(MintPress) – The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is inquiring into new standards of deliberate cellular signal disruption after transit police in San Francisco temporarily cut cell-phone service in 2011 to quell the effects of potential protests in the area. The elimination of cellular service resulted in people not being able to call 9-1-1 in the instance of an emergency – a startling revelation as 70 percent of 9-1-1 calls come from cell phones.
The FCC has opened a comment window until April 30 to seek input on how to regulate such instances in the future. The commission is looking into whether general cellular service could be disabled, yet allow for the cell phone to maintain the capacity to dial out to emergency services.
“Any interruption of wireless services raises serious legal and policy issues, and must meet a very high bar,” FCC Chairman Julius Genachowsk told Reuters.
San Francisco: August, 2011
The Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Police Department caught wind of a growing protest movement in August 2011 after a BART police officer fatally shot a man. The protests were being organized by cell phones and text messages and were slated to take place in area BART stations. BART cut cellular service because it believed the demonstrations would put the public at risk.
In early July of 2011, BART shot and killed an alleged transient named Charles Blair Hill, after an altercation. Hill was allegedly drunk on the platform of San Francisco’s Civic Center Station when he was approached by police. Reports say Hill threw a bottle of vodka at police, and then brandished a knife. Hill was shot on the platform in plain sight of others.
Critics said the BART officers used an excessive amount of force, noting a Taser would have subdued Hill for a traditional arrest to be made. Attorney Harry Stern told the San Francisco Chronicle the officers acted within their means and took appropriate actions.
“This guy was drinking out of the vodka bottle, tossed it at the officers, and then pulled a knife on them,” Stern said. “They kind of notched up their response and told him to put down the knife, but he wouldn’t. They had a totally appropriate response.”
As the story developed, so did the organization of protests and demonstrations. Initial protests in mid-July resulted in no arrests, but a spokesman for BART said the initial protests caused delays at the stations and there would be “zero tolerance” for any further demonstrations. Spokesman Linton Johnson called the protesters “fringe groups.”
The group identified themselves as “No Justice, No BART” – a movement that began in 2009 after BART fatally shot an unarmed man. The group has since then pushed to disband BART.
By August, the protests against the shooting of Hill were still going strong. On August 11, 2011, BART cut cell phone service to counter any more organized protests, noting that cell phones played a primary role in the demonstrations communications.
On August 12, 2011, BART issued a statement explaining its purpose and justification for cutting cellular service: “A civil disturbance during commute times at busy downtown San Francisco stations could lead to platform overcrowding and unsafe conditions for BART customers, employees and demonstrators. BART temporarily interrupted service at select BART stations as one of many tactics to ensure the safety of everyone on the platform. … No person shall conduct or participate in assemblies or demonstrations or engage in other expressive activities in the paid areas of BART stations, including BART cars and trains and BART station platforms.”
Legalities
Harold Feld, legal director at the public interest group Public Knowledge, said the idea was counterintuitive to the first amendment for BART to implement.
“The same wireless network that police see as a tool for rioters to coordinate is the same wireless network used by peaceful protesters to exercise our fundamental freedoms,” Feld told Reuters.
The FCC says there has been “insufficient” discussion about the incident and the legalities surrounding it.
TechFreedom, a technology think tank, has accused BART of violating the first amendment and says they may be liable for more. Network carriers could possibly take action against BART for breeching a contract to carry cellular signals at all times. Cell phone carriers potentially lost out on money from the move as costly data was not being transmitted to or from cell phones in the selected BART stations.
However, TechFreedom said the FCC will likely not find anything that currently goes against it policies. The think tank said the incident should be ruled on by the courts, and not a communications commission.
“BART simply turned off equipment it doesn’t own – a likely violation of its contractual obligations to the carriers. But BART did nothing that violated FCC rules governing network operators,” the group told Reuters.
Cellular jamming, the technical term for cutting out signals to cell phones, has already taken root against demonstrations around the world. In Egypt, mobile phone service was cut in Cairo to halt communication from demonstrators who were actively against the government.
A similar event occurred in Bahrain during the height of soldiers’ and riot police deadly attacks against protesters. Mobile phone networks were cut during the attacks to prevent demonstrators from communicating the attacks to others they knew.
The following are questions posed by the FCC that are open for comment:
- 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.
- 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?
- What are the risks of an interruption of wireless service? What factors affect those risks?
- 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?
- 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?