[PLUG-TALK] BART telephone censorship

[Keith Lofstrom]

> On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 10:26 AM, Keith Lofstrom <keithl at kl-ic.com> wrote:
> > http://spectrum.ieee.org/podcast/telecom/wireless/peaceful-protests-trigger-cellular-shutdowns/
> > http://tinyurl.com/3osdce5
> >
> > Cairo-style censorship does happen here.  The EFF is fighting it.

On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 07:11:59PM -0700, Denis Heidtmann wrote:
> I believe that the reporter exaggerated: "We’ve been speaking with
> Electronic Frontier Foundation activist Eva Galperin about the new police
> tactic of shutting down phone and Internet networks during civil
> demonstrations and protests. For *IEEE Spectrum*’s “Techwise Conversations,”
> I’m Steven Cherry."  Were internet networks shut down? 

Unpowering the phone repeaters does exactly that.  


> This type of action
> could become a free-speech issue, but I question the assertion that it was
> in this case.  I also question the assertion that if a demonstration had
> taken place the ridership would have been safer with cell phone access.

The hypothetical demonstrations were protesting police KILLING 
people at the BART stations.  Perhaps the people killed deserved
it.  Perhaps you or I deserve killing also, by some reckonings.
But if we don't have the right to protest government killings,
what rights do we have?

The demonstrations did not happen, but shutting down the phone
repeaters did.  If the police are now in charge of deciding
when we can communicate, perhaps they are also in charge of
when we can vote.


> I think there is an argument to be made that a reasonable person, trying to
> balance the rendering of a public service v.s. the rights of other members
> of the public might make the same choice that BART did.

Observed microscopically, there is nothing reasonable about free
speech.  The people speaking say things I disagree with, things
that upset me, things that make my fellow citizens holler and get
angry and disturb the peace and interfere with business as usual.
It is scary as hell.  If the purpose of our government is to keep
the citizenry docile little consumer worker bees, then by all
means seek "balance" and "safety".  That is, after all, what
Mubarak was after.  

But that is not why we have a government.  The Declaration and
the Constitution describe the government's purpose and powers. 
More specifically, they define the limits that free people put
on their government, no matter how inconvenient those limits
are.  When the government exceeds those limits, it is our
duty as citizens to change, or if necessary, abolish our own
government.  If we do not do so, there is little difference
between the US and Egypt under Mubarak or Libya under Ghadafi.  

Hopefully, it doesn't come to that.  If some of our fellow
citizens are angry, it is our job to join them and help them
express themselves as peaceably as possible.  If the police
cut off their communication, they cut off ours, also.  If we
assume that communication between citizens can only be used
to escalate conflict, rather than find peaceful solutions,
then we are assuming that democracy is fundamentally unsound,
and that the dictators and their supporters are correct.

The EFF is not attacking the police with weapons - they are
taking them to court.  The court may decide that the police
were right and the EFF and the (citizens they presume to
speak for) are wrong.  But I hope the court will decide for
the EFF.  Either way, it is the courts and the legislature
that makes these decisions, not the police, and that is 
what is at issue here.  Shutting down public communications
is not a power constitutionally or legislatively vested
with the police.

Never, ever, ever, let fear of a ruckus get in the way of
the disruptive but essential work of protecting freedom,
and the free speech we the people use to do so.

Keith

-- 
Keith Lofstrom          keithl at keithl.com         Voice (503)-520-1993
KLIC --- Keith Lofstrom Integrated Circuits --- "Your Ideas in Silicon"
Design Contracting in Bipolar and CMOS - Analog, Digital, and Scan ICs