It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Cellphones blocked in SF to hinder transit protest

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 09:58 AM
Why not just Text at the top of stairs at the Bart stations? Text before you go down the stairs and then mobilize? Duh?

They won't shut down the whole city communication systems... Or will they?

posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 10:04 AM

Originally posted by zooplancton
this is an outrage. what if a member of someone's family needed medical attention and was trying to reach someone in that block out zone. total BS... [color=FFFF00]especially in such a progressive city.
how is that even legal?

progressive city ?

that's what everybody used to say about the old Soviet Union and the Commie block !

boy did they have people fooled !!!

it's only "progressive" as long as the "right people" get rich ... not YOU and everybody else ...!!!!

posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 10:15 AM
reply to post by niceguybob

Why would you want to mobilize and protest in a subway? It is too dangerous to do such a thing.

Also, BART of a public facility that is run by the gov. and is not private property. Source
edit on 8/13/2011 by mustangill because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 10:32 AM
This is a good idea...look for it to be used elsewhere in the future....a lot

posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 10:52 AM
China could pop a submarine up 30 miles off the coast and launch a small remote control plane controlled with a cellphone.

They could then fly in over San Francisco or anywhere's in California to do some spying. Maybe even release weapons.

Cell Phones enabled cheap warfare on America. San Francisco turning off the towers was likely...something California should get used to seeing happen.

posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 11:08 AM
Oh oh, it seems BART officials have upset the Anonymous...

posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 11:28 AM
A public protest (spontaneous or otherwise) is a form of speech, protected constitutionally, unless the authorities had reasonable evidence which could be expressed to a judge to prohibit it, they lack the power to 'decide' to cripple public communication systems upon which at least tens of thousands rely. There is a jurisdictional matter of state and local ordinances, in which excessively pandering city councils and boards often 'grant' such authority to the militancy under exigent circumstances, like a riot, gang war, or disaster (It is usually a "political" mistake to resist or question "business as usual")

I understand the outrage evoked by such an act, however, to have overlooked this as a likely development in the posturing between an increasingly authoritarian state, and her increasingly disaffected people seems naive on the part of the protest organizers. Assuming the forms of civil redress were obeyed, the protest wasn't a surprise which could have misinterpreted as a threat to "security."

For one thing, the police, and establishment political appointees, will seemingly always choose to identify public dissent and political or social unrest as opportunities for malfeasance. It might be justifiably erring on the side of caution, from a certain perspective. However, let's not pretend we don't know of increasing occurrences where such gatherings took place and the 'threat' was actually the official act of agent provocateurs, or 'taunting' by contracted uniformed police contractors.

The situation was clearly one of a desire to make a statement and the authorities (knowing in advance) refusing them their right (by removing the ability) to do so. Of course, some judge may have been just as inclined to carry the establishment's will over in to action anyway; one can never be guaranteed that a Justice is in anyway obliged to see the symbolic relevance of his title.

Sadly, in such cases where the subject of the protest has the 'presumed' authority, access, and means to eliminate dissent against themselves, the only avenue of redress is another authority... which is closely aligned with and traditionally supportive of the object of the protest.

Is it an wonder people get agitated? If you listen to their press it would seem so. If we speak with each other, explain ourselves, and share our thoughts and experiences, the control model is threatened.

I would be remiss in not pointing out the 'tin-foil hat' potential of this as well.....

Recently we have seen (or have been told by the main stream media, at least) that people have been engaging in riots, violent upheavals, gang activities (which is the label the previously amusing and fun "flash mobs" are now universally given.) All over the world the application of mass real time person to person communication tools have reaffirmed the existing power behind popular will. From Bahrain to the United Kingdom we have seen that when people begin to commune with one another, the standing establishments are challenged to be the 'servants' they were supposed to be, as opposed to the 'masters' they have become (or at least that they would assume themselves to be.)

Has anyone considered that this technique may be 'controlled,' 'instigated,' 'studied,' or even 'applied?'

Rest assured, even if you are disinclined to believe it; it remains a troubling possibility.

What happens if some cabal of the military industrial complex, some enterprise of the 'branding' behind the NWO, or even some petty manipulative 'revenge' scenario is playing out - using our (ostensible) sovereign communications as a 'tool?' If you think that hasn't occurred previously, you should ask around... it has.

footnote: I do not envy the foot soldiers of their power. For they are obliged to carry out the plans of their leaders, whether or not they consent is irrelevant. They may believe the same lies and misinformation they foist upon the press puppeteers.

In either case, I agree the action was worse than wrong... but I wonder if it will even get legal "legs".... only the BAR controls that.

posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 12:33 PM
This is outrageous. B.A.R.T. cut cell phone service. What if someone needed to call 911?

A girl was arrested for what she typed. What if she was only asking her friends to come and peacefully watch the riots?

The BBC and U.K. politicians are actively talking about suppressing social networks and imposing martial law.

We're losing our freedom of speech, our freedom to assemble peacefully, our freedom of the press, and


posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 01:01 PM
I was reminded of the Supreme Court decision to "defend" our right to free speech by allowing unlimited contributions by corporations, as money = speech. How far astray we have come when a common man's speech, using technology, is taken away to prevent assembly. IMHO the steep of the decline is increasing.

posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 01:03 PM
I think that if and when, deliberately or naturaly, everybody loses cell phone service there will be utter panic. People just can't function without them.
I like my phone, but I can't wait for it not to exist anymore. If we all protest, we will lose all that lovely technology. Err, we will still have the technology, but they will be paperweights.

People are the most isolated social creatures.

I know this is just a taste.

Protesting anything in major cities will be a thing of the past pretty soon, not because of governmental oppression, but because people think they need cellphones to organize.
edit on 13-8-2011 by Bobaganoosh because: grammma

posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 01:08 PM
reply to post by zooplancton

On the contrary, I expect to hear things like this coming from such a 'progressive' city.

posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 01:26 PM
I wrote this in the other thread, but I feel it bears repeating.

"This is exactly the same argument TSA uses. It's all for safety.
Just ignore the fat sweaty guy pawing your wife in the security line.
It's all for safety."

posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 02:54 PM

Originally posted by WildWorld
It's scary how many people in the comments section of that article are agreeing with what BART did.

If Cellphone towers were added so that service could be used in those tunnels, I think who ever owns those towers and pays for and maintains them has every right to decide who when and what their towers are used for. The towers were probably added by the transit system and if they feel a protest could turn violent and become a danger to customers or staff or even hinder regular service in some way , why shouldn't they have the right to turn them off. Don't they have a right to operate their business or public service in a safe environment ? You're looking at this as Big Brother controlling the masses rather than protecting them.

posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 02:55 PM
I just came across this info last night & was looking for mention of it here @ ATS before I started a seperate thread. The motives of the protesters may have been what they considered the wrongful killing of an individual. The motives of the authorities was to maintain control through subjucation. We saw the same thing happen in the middle east. It sounded very wrong to our press, & us, when it was there. Here the MSM did report it in a very dumbed down way. I wonder if the great "they" know killing cell phones & such things are adding fuel to the fire of the building frustration in this country? Or, perhaps, it was a dry run to measure response? Or maybe they just don't care?

posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 04:23 PM
Okay as someone who takes BART to and from work every single day let me clarify some things. 1. BART did not shut down "Cell Phone Service" they only turned off their relays that are IN the BART station and on the trains. These are the relays that they provide to riders as a courtesy. 2. GOOD for BART!!! Have you ever been on a crowded subway at 5:00pm that got shut down by some idiot jumping on the track? I have and it sucks, the trains get hot, and you are delayed for an hour. I totally believe in the right to protest but dont infringe upon my right to move freely.

Does anyone on here research these things before they post? I am starting to think not......

posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 04:47 PM
I just saw this story while searching the news. I was shocked. NOT the Feds...not the state...but a stinking city government shutting down cell towers! WOW! I would like to know if a judge was consulted for some type of warrant. A citizen pays for cell service, a private business, regulated by the FCC and a stinking city government has the power to take that away? We are losing it people,, freedom that is...losing it. So at what point do we the people get enough? This is not a trivial matter, next it will be San Francisco blocks facebook, or ATS, or similiar inside the city. Thought a protest might be organizing, had to shut 'em down. Nazi, facist !$!*

posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 05:01 PM
There was a time before cell phones, people used 2 way radios or runners. 2-way radios are still available, quite good, inexpensive, and can't be foiled by shutting off power to cell towers. Certainly they could be jammed.

Probably if there are demonstrations planned that there be a few who have 2-way radios, and they spread the word.

There are CB or Citizens Band 2 way and there is Business Band. Business band depends upon repeaters, while CB has no repeaters, of which I'm aware.

posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 05:13 PM
reply to post by WildWorld

do you really think there want to tell you how many people disagee with it they probably fictional people and comments anyway.

posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 05:23 PM
reply to post by hypr2011

Oh yeah.

So all they have to do is pull the plugs, huh?

...Good catch. S&F

posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 05:31 PM
reply to post by ICEKOHLD

You are 100% correct and I am so happy someone else has the ability to see and understand this.

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in