FCC Wonders When It's Ok to Disrupt Wireless BART Incident Gets Regulatory Attention Last summer, managers of San Francisco's Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) subway system thought it would be a good idea to cut off wireless communications in four stations to prevent residents (who were protesting a fatal shooting by a BART officer) from coordinating their protest actions. While the folks at BART probably thought they were doing the right thing, it was fairly clear they were either oblivious to the civil rights impact of shutting down communications at the faintest whiff of unrest -- or they simply didn't care. The FCC has since started taking a look at when it's ok to disrupt wireless communications (invasion by aliens with wireless mind control capabilities?), and when it's not. To that end they've issued a public notice (pdf) exploring whether the FCC should get involved in such a decision making process, offering legal advice or other insight to communities facing these questions. "Any intentional interruption of wireless service, no matter how brief or localized, raises significant concerns and implicates substantial legal and policy questions," said the FCC in the notice. "The service interruption last summer drew sharp criticism, and state and local governments have recently grappled with how to address possible future events. We are concerned that there has been insufficient discussion, analysis and consideration of the questions raised by intentional interruptions of wireless service by government authorities." BART, who initially stated that the First Amendment doesn't apply to riders of the transit system, implemented new rules (pdf) after the controversy that still allow the organization to shut down networks under a fairly vague list of potential public safety hazards -- which still technically include organized protests. Consumer Groups wanted government to go further and declare that it was not ok for local governments to decide to disrupt communications networks -- again except in case of alien invasion.
|
  MikePremium,Mod
join:2000-09-17
Pittsburgh, PA
kudos:1 | Except.. BART is getting Federal Funds.
Congrats, federal law now (still) applies to you.
That took about 4 seconds of google to figure out. | |
|  |  Simba7I Void Warranties
join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT | Re: Except.. This coming from a city that looking at someone the wrong way can cause cancer.
Looks like BART will have to start following the Federal rules and not just their own. | |
|
 LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5
1 edit |  What types of info the FCC is looking for
“Our democracy, our society, and our safety all require communications networks that are available and
open. Any interruption of wireless services raises serious legal and policy issues, and must meet a very
high bar. The FCC, as the agency with oversight of our communications networks, is committed to
preserving their availability and openness, and to harnessing communications technologies to protect the
public.”
Below are the general question categories. Each is then broken down in to more details in the FCC PDF.
1. Past practices and precedents. As noted above, last summer a public agency cited public safety
concerns as a reason for temporarily interrupting wireless service on certain portions of a mass
transit system. What are examples of previous intentional interruptions of wireless service for
public safety reasons, and what policies or rationales have public agencies developed that support
or provide guidance on such interruptions?
2. Bases for interrupting wireless service. Under what circumstances, if any, is it appropriate for
a public agency to interrupt wireless service? How effective is an interruption likely to be in
achieving the purpose of the interruption?
3. Risks in interrupting wireless service. What are the risks of an interruption of wireless service?
What factors affect those risks?
4. Scope of interruption. We seek comment regarding the scope of service interruptions.
5. Authority to interrupt service. Which public institutions, agencies, or officials have or should
have the authority to request an of interruption wireless service? What process should officials
with such authority use to effectuate an interruption?
6. Legal constraints on interrupting wireless service. Many laws—local, state, federal,
constitutional—could prohibit or constrain the ability to interrupt wireless service. The legality
of an interruption could depend upon particular circumstances, such as the reason for the
interruption, its duration, its geographic scope, or how the interruption is accomplished. What are
the laws or regulations that affect the legality of an interruption, and what are the circumstances
that are likely to render an interruption permissible or impermissible?
So far there are(at the time of this post) 43 comments filed:
»apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/proceeding/view?name=12-52
--
The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, I'm from the government and I'm here to help.
»www.politico.com/2012-election/
| |
| | LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5
1 edit | Re: What types of info the FCC is looking for The FCC is leaning to allowing law enforcement to retain some local control over shutting off or jamming cell signals when required. The issue will be who gets to make those decisions locally and how much permission they need before acting.
»arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news···ment.ars
quote:
FCC's public notice also states that law enforcement personnel have raised concerns that, "wireless service could be used to trigger the detonation of an explosive device or to organize the activities of a violent flash mob," suggesting local government authorities like BART should be allowed to retain some autonomy over service in its stations.
Despite Karl's mocking example of alien mind control, there are no doubt limited legitimate reasons to jam cell signals on a local basis. The FCC should, thru this comment process, seek to identify what those are and who gets to make those calls on the ground in emergency situations.
--
The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, I'm from the government and I'm here to help.
»www.politico.com/2012-election/
| |
| | |  sivranOpera convertPremium
join:2003-09-15
Arlington, TX
kudos:1 | Re: What types of info the FCC is looking for Also forgot where it's most needed: on the damned roads! Hang up and drive!  | |
| | |  N3OGHYo Soy Col. "Bat" GuanoPremium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
kudos:1 | Having worked with Federal, State, & local law enforcement agencies in the course of my career, I would say no one at the "local" level should have this authority. Before you know it, the Mayor is having the police Commissioner (or Chief) jam wireless signals during public meetings to keep people "safe". Just too much opportunity for politics to get involved.
Perhaps a state agency, like the State Police, and only by executive order of the Governor. Just as it takes an executive order of a Governor to shut down a stretch of Interstate highway (I know emergency crews do this on occasion for crashes, but a planned shut down does require an executive order). With MANDATORY public reporting back to DHS or the FBI.
My personal opinion is the only reason any government agency should be allowed to disrupt wireless communications is a potential mass casualty incident on the level of 9/11 or the London Subway bombings. Anything less is just for convenience, and a violation of the free speech principles this country was founded on.
--
Petty people are disproportionally corrupted by petty power | |
| | | Reviews:
 ·Frontier Communi..
| said by Linklist:The FCC should, thru this comment process, seek to identify what those are and who gets to make those calls on the ground in emergency situations. How about we don't give any Governmental agency the ability to shut down critical infrastructure absent a process that provides checks and balances while ensuring that civil liberties are respected? If they can go to the courts to wiretap my phone they can go to the courts before they shut down communications systems relied upon by tens of thousands of American citizens. | |
| | | | LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | Re: What types of info the FCC is looking for said by Crookshanks:said by Linklist:The FCC should, thru this comment process, seek to identify what those are and who gets to make those calls on the ground in emergency situations. How about we don't give any Governmental agency the ability to shut down critical infrastructure absent a process that provides checks and balances while ensuring that civil liberties are respected? If they can go to the courts to wiretap my phone they can go to the courts before they shut down communications systems relied upon by tens of thousands of American citizens. How about if a police dept bomb squad finds a bomb set with a cellphone trigger? So you think they should have to wait to get court approval to jam cell signals in a 4 block area around the bomb before jamming cell phones in that area. Get serious!!
--
The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, I'm from the government and I'm here to help.
»www.politico.com/2012-election/
| |
| | | | |  Ebolla
join:2005-09-28
Dracut, MA | Re: What types of info the FCC is looking for said by Linklist:How about if a police dept bomb squad finds a bomb set with a cellphone trigger? So you think they should have to wait to get court approval to jam cell signals in a 4 block area around the bomb before jamming cell phones in that area. Get serious!!
That would be concidered an emergency situation which would be understandable. Shutting it down for things like parades, town meetings ect. should be run through a court or similar process. | |
| | | | | | LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | Re: What types of info the FCC is looking for said by Ebolla:said by Linklist:How about if a police dept bomb squad finds a bomb set with a cellphone trigger? So you think they should have to wait to get court approval to jam cell signals in a 4 block area around the bomb before jamming cell phones in that area. Get serious!!
That would be concidered an emergency situation which would be understandable. Shutting it down for things like parades, town meetings ect. should be run through a court or similar process. I agree and that is the whole purpose of this FCC rule making process - to identify those conditions where and how jamming could be done.
--
The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, I'm from the government and I'm here to help.
»www.politico.com/2012-election/
| |
| | | | | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: What types of info the FCC is looking for You know.. a lot of this could be resolved and a lot of this civil unrest COULD be avoided with out having to add more police state in the mix.
If anyone denies that government is getting more and more corrupt, or that more and more of the trail of corruption is just getting exposed more and more, the people are responding in kind.
I don't agree with unruly protest, but the government is responding to the lower classes with more force and the only tools that some people have is violence. (I still don't agree with violence) However, violence isn't something I frown upon either,... we go to wars all the time when people can't be heard or persuade others to settle. Be it on a head-of-state scale, or at the scale of the people, violence is still violence.
I believe rules of 'communication' have already been defined.. this need to seek comment is a bunch of smoke and mirrors and distraction. The same rules that apply to wire-line service should apply equally to wireless as communication is communication.
But still, there IS a reason why people are upset.. only only has to look back to where we ended up, ultimately, in 2008.. and some people haven't forgotten the trail of corruption and favor that lead up to it.
We've had civil unrest for decades and more in this world.. so why all the sudden is it that every time there is an outbreak we have to "do something about it"... maybe we need to look at why we're where we are at today... and yes, I'll be absolute, there is way too much corruption in government and things LIKE "communication" among the people have helped to expose the crooks for who they are... now people are upset and fighting back and they don't like it.. | |
|
| | | | Reviews:
·Frontier Communi..
| said by Linklist:How about if a police dept bomb squad finds a bomb set with a cellphone trigger? So you think they should have to wait to get court approval to jam cell signals in a 4 block area around the bomb before jamming cell phones in that area. Get serious!!
Don't play the "what if" terrorism card with me. The police know the bomb is triggered by cellphone but can't successfully defuse it without shutting down communications for thousands of people?
For what matter, how do they know it doesn't have a dead man switch that will trigger the bomb if communications are cut?
See, I can play the "what if" game too. It's pointless though. Civil liberties > security against imagined terrorist threats. | |
|
| | | | see hr347.i'm sure it's just an unrelated coincidence. | |
| | | | LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | Re: What types of info the FCC is looking for said by glyder :see hr347.i'm sure it's just an unrelated coincidence.
And what does this bill »www.govtrack.us/congress/billtex···h112-347 have to do with cellphone jamming? | |
|
| | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | said by Linklist:The FCC is leaning to allowing law enforcement to retain some local control over shutting off or jamming cell signals when required. The issue will be who gets to make those decisions locally and how much permission they need before acting.
Terrorists will just use Walmart FRS/GMRS walkie talkies. Nobody bothers getting GMRS licenses anyway. Time bombs or air pressure bombs are almost as good as cellphone bombs. The only advantage of cellphone bombs is, if your a criminal mastermind, to put a couple dozen bombs randomly through out a city, then make a phone call to city hall from a pay phone that you will blow one bomb up remotely every hour until your demands are met. See Hank Scorpio. »www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl···c#t=159s But if you have the skills to put dozens of bombs throughout a metro area, you have the skills to use non-cellphone communications systems (crypto authenticated FHSS in Industrial/Business Band), so only a mom's basement jihadist would use a cellphone bomb, but he would get caught since he called the FBI asking where to buy dynamite first *facepalm*
Next question, do cops/paramedics/firefighters use or carry govt issued commercial cellphones, Nextels or an 800 mhz band provider?
Do non-uniformed bureaucrats of these agencies carry govt issued commercial cellphones?
Will terrorists carry cellphone frequency jammers or first responder PTT frequency jammers?
Do first responder vehicle laptops use commercial cellphone networks?
Do federal first responders use commercial cellphone networks (FBI, FEMA, NTSB, etc)?
Do NGOs use commercial cellphone networks (Red Cross, dunno who else)?
I wont repeat the civilians calling 911 over mobile phones since no pay phones exist anymore logic.
US Military already jams or locally spoof GPS in Iraq/Afghanistan during missions instead relying on Military GPS (random google link »gizmodo.com/5811805/the-importan···iraq-war ). Remember Iran got themselves a drone plane using GPS spoofing. Googling iran and jamming also says iran jams bluetooth/2.4 ghz band when dealing with civlian protests.
Israel routinely shuts off cellphone networks in Israel when doing law enforcement/military operations »www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinio···957.html .
And why is there controversy over BART's shut off, yet none over the PA's many years ago »www.nowpublic.com/nyc_river_tunn···oday_com
My opinion is, its a slippery slope, with lots of collateral damage. One day its a terrorist, next day they shut off the cell network because they are going to SWAT raid a crack house. Next they shut off the cell network because the cops set up a DUI check point on the interstate. All legitimate uses for "public safety".
If shutting off the cell network becomes standard procedure, whats next, shutting off the power grid seconds before doing a SWAT raid of a apartment complex? »www.youtube.com/watch?v=nz8hGELf···youtu.be | |
|
b10010011Whats a Posting tag?
join:2004-09-07
Bellingham, WA
1 edit | How did liberty survive without cellular phones? Amazing how the civil rights and anti-war protest of the 60's managed to happen without cellular phones.  | |
| |  Anonymous_AnonymousPremium
join:2004-06-21
127.0.0.1
kudos:2
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: How did liberty survive without cellular phones? said by b10010011:Amazing how the civil rights and anti-war protest of the 60 managed to happen without cellular phones.
short wave radio. Still the same concept | |
| | | | How did the government survive without signal jamming? | |
| | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | Re: How did liberty survive without cellular phones? White vans and the FBI. | |
|
 ctceoPremium
join:2001-04-26
South Bend, IN | Also This would also mean that Churches, Stores & Theaters would have to allow it as well!
Take your pick. | |
| |  vpokoPremium
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA | Re: Also Not sure I follow why that's true. | |
| | | ctceoPremium
join:2001-04-26
South Bend, IN | Re: Also If Metro Railways can't interrupt cell signals or wireless, then theaters, churches and stores also should not be able to block them with jammers. | |
| | | | vpokoPremium
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA | Re: Also I don't know about that. Just because the police can enter your home with a warrant doesn't mean that a private entity can apply for the warrant. In any case, Metro Railways isn't jamming (meaning putting out an interfering signal), they're shutting off the transmitter.
Now, I don't think they should be allowed to shut off the transmitter without a court order except under exigent circumstances, but I don't see the slippery slope you're proposing. | |
| | | | | ctceoPremium
join:2001-04-26
South Bend, IN Reviews:
 ·magicjack.com
 ·AT&T U-Verse
1 edit | Re: Also Just FYI, police effectively don't have to have a warrant anymore. Wasn't sure if you got that memo.
If the FCC manages to push for a law, and get one in place, it should specify if, where, when and by who communications can be prevented, jammed, disconnected or whatnot.
It's getting pretty bad here in the US, so nothing is really surprising me now. First Barry Suspends Habeas Corpus with the NDAA in Dec 2011 adding with his signature that his approval of this law doesn't mean he agrees with it, then the house passes H.R. 347, which effectively neuters the right to assemble.
Whats next? | |
|
| | Dangerous Let's say I am an innocent bystander in a violent protest, how am I supposed to call 911 to say I've been injured? How am I supposed to get help? I think shutting of wireless service intentionally should be illegal anywhere. | |
| | |  When is it OK?
The ONLY ABSOLUTE ONLY time would be for deterace of remote detontation devices, and only UNDER:
1) COURT APPROVAL by a TECHNICALLY KNOWLEDGABLE FEDERAL judge, ie: BSEE or MSEE AND law degree. With the order specifically outlining a location, distance, power limits, frequency(s)/band(s), and the start and end time which would be statutorly limited to 6 hour blocks, with NO auto renewals, and appearance before a judge in person for issuance and re-approval of each 6 hour block. After 4 approvals (initial and 3 re-approval's or 24 hours of use) you would have to appear before a tribunal of similar qualifed judges to show cause to continue this practice.
Yes I am being onerous and troublesome to get and continue to use.
2) Limited range. Power limits, antenna gain limits, height limits of any towers used. All specifically outlined in the court order.
3) Filed in the federal district of where you want to do this. No cherry picking weak districts.
So basically this will never happen, since 1 disqualifies 99.99999999999999999999999999999999% of judges see in re (patent troll district of East TX). | |
|
| |
|
|
