Can the government block cellular in the interests of public safety? A recent situation in San Francisco asks one of the most important questions ever.
I’ve been on the road the past two weeks – Washington, Denver, and, most recently San Francisco. While in SF, the news outlets were ablaze with a developing story on how Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART), the area’s high-speed metro rail service, turned off cellular service underground last Thursday when word of an organized protest (as in what we saw recently in the Middle East) recently spread. Citing a threat to public safety, BART chose to disable cellular service to keep any protesters from communicating via wireless at least while underground. I personally found this amazing, and a member of BART’s Board of Directors even admitted that “This is one where we can almost say we’re stuck on stupid… We put ourselves on the radar screen for no good reason. This is a country that champions civil liberties all the time. So why would a transit agency take it upon themselves to trample on civil liberties?” And, as might be expected, the FCC is looking into the matter as well.
A number of questions arise here. Can a government agency indeed take such an action under any circumstances? This seems to be a clear First-Amendment case, so I’d imagine not. On the other hand, as the saying goes, freedom of speech does not give one the right to cry “fire” in a crowded theater (unless such a fire is indeed present) – or, in other words, to cause a civil disturbance for reasons other than a genuine emergency. So, does a suspicion of a lack of civic responsibility on the part of the public give the government the right to shut of the public’s telephones?
Again, I would think not, but I’m not a lawyer, and I heard good arguments from both sides, if you count both sides as a lawyer who said the law wasn’t clear, and a guy in a Guy Fawkes mask (a la V for Vendetta, a great film regardless, who, well, you can guess what he said. But, just suppose, that a passenger had a genuine emergency during the blockage. What then? Suppose someone was trying to reach a loved one dying in a hospital during that time? Suppose anything – is it right for the government, or anyone else for that matter, to disrupt the lives of others to make a point? Is the government no better than those they seek to protect us from? Who’s actually being protected here, anyway?
As you can see, this is a huge question that overlaps public discourse far beyond wireless. As one who favors obvious civil liberties over any government’s interpretation of the same, the answer for me, anyway, is, well, obvious. When our government(s) start acting like those middle-eastern dictators, something needs to be done. And the argument becomes circular.
Oh, and in response to BART’s actions, their Web site was hacked and customer information released. Two things come to mind here: First, yet more governmental incompetence protecting the rights of citizens. And more outrageous behavior on the part of the hacker community only serves to enable the fascists to make their argument with at least some credibility. It’s time for both parties to clear up their act. Just my $.02.
