It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
BART’s Unconstitutional Speech Restriction: Adapting Free Speech Principles to Absolute Wireless Censorship By B RANDON W IEBE * Introduction O N AUGUST 11, 2011, BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT (“BART”) authorities shut down mobile phone and Internet access 1 in an attempt to disrupt planned protests over the July 3, 2011 fatal shooting of Charles Hill by BART police. 2 That day, Internet access and cell service was silenced in four downtown San Francisco stations for three hours during the height of the evening commute (the “BART restriction”). 3 According to BART, during the preceding week organized activists 4 had planned to use social media sites to coordinate protest.
The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) is seeking “Standard Operating Procedure 303,” also known as the “Internet kill switch” from Homeland Security. The protocols govern shutting down wireless networks to prevent the remote detonation of bombs. The broad government power to shut down communications networks worries civil libertarians. However, the agency argues the protocols must be kept secret to protect national interests and the safety of individuals.
The court said Homeland Security wrongly claimed that it could withhold Standard Operating Procedure 303 as a “technique for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions.” The court also found that interpreting a safety exemption to “encompass possible harm to anyone anywhere in the United States within the blast radius of a hypothetical unexploded bomb also flies in the face of repeated Supreme Court direction to read FOIA exemptions narrowly.”
While the court rejected the agency’s broad interpretation of FOIA exemptions, it left the door open for further appeals by Homeland Security. The agency has 30 days to release the protocols to EPIC, but the court issued a 30-day additional stay on its opinion to allow the agency time to appeal.
reply to post by elouina
That should give DHS time to shop around for a judge to back them up. I've lost almost all hope in the US legal and political system. When there is a win it seems to be a fluke.