated via Amendment #14.

In any case, you're right, there's no constitutional right to use the subway, though SCOTUS has recognized a right to interstate travel, and one could argue that blocking access that blocking access to interstate travel might be held to violate that right.

Article I of the Constitution of California enumerates protected rights, oddly it doesn't cover travel, though it might be elsewhere in the constitution.

-- I'm not a lawyer, and I live in NY

Quote (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37111024)

I didn't do it. - Bart

Shut it all off! (5, Insightful)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 3 years ago | (#37111032)

If I has been in charge of BART this weekend (and I was up in the Bay Area during this) I would have shut the whole courtesy BART cell phone repeater system down and told the EFF and the ACLU to take a flying f'ing leap into the bay. There is NOTHING in the Constitution about freedom of speech that says that you have to assist demonstrators in shutting down your system. BART exists to move people efficiently in a city with too many cars, too much pollution, and never enough parking. The demonstrators are a bunch of loonies who want to be part of an Anonymous based action and have no right to even be on BART's private property for that purpose. If BART directors actually had a spine that wasn't broken down by too much bending down to Political Correctness they wouldn't have these issues. This is something to be sorted out in the courts, not on the streets - unless you really want to become Egypt. Personally, I don't.

Re:Shut it all off! (2, Insightful)

SydShamino (547793) | more than 3 years ago | (#37111082)

And if anyone had a heart attack on a train this weekend, and no one was able to call for assistance, you would have been charged with criminal negligence and sent to prison.

Re:Shut it all off! (2, Insightful)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 3 years ago | (#37111144)

And if anyone had a heart attack on a train this weekend, and no one was able to call for assistance, you would have been charged with criminal negligence and sent to prison.

A Red Herring fallacy [nizkor.org] if there ever was one.

Re:Shut it all off! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37111238)

You're a real patriot aren't you? Go suck on Rick Perry's corndog you fucking amerikkan. Better yet, if you're such a bible-thumping, flag-waving piece of shit, ship yourself off to Iraq and get your ass blown up by a roadside bomb. Go ahead, do it for your country amerikkkan.

I'd rather be an Egyptian than one of you sorry sons of bitches any day. At least they don't sit on their fat, overfed asses and let their own country go down the fucking toilet, they stand up and fight. Scum like you, on the other hand, are perfectly happy not only to allow your so-called freedoms to be taken away from you, you actually argue in _favor_ of the people who are taking them. Scum like you.

Re:Shut it all off! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37111356)

In fairness, didn't they the Egyptians on their asses for about 50 years?

Re:Shut it all off! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37111458)

Well said... now back to sniffing glue.

Re:Shut it all off! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37111404)

.....derp

Re:Shut it all off! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37111516)

Go suck on Rick Perry's corndog you fucking amerikkan.

By your tone, it sounds like you are making that out to be a bad thing.

Why are you such a homophobe? Stop your bigotry now!

Re:Shut it all off! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37111588)

Different /.er here, but wow your little presumptuous rant says it all doesn't it? Anyone who disagrees with you is a bible thumping fascist. This is why I hate childish fucks like you who get this worked up over little issues. You histrionic kids are the same kind of "revolutionaries" who would line people up against the wall if you ever gained any power or influence. A world lead by the likes of you is grimmer than anything we have or will have under those whom you despise. Kindly die.

Re:Shut it all off! (0)

RanCossack (1138431) | more than 3 years ago | (#37111916)

amerikkan

It's actually spelled "American". You're welcome.

(You also need to replace a couple of those commas with semicolons -- and no need for thanks; I'm happy to help.)

Re:Shut it all off! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37111168)

And if anyone had a heart attack on a train this weekend, and no one was able to call for assistance, you would have been charged with criminal negligence and sent to prison.

Somehow I doubt that.

Re:Shut it all off! (5, Insightful)

jdunn14 (455930) | more than 3 years ago | (#37111188)

Bull.

The BART cell phone repeater system has only been in place for a few years as a courtesy to riders. There are still emergency phones in stations (along with employees who have access to land lines) and the train conductors have the ability to call for assistance as well. People have built systems for calling for help in emergencies for decades before cell phones existed.

Re:Shut it all off! (0)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 3 years ago | (#37111230)

And if anyone had a heart attack on a train this weekend, and no one was able to call for assistance, you would have been charged with criminal negligence and sent to prison.

P.S. IANAL - and obviously neither are you.

Re:Shut it all off! (2)

Duradin (1261418) | more than 3 years ago | (#37111310)

I wonder how the trains communicated with each other and the stations before the cell phone repeaters. There must have been a lot of accidental collisions due to getting off their scheduled times.

Re:Shut it all off! (1)

Sir_Eptishous (873977) | more than 3 years ago | (#37111772)

Pagers!

Re:Shut it all off! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37111548)

They were not "Blocking" service, they simply cut off the repeater (a convenience courtesy basically) that they allowed to be installed so service could work where it normally would not (ie the tunnels, etc...), Now if they were jamming then there is a case.

Re:Shut it all off! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37111868)

Dude, BART has existed since 1972. How long have you had your cell phone? How do you imagine people got emergency service before 1990? What's wrong with using the for free 911 service on any of the pay phones on every BART platform? Why not use the emergency phones on every BART platform to call for help?

Admit it. You are an argument looking for a reason to argue. You aren't (at least in this instance) a clear thinking individual who criticizes appropriately based on the facts at hand.

Re:Shut it all off! (1)

Ossifer (703813) | more than 3 years ago | (#37111204)

The last person who tried this line of thinking is currently lying on a hospital bed during his trial...

Re:Shut it all off! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37111272)

Why shut down the repeaters?

It seems to me the repeaters would be a good way to find those who where unlawfully protesting.

Re:Shut it all off! (4, Insightful)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 3 years ago | (#37111358)

But how far can this logic take us? Let's just shut off water and electricity to the properties of people we don't like. Nothing in the constitution that says they have a right to be able to purchase those services. IMO at some point, conveniences become widespread enough that we start to rely on them, and the providers of that service can then exact control over us by restricting or controlling this service, which previous to our reliance might not have mattered so much.

Re:Shut it all off! (2)

poity (465672) | more than 3 years ago | (#37111726)

I get what you're saying and I agree to an extent, but consider that water and electricity provide for basic human biological needs - thirst, hygiene, and need for warmth. Perhaps cell phone access does not fit in that group as perfectly as we may wish.

Re:Shut it all off! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37111906)

Bad analogy - it's more like people moving into your house, so you cut off the water and electricity and force them out.

Re:Shut it all off! (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 3 years ago | (#37111412)

I would have shut the whole courtesy BART cell phone repeater system down and told the EFF and the ACLU to take a flying f'ing leap into the bay. There is NOTHING in the Constitution about freedom of speech that says that you have to assist demonstrators in shutting down your system.

Were any of their arguments actually based around the constitutionality of that act? Because otherwise, that has nothing to do with the protests. Something not being barred by the constitution is a terrible standard for whether something is justified or not.

Re:Shut it all off! (1)

BetaDays (2355424) | more than 3 years ago | (#37111870)

Just wondering. Can BART remove the cell phone repeaters in the future? OR are they now forever going to have to have that service available? And a second thought is. Or what about if they did something where you had to pay for the cell phone repeater service? That would be interesting. Some way that the repeaters only allowed certain numbers that prepaid for the service or some kind of NFC phone hook up that can talk to the cell repeaters to allow a specific phone to work. Think of the extra cash that could come in.

Re:Shut it all off! (1)

wernst (536414) | more than 3 years ago | (#37112086)

"There is NOTHING in the Constitution about freedom of speech that says that you have to assist demonstrators in shutting down your system."

Actually, it's the FCC that has full legal authority regarding cell phone service (and pretty much all wireless communication methods), and its intentional disruption or jamming, and how NO ONE is supposed to be legally allowed to do it. You know why movie theaters can't install cell phone jammers to keep phones in the audience from ringing? The FCC makes it illegal to do so. Remember when the vendors of paid WiFi services in Logan airport wanted to shut down a competing free WiFi service in the terminal, but weren't allowed to do so? That pesky FCC again.

Basically, only the FCC has the legal authority to suspend/disrupt/jam common carrier services. And in fact, the FCC is inviting users who had their services disrupted to register a complaint at http://www.fcc.gov/complaints [fcc.gov] or call 1-888-CALL-FCC.

So no, it's not the Constitution that protects the protesters' rights to use cell phones, but the FCC prohibits anyone else from interfering with the signals, regardless of the intention.

I don't get the connection (1, Insightful)

wcrowe (94389) | more than 3 years ago | (#37111038)

Cutting off cell service? Why? Because people never protested or rioted before the existence of cell phones?

Can someone explain the logic?

Re:I don't get the connection (2)

Nexzus (673421) | more than 3 years ago | (#37111078)

It's the London scapegoat effect.

Re:I don't get the connection (1)

Sir_Eptishous (873977) | more than 3 years ago | (#37111794)

We have a winner.

Re:I don't get the connection (1)

wmbetts (1306001) | more than 3 years ago | (#37111126)

Cell phones make it easier to assembly a large mass of people at any given location, because of instance communication (calls, texting, and internet).

That's a guess, but I think that was probably what they were thinking.

Re:I don't get the connection (1)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 3 years ago | (#37111266)

Cell phones make it easier to assembly a large mass of people at any given location, because of instance communication (calls, texting, and internet).

That's a guess, but I think that was probably what they were thinking.

More than that. The demonstration leaders had announced their intention of organizing the crowd in the most effective manner for their own purposes during the first demonstration by using cell phones, twitter, and texting ahead of time. I don't think that they had anticipated this response from BART.

Re:I don't get the connection (1)

Duradin (1261418) | more than 3 years ago | (#37111424)

It also makes it easy to move that mass of people to keep them ahead of law enforcement.

Re:I don't get the connection (-1, Troll)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 3 years ago | (#37111176)

Cutting off cell service? Why? Because people never protested or rioted before the existence of cell phones?

Can someone explain the logic?

The logic is that today's protestors don't know how to organize with old technologies because they're a bunch of spoiled brats whining - I Can't Tweet, my life is RUINED! Bring in the ACLU, my Constitutional rights to be an asshat have been trampled.

They probably also voted for Obama.

Solution: Better Protests (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37111074)

Officials at Bay Area Rapid Transit decided Monday that cutting cellphone service to thwart another planned protest would cause more trouble than the protests themselves.

Looks like those protesting at BART need some lessons from Madison, Wisconsin [huffingtonpost.com] .

Re:Solution: Better Protests (1)

Apocryphos (1222870) | more than 3 years ago | (#37111286)

yes because those protests were so much more effective /sarcasm

Not a real protest, just a crime wave (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37111108)

This has nothing to do with free speech or rights or anything.

These are well to do bored young hipsters who want to cause trouble. They are the same people that join other protests in Oakland and then rob stores of "grillz" and shoes and liquor. They aren't even from the Bay Area, and have been described as 'anarchists' coming as far away as out of state just to break and steal and vandalize.

Re:Not a real protest, just a crime wave (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#37111350)

I'm afraid that you have your strawmen mixed up, producing a strange hybrid of the 'liberal elitist hipster either sponging off his parents or in possession of a job that lets him look down on Real Americans' and the 'coddled welfare negroid who knows only gangsta rap and animalistic violence', possibly with a touch of 'one of the tiny remnants of what could be described as genuinely radical leftists, venturing out of his anarco-syndicalist squat somewhere'...

A well-to-do hipster wouldn't be caught dead in possession of "grillz", and prefers ironic PBR or obscure artisinal microbrews to liquor. Someone looting for "grillz" and liquor, on the other hand, should be of the 'urban' persuasion, and (while glutted on unearned welfare checks confiscated from decent people like you) sufficiently poor to be menacing.

Please, please, try to observe a modicum of accuracy when employing stereotypes.

WTF is this story about? (0)

Harold Halloway (1047486) | more than 3 years ago | (#37111138)

I assume that if I lived in the US this story would make sense? Well I don't and it doesn't. How about a modicum of context for those of us lucky enough to have been born with bad teeth and a liking for sausages and beer?

Re:WTF is this story about? (1)

what2123 (1116571) | more than 3 years ago | (#37111228)

I have to agree with you. The East Coast hasn't heard about any of these incidents and as far as I can tell the issue is moot.

Re:WTF is this story about? (2)

RanCossack (1138431) | more than 3 years ago | (#37112036)

Well, a quick summary...

BART (short for Bay Area Rapid Transit) is the mass transit system for San Francisco and surrounding cities -- think of it as like the Subway in New York, or the Underground in London, or the Mass Transit improvement you build in Civ to restore the one one city health penalty you lost when you made that coal plant.

A group of people decided to protest the BART security shooting a drunk guy who was trying to attack them with a knife. BART, which runs repeater cell stations so that people who ride it can use their cell phones, initially responded by disabling that cell network to prevent protestors from coordinating their efforts to block the trains from running by climbing on the tracks, but later gave in and kept it enabled.

They did not run trains on the stations where protestors blocked the tracks, as that would have killed the protestors, but the protestors and some commentators here are angry they still ran the other trains, I think. I'm not clear on this part, to be honest.

Re:WTF is this story about? (1)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 3 years ago | (#37111390)

The BART is a slow rail system for the San Fransisco Bay area, with it's very own police force that has a history of abuse, corruption, and at least arguably, murder. This has begun pissing people off so they protested by disrupting service on the BART lines, people in charge of BART decided to hamper the protestors communication by cutting power to BART owned cell repeaters in the tunnels; areas serviced directly by the cell providers' towers were unaffected. This action, not surprisingly, pissed off a great many people causing additional protests. This time, rather than cutting communication they came in and closed the affected stations, and kicked the protestors out which some people are taking as them cutting service to silence the protestors, but, considering the protestors were wandering onto the tracks and preventing trains from leaving that argument is pretty moot IMO.

Re:WTF is this story about? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37111478)

I assume that if I lived in the US this story would make sense?

I grew up in the Bay Area and I had no idea what was going on based on the summary.

Re:WTF is this story about? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37111644)

Two years ago BART PD shot and killed an unarmed, handcuffed man on the platform[1] of the West Oakland BART Station. White cop, black detainee. It California, if not the rest of the US, it's extremely rare for on-duty police officers to be charged with felonies surrounding shooting deaths. The police officer was tried, and convicted of involuntary manslaughter with a "gun enhancement". The judge threw out the "gun enhancement" and sentenced the police officer to the minimum amount of jail time required by law.

Two months ago BART PD shot and killed a man on the platform of Civic Center BART Station[2]. This time the deceased was a white man. BART PD alleged that he was drunk, aggressive, had a knife, and had already thrown a bottle at one of the police officers. BART has released security video of the situation which, unfortunately, doesn't seem to clarify much[3]. Witnesses at the scene claim that the man was not acting aggressively[3,4], and that the man's actions did not warrant the use of lethal force. There is, apparently, some dispute as to whether the man had a knife in the first place.

Last week, there were rumours swirling around about protests scheduled for Thursday regarding this latest shooting. In response, BART preemptively shut down their cell phone repeaters in the San Francisco portion of the subway[5]. This raised the ire of Anonymous[6], who obtained and subsequently released user information (names, addresses, passwords, telephone numbers) from BART's myBART.org site[7,8].

That's about as succinct as I can make the current tensions surrounding BART PD.

Meanwhile on the streets of San Francisco:

In January, SFPD shot an aggressive, knife wielding, wheelchair equipped man in the leg[9]. He was shot with a beanbag gun and subsequently dropped his knife. Allegedly the act of dropping his knife was considered further aggression, so SFPD shot him with a gun. He survived and is now suing the city[10].

In July, SFPD shot a man running away from SF MUNI fare inspectors. Allegedly he shot at SFPD, and police officers returned fire[11]. He died. People protested[12]. The latest twist is that the deceased in this case accidentally inflicted the lethal wound upon himself[13].

So, yes, there's a lot of tension in the BART system and in San Francisco right about now.

Add to the mix that there's a general sense of BART dragging their feet in releasing footage and being less than transparent and, yeah, people get more pissed. Throw in a side of pimping a child and allegedly murdering a pregnant woman, and yeah, some people feel very strongly that the latest SFPD shooting was justified.

1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BART_Police_shooting_of_Oscar_Grant
2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BART_Police#Passengers_killed_by_the_department
3: http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2011/07/charles_hill_bart_shooting_vid.php
4: http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2011/07/charles_hill_identified_as_man.php
5: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2011/08/13/national/a110904D55.DTL
6: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/08/14/BAH71KN6CK.DTL
7: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/08/15/MNIC1KNC1U.DTL
8: http://boingboing.net/2011/08/14/anonymous-hacks-bart-after-wireless-shutdown-protests-planned-for-monday.html
9: http://sfappeal.com/news/2011/01/reports-sfpd-shoots-wheelchair-bound-man-in-soma.php
10: http://sfappeal.com/news/2011/03/wheelchair-bound-man-shot-by-cops-sues-sfpd.php
11: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/28/breaking-sfpd-locates-har_n_912590.html
12: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/07/20/BAUR1KCGBA.DTL
13: http://sfappeal.com/news/2011/07/sfpd-man-who-died-after-running-from-officers-shot-himself.php

Re:WTF is this story about? (4, Informative)

Alex Zepeda (10955) | more than 3 years ago | (#37111718)

Grr. I accidentally posted this as an AC. Here's your context:

Two years ago BART PD shot and killed an unarmed, handcuffed man on the platform[1] of the West Oakland BART Station. White cop, black detainee. It California, if not the rest of the US, it's extremely rare for on-duty police officers to be charged with felonies surrounding shooting deaths. The police officer was tried, and convicted of involuntary manslaughter with a "gun enhancement". The judge threw out the "gun enhancement" and sentenced the police officer to the minimum amount of jail time required by law.

Two months ago BART PD shot and killed a man on the platform of Civic Center BART Station[2]. This time the deceased was a white man. BART PD alleged that he was drunk, aggressive, had a knife, and had already thrown a bottle at one of the police officers. BART has released security video of the situation which, unfortunately, doesn't seem to clarify much[3]. Witnesses at the scene claim that the man was not acting aggressively[3,4], and that the man's actions did not warrant the use of lethal force. There is, apparently, some dispute as to whether the man had a knife in the first place.

Last week, there were rumours swirling around about protests scheduled for Thursday regarding this latest shooting. In response, BART preemptively shut down their cell phone repeaters in the San Francisco portion of the subway[5]. This raised the ire of Anonymous[6], who obtained and subsequently released user information (names, addresses, passwords, telephone numbers) from BART's myBART.org site[7,8].

That's about as succinct as I can make the current tensions surrounding BART PD.

Meanwhile on the streets of San Francisco:

In January, SFPD shot an aggressive, knife wielding, wheelchair equipped man in the leg[9]. He was shot with a beanbag gun and subsequently dropped his knife. Allegedly the act of dropping his knife was considered further aggression, so SFPD shot him with a gun. He survived and is now suing the city[10].

In July, SFPD shot a man running away from SF MUNI fare inspectors. Allegedly he shot at SFPD, and police officers returned fire[11]. He died. People protested[12]. The latest twist is that the deceased in this case accidentally inflicted the lethal wound upon himself[13].

So, yes, there's a lot of tension in the BART system and in San Francisco right about now.

Add to the mix that there's a general sense of BART dragging their feet in releasing footage and being less than transparent and, yeah, people get more pissed. Throw in a side of pimping a child and allegedly murdering a pregnant woman, and yeah, some people feel very strongly that the latest SFPD shooting was justified. And, yeah, there's there's a lot of tension both between the public and the police as well as within the general community at large.

1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BART_Police_shooting_of_Oscar_Grant [wikipedia.org]
2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BART_Police#Passengers_killed_by_the_department [wikipedia.org]
3: http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2011/07/charles_hill_bart_shooting_vid.php [sfweekly.com]
4: http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2011/07/charles_hill_identified_as_man.php [sfweekly.com]
5: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2011/08/13/national/a110904D55.DTL [sfgate.com]
6: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/08/14/BAH71KN6CK.DTL [sfgate.com]
7: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/08/15/MNIC1KNC1U.DTL [sfgate.com]
8: http://boingboing.net/2011/08/14/anonymous-hacks-bart-after-wireless-shutdown-protests-planned-for-monday.html [boingboing.net]
9: http://sfappeal.com/news/2011/01/reports-sfpd-shoots-wheelchair-bound-man-in-soma.php [sfappeal.com]
10: http://sfappeal.com/news/2011/03/wheelchair-bound-man-shot-by-cops-sues-sfpd.php [sfappeal.com]
11: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/28/breaking-sfpd-locates-har_n_912590.html [huffingtonpost.com]
12: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/07/20/BAUR1KCGBA.DTL [sfgate.com]
13: http://sfappeal.com/news/2011/07/sfpd-man-who-died-after-running-from-officers-shot-himself.php [sfappeal.com]

Re:WTF is this story about? (1)

Harold Halloway (1047486) | more than 3 years ago | (#37111884)

Thanks for your summary which makes things a lot clearer.

Re:WTF is this story about? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37111790)

... and a liking for sausages and beer?

So you're from Wisconsin too?

Re:WTF is this story about? (1)

Sir_Eptishous (873977) | more than 3 years ago | (#37112018)

This is a Bay Area centric issue. Deal with it.

Cut it off and LEAVE it off! (0, Troll)

barlevg (2111272) | more than 3 years ago | (#37111160)

Do people REALLY need to be on their cell phones on the subway, anyway?

One of the things I like best about the DC Metro is the incredibly spotty cell phone reception. You have NO IDEA how gratifying it is when someone who's been loudly talking on their cell phone for the past three above-ground stations FINALLY gets off as we go underground.

No one wants to hear your music on the train, which is why radios and boom boxes are banned. Equally, no one wants to hear you struggle to be heard on your cell phone over the roar of the train.

Re:Cut it off and LEAVE it off! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37111628)

Ever heard of this new concept called surfing the interwebs on your phone? Try it sometime, it works with slashdot too...

isn't it illegal to shut it off ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37111222)

How is it possible that a telecoms provider, which is what BART is in this position) can legally shut down a network just because they do not like the content ? wtf ?
Would vodafone get away with this during MardiGrass because they do not endorse "show your tits" text messages ?
Is BART now responsible for ALL content on their network ?

Re:isn't it illegal to shut it off ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37111408)

They aren't a provider and they have no network. They only have some repeaters set up, so that people can reach their provider's network while under ground.
As far as I know, there is no law forcing them to even have such a system set up, so why shouldn't they be able to turn it off whenever they wish?

Re:isn't it illegal to shut it off ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37111892)

Maybe because it has become part of a critical service ? ie call 911 ?
Also, if they have ever advertised this as a "feature" of their transport system then disabling it means defrauding their customers. ?

But regardless of the legalese, it is a shitty thing to do and it shows BART's total and utter contempt for the general public.

Re:isn't it illegal to shut it off ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37111636)

If a telecoms provider was having their towers and offices attacked and damaged by shitheads, and those same shitheads were organizing their destruction efforts using the telecoms provider's infrastructure, then yes, I think they would be justified in shutting things down.

cell phone service in BART is useless anyways (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37111226)

The transbay tube doesn't have any cell service. cell service is unreliable between stations, and crossing 4 stations only takes a matter of 5-10 minutes. So if you're on the train, there's not really much value in having the cell repeaters on. If you're waiting in the station, it's usually so loud in there that even with service on, you can't hear anything. So really, having any coverage is nice when it's available but it's not a reliable means of commmunication at all, with the exception of an occasional SMS or when AT&T decides to give you a trickling stream of data connectivity.

Can't believe they ever put it in in the 1st place (1)

jfruhlinger (470035) | more than 3 years ago | (#37111254)

I lived in the San Francisco area and commuted by BART in the late '90s/early '00s, when cell phones were first becoming omnipresent among the tech crowd. On my train ride back from SF to Berkeley there were two brief periods where trains came above ground, which were marked by everyone whipping out their phones and breathlessly relaying status updates to those they were meetings. I remember thinking, "Jeez, I hope they don't put cell reception in the tunnels, this will just be insufferable." Looks like I was right!

And anonymous shall set us free !! (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#37111280)

It seems so. first, their acts have become something to be afraid of from the respect of private interests, with all these leakages.

Second, their endless leaking sensitive data will make data so trivial that, there wont be any reason to hide most of what we deem sensitive today. This would remove some issues we are meeting in regard to security - like SSN numbers or similar crap being taken as proof of identity (what a stupid thought) and this leading to fraud and so on. If, it was accepted that there was no way to identify an individual for sure on the internet, then most of the crap governments and corporations pushing on us would be totally null and void, setting us free.

Does this validate Anoynmous? (0)

Okian Warrior (537106) | more than 3 years ago | (#37111526)

(I submitted the article)

Everyone seems to be missing the larger point here, which is that Anonymous is effective in reversing the government's civil rights erosion.

As I understand it, BART is funded by the government. A government agency shutting off an otherwise publicly available channel of communication as a response to peaceful protests seems like an abridgement of civil rights. An analogy posted earlier likens it to the Post Office refusing to deliver [postage paid] organizational flyers for a protest.

For all the wailing and gnashing of teeth about vigilantes, can anyone form a good argument as to why this particular outcome in this particular situation doesn't at least *partially* validate the core idea that sometimes vigilantes are needed?

Or alternately, can anyone describe an alternate course of action that could be taken by the population to address this abridgement of rights *which has any chance of success*?

the carbon footprint of deception, genocides etc.. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37111550)

it's clearly an unproven mess, evidenced by the apparent need for even more deceptive distracting sideshow style theatrics by our rulers & the chosen ones' neogods arrogance towards all of us.

should it not be considered that the domestic threats to all of us/our
freedoms perpetrated by unsavory megalomaniacs be intervened on/removed, so we wouldn't be compelled to hide our
sentiments, &/or the truth, about ANYTHING, including the origins of the
hymenology council, & their sacred mission? with nothing left to hide,
there'd be room for so much more genuine quantifiable progress?

you call this 'weather'? much of our land masses/planet are going under
water, or burning up, as we fail to consider anything at all that really
matters, as we've been instructed that we must maintain our silence (our
last valid right?), to continue our 'safety' from... mounting terror.

meanwhile, back at the raunch; there are exceptions? the unmentionable
sociopath weapons peddlers are thriving in these times of worldwide
sufferance? the royals? our self appointed murderous neogod rulers? all
better than ok, thank..... us. their stipends/egos/disguises are secure,
so we'll all be ok/not killed by mistaken changes in the MANufactured
'weather', or being one of the unchosen 'too many' of us, etc...?

truth telling & disarming are the only mathematically & spiritually
correct options. read the teepeeleaks etchings. see you there?

diaperleaks group worldwide.

ahab the arab's 'funniest' home vdo; http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0bb_1312569503

Waaah (0)

sl4shd0rk (755837) | more than 3 years ago | (#37111568)

Quit your bitching. Anonymous is standing up against oppression. Doesn't matter whether it's a Bus or a Bank the idea is the same.

Phones aren't free. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37111760)

Where in the Constitution does it say you have a right to a phone?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>