Following an investigation into a public transit authority that cut off mobile phone service amid a protest earlier this year, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) said recently that it would attempt to outline the circumstances under which officials may legally disrupt wireless communications in the U.S.
In a release last week (PDF), FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski noted that his staff had been investigating the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) authority’s preemptive disconnection of mobile phone towers in their subway system: an action that stymied a demonstration which aimed to shut down one of the train platforms as a protest of police brutality.
A similar tactic was attempted by Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak ahead of an angry revolutionary tide that toppled his government early this year. The order to cut off the entire country’s access to the Internet and mobile networks — which was carried out by Mubarak’s corporate partners in the West — was ultimately a tipping point that drove even more people into the streets.
Facing a media backlash against the disruption of cellular service in August, BART spokesman Linton Johnson blamed protesters for creating an unsafe situation. He argued that BART administrators committed to the action, which was not outlined by policy, in order to preserve public safety.
The FCC’s guidance was issued just before BART took a vote on a new policy (PDF) thatapproves disconnections, but limits interruptions to “extraordinary circumstances” like the threat of a bomb with a cellular detonator, or if officials have evidence of “imminent” criminal activity.
The new policy also specifically recognizes that “any interruption of cellular service poses serious risks to public safety and that available open communications networks are critical to our economy and democracy.”
Read the rest at Raw Story
By Stephen C. Webster
8 comments:
If you go off the grid (or the grid goes off), walkie-talkies come in handy.
http://www.radioshack.com/family/index.jsp?categoryId=2032071
I don't think this is a good idea. I mean mobile phones have been an essential for some people.
Basic rights have become privileges when using new forms, such as electronics. Communication can be monitored without warrant because you are using new technology such as cell phones or internet.
Your finances are subject to warrantless monitoring when you use electronic bank reserves.
Your travel is subject to monitoring with GPS. You obviously can't get on a plane without a full background check and a body search.
Anything invented after 1900 is viewed as a privilege where as technology from before 1900 is a right. Those wily libertarians are out to destroy the world with their gold standards, isn't that the current populist democrat rhetoric?
Ok - maybe I'm spending too much time reading this stuff. Is it me or if viewed in the entirety, do the cumulative actions of the establishment reflect a very concerned state? Just off the top of my head we have:
1. Military type actions against fairly small and peaceful protesters.
2. Civil rights being ignored by the police on a fairly broad scale. Not just protesters - read a story about "random" police stops in WI, and you now need a passport to get in or out of AL.
3. Impediments to voting at the state level that are unprecedented in my lifetime.
4. Laws being passed that further limit individual freedoms and redress.
5. A government that freely admits infiltrating blogs, social media, and the media to manipulate discussions and opinions. Just another control tool for the Ministry of Truth.
6. An out of control, and unaccountable Fed, backstopping, loaning and guaranteeing trillions at their own discretion.
When I start adding this stuff up, I feel like a conspiracy theorist.
Not the best moment in the nations history for liberty, Joe. Tom has done a really good job pulling together some pretty grim data lately.
If the economy recovers, few will be concerned by these measures. If not, these measures will be used to keep a lid on dissent.
@ Joe,
When I start adding this stuff up, I feel like a conspiracy theorist.
Me too.
But I saw this scenario develop back in the Vietnam years, another war of choice, BTW. At that time, I was enough on the inside to actually know a lot about what was going on. It was bizarre, and really only came to light through credible overreach and stupidity, and a judicial system that still worked.
@ Laura
If the economy recovers, few will be concerned by these measures. If not, these measures will be used to keep a lid on dissent.
Yes, but if the situation doesn't change, then those measures, some laws and some extra-legal, will still be in place, ready for the next iteration of the ongoing neoliberal crisis.
Post a Comment