It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com 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: 5
43
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by andrewh7
Shutting off cell towers is no different from shutting down newspapers -




Shutting down your own newspapers that you were under no obligation to provide in the first place?

Somebody should prosecute Rupert Murdoch for shutting down his own News of the World paper.




posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 05:30 PM
link   
Tptb can take their electronics, it's not going to make me cry... lol it's just a stupid phone.
edit on 14-8-2011 by Teeky because: word



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 05:40 PM
link   
Wait on the way to Toronto, if your cell phone doesn't catch a signal doesn't it still access to 911 as a safety feature?



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by hypr2011
 


Well the logic in here tell me if you cant have signal magic will not make the 911 work

I may be wrong let think about it 2 sec



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by hypr2011
 



OK OK Cellphones ! for a Planned Protest ! to Communicate!

I dont Need No Stinking Cellphone !


10/4 Good Buddy anyone have their Rabbit Ears ON! !

Enough Said!!

CB Radio or ! a Walkie Talkie with 1 mile radius will Do

The Communication Threat Scare

Communication is Evil!


The Kill Switch!

TPTB is Getting Nervous !

Another Animal Farm !


Later, Napoleon and his pigs are corrupted by the absolute power they hold over the farm. To maintain their popularity with the other animals, Squealer secretly paints additions to some commandments to benefit the pigs while keeping them free of accusations of law-breaking (such as

"No animal shall drink alcohol" having "to excess" appended to it and
"No animal shall sleep in a bed" with "with sheets" added to it).

The changed commandments are as follows, with the changes bolded:
No animal shall sleep in a bed with sheets.
No animal shall drink alcohol to excess.
No animal shall kill any other animal without cause. Eventually the laws are replaced with "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others", and "Four legs good, two legs better!" as the pigs become more human.

en.wikipedia.org...

No Human Shall use Cellphones to Protest!
No Human Shall Use a Alias nor Code Names

A Pig in the Fence

How to catch a Pig/Hog

To Catch a Wild Pig - A Parable About Society That Offers Valuable Lessons for Leaders
www.fastcompany.com...

Next it will be the New Gestapo ! at the Soon to be Check Points !
Pappaz Pleaze

AW yous Pappas iz Not In Owrder! !!

If i see that ! then Ill just as well Burn every Patriotic thing I have !

Freedom just went down the Crapper for America

Welcome to Nazi World Organization !



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 07:05 PM
link   
yea the reason I thought about the no signal thing was, if lets say you have no airtime on your cell phone, you can still dial 911.



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 07:14 PM
link   
From what I understand of the law this should be unconstitutional, unless there was planned violence. Peaceful protests are a right of citizens, am I right? But, whoever owns those towers may have the right to cut them off. But for this reason? It seems slightly shady. There may possibly be legal issues here worth pursuing, but even with my limited legal knowledge, I don't really think so. It still seems morally deficient though.



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 07:40 PM
link   
Wasn't Hillary Clinton demanding not too long ago that the Egyptian government turn protester's cell phones back on? And was BART not trying to block a protest by turning cell phones off? Seems to be the same thing, no?



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by mattifikation
Welcome to the Soviet States of America.


The "Soviet" states are coming for sure, as they go broke the money will be from the feds with many
"stipulations" and requirements to stifle State laws.

it will become more of a

UKnighted States of America


and I remind everybody again,

TPTB will do anything to get their ways .... "laws" mean nothing ..

they will do it anyway and you can fight it later after the damage is done .. good luck with that one.

we need not to be naive.

CB frequencies can be jammed too.



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 08:47 PM
link   
reply to post by JiggyPotamus
 
Disrupting the service of a vital transportation agency that tens of thousands of Americans rely on is not a form of peaceful assembly. So BART's decision was not unconstitutional.



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd
Wasn't Hillary Clinton demanding not too long ago that the Egyptian government turn protester's cell phones back on? And was BART not trying to block a protest by turning cell phones off? Seems to be the same thing, no?


Yes, but in EGYPT not here.

don't forget that Hillaryous is the spokesperson for U.S. policy.

The U.S. and TPTB are the ones who are orchestrating the M.E. "rebellions" in the first place.

They use every trick whenever possible.

Don't be fooled with the "Hollywood" antics.



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 11:12 PM
link   
Did anyone else read that this was in response to protesting planned on the train platforms during rush hour?


Officials with the Bay Area Rapid Transit system, better known as BART, said they turned off electricity to cellular towers in four stations from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. Thursday. The move was made after BART learned that protesters planned to use mobile devices to coordinate a demonstration on train platforms.

"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 officials said in a prepared statement.

The statement noted that it's illegal to demonstrate on the platform or aboard the trains. BART said it has set aside special areas for demonstrations.
From the OP's article.
Some information regarding protests.

1) You can protest on private property if you have the property owners permission.
2) Public sidewalks, streets, and parks are considered "traditional forums".
3) Local and state governments may set reasonable rules in a public forum, those rules can be no more expansive than is necessary to accomplish the government’s purpose and such rules can not be used to completely deny access to the traditional public forum.
General Guidelines for Protesting

If you choose to ignore reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions and block traffic on public thoroughfares you can be arrested (or at the very least ticketed). There is nothing unconstitutional about the enforcement of generally applicable laws so long as the are enforced equally and not on the basis of the speaker’s message. Indeed, equality under the law requires that generally applicable laws be enforced uniformly even if the violators believe they had a good purpose for their action.


While I may not agree with the method used, the goal of

"We had a commute that was safe and without disruption," said BART spokesman Jim Allison.
was admirable.

I don't think that it was the correct method, but it appears that it was applied equally and not on the basis of the message rather for the safety for the riders, employees and demonstrators.



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 06:02 AM
link   
I view this as an indication that the state is losing its' grip, personally.

Fascists aren't smart enough to realise that ultimately, they still only rule by the consent of the governed. Sure, you've still got the usual sheep in both the military and civilians who are willing to go to the government's defense, but that only remains true for as long as the government's fascist behaviour is plausibly deniable.

The single most important thing that any fascist government has to avoid, is a group of people who feel that they have nothing to lose. At the ultimate, logical extreme, you end up with a group of people who become aware that the state is going to kill them, so they have everything to gain from trying to free themselves from it, and nothing to lose if they don't.

That is actually the reason why, to be honest, I really wish that the American government would START using the inactive death camps in the country. That might sound monstrous; but the problem with the current scenario, is that because they're not doing that yet, the government's fascism is still plausibly deniable. The government is going to need to start doing overtly, undeniably evil things before the arbitrary skeptics and the sheep wake up and realise what is really going on.

So for the government to do things like blatantly turning off phone networks is good. The more they do really overt, undeniable things like that, and the more it pisses people off, the more the government's control will begin to slip.
edit on 15-8-2011 by petrus4 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 06:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by pwndnewb
While I may not agree with the method used, the goal of

"We had a commute that was safe and without disruption," said BART spokesman Jim Allison.
was admirable.


Yep. And that's exactly what they rely on.

Most people do not want freedom. Most people want safety. Those are actually two completely different things.

I think the reason why, at bottom, is because most people haven't truly come to terms with the unavoidable fact that one day, we ARE all going to die. Every last one of us.

So they behave as though their death was a question of "if," not "when," and they make the assumption that as long as they are safe, and they can rely on the government to provide said safety, they supposedly won't die.

Except unfortunately, it doesn't work like that.




posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by petrus4
 



Yep. And that's exactly what they rely on.

Nice of you to look past valid points made and only go for the part you want to read to make your point. I did say that the method wasn't the best choice but that the goal was admirable. (Funny that I say the same things about all the hacking crap that goes on.) 1) Protesting on the platforms is illegal. They have different places that are designated for protesting. "There is nothing unconstitutional about the enforcement of generally applicable laws so long as the are enforced equally and not on the basis of the speaker’s message". Had the protest taken place where it should have, the actions of BART would have been unneccessary. BART did what they thought was needed in order to avoid a potentially bad event. If you can't see the potential problems arising on an overcrowded platform and the unneccesary risk to people just like you and me, then you really aren't thinking. Their job is to transport the people safely and timely. 2) BART owns the land/infrastructure necessary to provide their customers with an extra service. While I don't agree with the method, their action was not illegal.


Most people do not want freedom. Most people want safety. Those are actually two completely different things.

I agree that they are different. But they aren't mutually exclusive either. Would you say that both are at least disirable to some degree? As far as most, I think you are making a generalization. You don't know me or most. What you can do is speak for yourself. You will find people that agree with you, disagree with you. Totally or in part.


I think the reason why, at bottom, is because most people haven't truly come to terms with the unavoidable fact that one day, we ARE all going to die. Every last one of us. So they behave as though their death was a question of "if," not "when," and they make the assumption that as long as they are safe, and they can rely on the government to provide said safety, they supposedly won't die.

Except unfortunately, it doesn't work like that.


/shrug Yep. I am gonna die, someday, maybe tomorrow. Hell walking out my door is a risk. Part of being human. As far as your other point here, again, you don't know me or most. You have a right to your opinion which may or may not be correct.

Do you have exactly the same concept of freedom or security that I do? What makes yours right and mine wrong or vice-versa? What gives you any right to decide for or judge other people?

Thanks for the clip, some entertainment and philosophical thoughts to ponder. But you do realize that it is a comic book character and not real life?

Respectfully

p
edit on 15-8-2011 by pwndnewb because: fixed quoting

edit on 15-8-2011 by pwndnewb because: fixed



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 02:25 PM
link   
There are lots of books out there that describes our world today..and what's coming. Check out John Brunners THE SHEEP LOOK UP & Gerry Spence FROM FREEDOM TO SLAVERY: The Rebirth of Tyranny in America. Both come to mind as I watch current events unfold. We are being managed as new laws slip into reality. Peaceful protest is our right. Americans really have few obligations to their government. One biggie that shouldn't be forgetten is it is or duty to let our government know when it is doing something that is not right. Heck, who knows...maybe they haven't noticed yet.:@



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 03:04 PM
link   
After what I've seen in the UK of where I am originally from, and after seeing the underclasses or youth rise up against the oppression of the state authorities and/or middle classes, high society - It seems apparent from media sources that the USA seems to be finding some sparks also... However what has just happened in the UK could quite well become a reality for those in the USA if they manage to work out ways of uniting and also being able to communicate without too much interference from tapped messaging services and social site, etc... But it seems as though the USA is clamping down on what they fear is the spark of an uprising which could spread like wild fire... However if this was to happen the USA would more than likely have a zero tolerance approach. What has happened with BART cutting off phone communication is quite severe for a developed country which fears the word uprising. This is the first time I have heard of the states doing this... This is hugely serious as the USA have obviously got some intel to suggest a possible mood of social frustration...



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by petrus4
 


I think the USA is begining to lose it's grip sightly, look at Philadelphia recently with a curfew for those under or over a certain age (18) to be off the streets. This sounds to me like a dictatorship... I really think the USA is as bad as Syria and Egypt in principle... Shutting down networks, etc. And if there was an uprising, the government would probably enforce a shoot to kill policy. And that is the truth about the reality that americans have to deal with... America seems to be getting slowly annoyed and slightly impatient with the current direction of the USA...



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 03:20 PM
link   
They're planning to shut off service again, according to the BART guy that was just on CNN. He said "we didn't turn it off, the protesters did by forcing us to". Wow, was the the excuse Mubarak used?



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by pwndnewb
. . .

1) You can protest on private property if you have the property owners permission.


BART platforms are not private property. They were built with public funds:

--The San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) is the steward of a large-scale public investment, --
Link


2) Public sidewalks, streets, and parks are considered "traditional forums".


A platform is an extension of the sidewalk.


3) Local and state governments may set reasonable rules in a public forum, those rules can be no more expansive than is necessary to accomplish the government’s purpose and such rules can not be used to completely deny access to the traditional public forum.
General Guidelines for Protesting

If you choose to ignore reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions and block traffic on public thoroughfares you can be arrested (or at the very least ticketed). There is nothing unconstitutional about the enforcement of generally applicable laws so long as the are enforced equally and not on the basis of the speaker’s message. Indeed, equality under the law requires that generally applicable laws be enforced uniformly even if the violators believe they had a good purpose for their action.


I am sorry. I did not see all those rules in the Constitution. Can you point me to them?


While I may not agree with the method used, the goal of

"We had a commute that was safe and without disruption," said BART spokesman Jim Allison.
was admirable.

I don't think that it was the correct method, but it appears that it was applied equally and not on the basis of the message rather for the safety for the riders, employees and demonstrators.


So safety takes precedence over rights?


edit on 8/15/2011 by Lemon.Fresh because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
43
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join