SF cell shutdown: Safety issue, or hint of Orwell?

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

http://news.yahoo.com/sf-cell-shutdown-safety-issue-hint-orwell-205321699.html

By TERRY COLLINS - Associated Press | AP – 4 hrs ago

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — An illegal, Orwellian violation of free-speech rights? Or just a smart tactic to protect train passengers from rowdy would-be demonstrators during a busy evening commute?

The question resonated Saturday in San Francisco and beyond as details emerged of Bay Area Rapid Transit officials' decision to cut off underground cellphone service for a few hours at several stations Thursday. Commuters at stations from downtown to near the city's main airport were affected as BART officials sought to tactically thwart a planned protest over the recent fatal shooting of a 45-year-old man by transit police.

Two days later, the move had civil rights and legal experts questioning the agency's move, and drew backlash from one transit board member who was taken aback by the decision.

"I'm just shocked that they didn't think about the implications of this. We really don't have the right to be this type of censor," said Lynette Sweet, who serves on BART's board of directors. "In my opinion, we've let the actions of a few people affect everybody. And that's not fair."

Similar questions of censorship have arisen in recent days as Britain's government put the idea of curbing social media services on the table in response to several nights of widespread looting and violence in London and other English cities. Police claim that young criminals used Twitter and Blackberry instant messages to coordinate looting sprees in riots.

Prime Minister David Cameron said that the government, spy agencies and the communications industry are looking at whether there should be limits on the use of social media sites like Twitter and Facebook or services like BlackBerry Messenger to spread disorder. The suggestions have met with outrage — with some critics comparing Cameron to the despots ousted during the Arab Spring.

In the San Francisco instance, Sweet said BART board members were told by the agency of its decision during the closed portion of its meeting Thursday afternoon, less than three hours before the protest was scheduled to start.

"It was almost like an afterthought," Sweet told The Associated Press. "This is a land of free speech and for us to think we can do that shows we've grown well beyond the business of what we're supposed to be doing and that's providing transportation. Not censorship."

But there are nuances to consider, including under what conditions, if any, an agency like BART can act to deny the public access to a form of communication — and essentially decide that a perceived threat to public safety trumps free speech.

These situations are largely new ones, of course. A couple of decades ago, during the fax-machine and pay-phone era, the notion of people organizing mass gatherings in real time on wireless devices would have been fantasy.

BART Deputy Police Chief Benson Fairow said the issue boiled down to the public's well-being.

"It wasn't a decision made lightly. This wasn't about free speech. It was about safety," Fairow told KTVU-TV on Friday.

BART spokesman Jim Allison maintained that the cellphone disruptions were legal as the agency owns the property and infrastructure. He added while they didn't need the permission of cellphone carriers to temporarily cut service, they notified them as a courtesy.

The decision was made after agency officials saw details about the protest on an organizer's website. He said the agency had extra staff and officers aboard trains during that time for anybody who wanted to report an emergency, as well as courtesy phones on station platforms.

"I think the entire argument is that some people think it created an unsafe situation is faulty logic," Allison said. "BART had operated for 35 years without cellphone service and no one ever suggested back then that a lack of it made it difficult to report emergencies and we had the same infrastructure in place."

But as in London, BART's tactic drew immediate comparisons to authoritarianism, including acts by the former president of Egypt to squelch protests demanding an end to his rule. Authorities there cut Internet and cellphone services in the country for days earlier this year. He left office shortly thereafter.

"BART officials are showing themselves to be of a mind with the former president of Egypt, Hosni Mubarak," the Electronic Frontier Foundation said on its website. Echoing that comparison, vigorous weekend discussion on Twitter was labeled with the hashtag "muBARTek."

Aaron Caplan, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles who specializes in free-speech issues, was equally critical, saying BART clearly violated the rights of demonstrators and other passengers.

"We can arrest and prosecute people for the crimes they commit," he said. "You are not allowed to shut down people's cellphones and prevent them from speaking because you think they might commit a crime in the future."

Michael Risher, the American Civil Liberty Union's Northern California staff attorney, echoed the sentiment in a blog: "The government shouldn't be in the business of cutting off the free flow of information. Shutting down access to mobile phones is the wrong response to political protests, whether it's halfway around the world or right here in San Francisco."

On Saturday at a station where cell phone service was disrupted, passenger Phil Eager, 44, shared the opinion that BART's approach seemed exaggerated.

"It struck me as pretty strange and kind of extreme," said Eager, a San Francisco attorney. "It's not a First Amendment debate, but rather a civil liberties issue."

Eager said many of his friends riding BART on Thursday were upset with the agency's actions, some even calling it a "police state."

Mark Malmberg, 58, of Orinda, Calif., believes that BART could've used a different approach instead of shutting down cellphone usage.

"Even though it sounds like they wanted to avoid a mob gathering, you can't stop people from expressing themselves," Malmberg said. "I hope those who protest can do so in a civil manner."

The ACLU already has a scheduled meeting with BART's police chief on Monday about other issues and Thursday's incident will added be to the agenda, spokeswoman Rebecca Farmer said.

But others said that while the phone shutdown was worth examining, it may not have impinged on First Amendment rights. Gene Policinski, executive director of the First Amendment Center, a nonprofit educational organization, said freedom of expression can be limited in very narrow circumstances if there is an immediate threat to public safety.

"An agency like BART has to be held to a very high standard," he said. "First of all, it has to be an immediate threat, not just the mere supposition that there might be one. And I think the response has to be what a court would consider reasonable, so it has to be the minimum amount of restraint on free expression."

He said if BART's actions are challenged, a court may look more favorably on what it did if expression was limited on a narrow basis for a specific area and time frame, instead of "just indiscriminately closing down cellphone service throughout the system or for a broad area."

University of Michigan law professor Len Niehoff, who specializes in First Amendment and media law issues, found the BART actions troublesome for a few reasons.

He said the First Amendment generally doesn't allow the government to restrict free speech because somebody might do something illegal or to prohibit conversations based on their subject matter. He said the BART actions have been portrayed as an effort to prevent a protest that would have violated the law, but there was no guarantee that would have happened.

"What it really did is it prevented people from talking, discussing ... and mobilizing in any form, peaceful or unpeaceful, lawful or unlawful," he said. "That is, constitutionally, very problematic."

The government does have the right to break up a demonstration if it forms in an area where protests are prohibited and poses a risk to public safety, Niehoff said. But it should not prohibit free speech to prevent the possibility of a protest happening.

"The idea that we're going to keep people from talking about what they might or might not do, based on the idea that they might all agree to violate the law, is positively Orwellian," he said.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Frisco doesn't have a problem of forcing their ultra lib agenda's down everyone's throat, but it's not ok to use your cell phone there.

[slim 1,530]

As crazy as it sounds.... I'm OK with this.

I know, I know. But, the thing is, this is their property and if they choose to shut it off, so be it. If they were actively jamming signals, I see a problem with it. But, disconnecting service on their infrastructure to thwart a planned protest is well within their right since it's their equipment.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

We are relying more and more on cell phones. I have not had a "land line" since before I went to Ukraine. I cannot think of a need for one, soon everyone will be using cell phones only (remember when we had to add all the area codes to accomodate fax machines and computer dial up modems?)not to mention wi-fi, etc. This makes us vulnerable to the interception of radio signals or the bolcking of transmitting those and do not think that they haven't figured that out.

It is going to be another case of applying outdated laws to modern technology. The scary thing is that our representation SHOULD be thinking ahead on how to protect our rights from modern technology with the proper clauses in law, rather they try to figure ways around our rights. There SHOULD be a number of amendments to furhter clarify what our rights are. Free speech, obviously, should no longer apply to only the town crier and the newspapers.

In case anyone wonders WHY we had the Bill of Rights.

As crazy as it sounds.... I'm OK with this.

I know, I know. But, the thing is, this is their property and if they choose to shut it off, so be it. If they were actively jamming signals, I see a problem with it. But, disconnecting service on their infrastructure to thwart a planned protest is well within their right since it's their equipment.

If it IS private property, yes, you are right. I do not think BART is private property

[Ban Hammer 13,400]

As crazy as it sounds.... I'm OK with this.

I know, I know. But, the thing is, this is their property and if they choose to shut it off, so be it. If they were actively jamming signals, I see a problem with it. But, disconnecting service on their infrastructure to thwart a planned protest is well within their right since it's their equipment.

i'm ok with them turning off the phones just because i hate hearing people carrying on conversations all the time on their phones...

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

After reading this article and seeing the riots on TV over in the UK...I would be very hesitant travelling to either of those places.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I doubt you do much in the way of travel, kip.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

I doubt you do much in the way of travel, kip.

Most of my jobs are fly in only. No roads there.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

I do not consider BART to be a fully public venue. You pay a fare and then you enter into their property. Therefore I think it was fine that they cut off an extra service that they provide, after all the only reason you don't cell service is because you are underground... (and I should point out, the route where the protest was to occur (Embarcadaro to SFO) is not entirely underground anyway.

So anyway, a protected, not entirely public venue can and should cut its personal communications services as needed. That includes train stations, airports etc. The line is crossed when the government begins cutting off telecom that feeds private homes, businesses or open air fully public venues.

[slim 1,530]

There SHOULD be a number of amendments to furhter clarify what our rights are. Free speech, obviously, should no longer apply to only the town crier and the newspapers.

I disagree. I think free speech is free speech regardless of the medium and it's not the medium that needs protected, it's the right to claim free speech in the first place.

When the founders were weighing what to add to the contstution they actually thought about how they'd outlined several specific rights - but not all rights - and how it would be very easy for government to intervene later in cases where "this isn't specifically authorized or prohibited." Because of that, we got the 9th Amendment. The way the constitution is now, government can't prohibit free speech on any medium.

Adding clarification doesn't clarify anything, it clouds it.

If it IS private property, yes, you are right. I do not think BART is private property

Tax-payer funded medium isn't necessarily protected anyway. At the very least, it's not guaranteed, especially for content or delivery. Calling them out for discrimination or limiting access is one thing. Calling them out for temporarily disabling the system in the face of a (possibly violent) protest is quite another.

While I'm not saying the government should ever have the right to control information what I am saying is you can't be upset when government controlled mediums are shut down by government.

[bigdog 376]

Ultra liberal SF, strikes again. What happens when the money runs out?

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Ultra liberal SF, strikes again. What happens when the money runs out?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/18/san-francisco-courtroom-closure_n_902097.html

San Francisco Court Closure: 200 Employees and 25 Courtrooms Gone

SAN FRANCISCO -- The San Francisco Superior Court announced Monday that it's laying off more than 40 percent of its staff and shuttering 25 courtrooms because of budget cuts.

Presiding Judge Katherine Feinstein said the actions were necessary to close a $13.75 million budget deficit caused by state budget cuts. She said the cuts mean it will take many more hours to pay a traffic ticket in person, up to 18 months to finalize a divorce and five years for a lawsuit to go to trial.

"The civil justice system in San Francisco is collapsing," Feinstein said.

Some 200 of the court's 480 workers will be let go by Sept. 30, including 11 of 12 commissioners who preside over a variety of cases. And she said it could get worse if optimistic revenue projections don't materialize by January.

"The future is very, very bleak for our courts," Feinstein said at a Monday press conference. Feinstein said criminal cases would remain largely unaffected because of constitutional guarantees of speedy trials. Every other type of court, though, is facing significant cutbacks.

The San Francisco courts aren't the only courts facing cutbacks, only the most dramatic. The Judicial Council, which manages the judicial branch's budget, will decide Friday whether to cut funding of local courts by 8.8 percent or about $305 million.

Other courts are considering unpaid furloughs for workers, shorter hours for clerks and other cost-cutting measures. None are going as far as San Francisco, but the budget woes have caused discord within the judiciary.

The Alliance of California Judges was formed almost three years ago by judges unhappy with the Judicial Council's fiscal management. In particular, the Alliance is demanding administrators scrap plans for a new computer system projected to cost $2 billion to fully install state wide.

Instead, court administrators are proposing delaying the project for a year, which would save $100 million.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Most of my jobs are fly in only. No roads there.

So you say

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

So you say

Shouldn't you be tossing a rock through a window about now?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Not really kip, but now it's clear why you posted all those articles about the riots.

You do try very hard but you always seem to fail to get under anyone's skin.