BART Interrupts Cell Service

[K7SGJ]

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/08/bart-admits-shutting-cellphone-service-during-protest.html


According to this article, BART officials interrupted cell service in one of their stations. I was under the impression that intentional disruption of cell service, or jamming of cell service, was a Federal No-No. Perhaps things have changed, but at one time theater owners wanted to disrupt service in order to eliminate cell phone traffic during the show. I believe that it was not allowed because A. someone might need emergency communications, and B. intentional jamming or interference of any radio service was a violation of some part of the Telecommunications Act. If all of that is still true, I am curious how BART got away with it.

[NQ6U]

It is illegal, per the Telecommunications Act of 1934, as amended. As far as getting away with it goes, well, it's also illegal to run a kilowatt on 11m but that doesn't stop some people from doing it. Now that the FCC knows about BART, they may take some action although, given the normally glacial pace of that organization, we may never live to see it.

[W1GUH]

I say...more power to BART! But why just a station? In a station you can usually move away from that inane conversation that the participant thinks is so all important (but is less useful than tits on a boy). I say shield the cars people ride on and eliminate the idiotic conversations us riders have to endure.

"I believe that it was not allowed because A. someone might need emergency communications, "

:rofl:
That's a good one! What's 911 going to do that can't be done with the emergency system already in place? Answer is NOTHING. The real reason that jamming is being fought in places where it would be totally appropriate (transportation, theaters, some restaurants -- or anywhere else people should expect peace and quiet) is because it'll cost the carriers $$$$$$.

[n2ize]

I say...more power to BART! But why just a station? In a station you can usually move away from that inane conversation that the participant thinks is so all important (but is less useful than tits on a boy). I say shield the cars people ride on and eliminate the idiotic conversations us riders have to endure.

"I believe that it was not allowed because A. someone might need emergency communications, "

:rofl:
That's a good one! What's 911 going to do that can't be done with the emergency system already in place? Answer is NOTHING. The real reason that jamming is being fought in places where it would be totally appropriate (transportation, theaters, some restaurants -- or anywhere else people should expect peace and quiet) is because it'll cost the carriers $$$$$$.

So in other words you uphold the idea of breaking the law ? Let's face it. It's a changed world and cell phones are now an part of it. We'll just have to get used to it. As far as dealing with annoying people, well, that was always a part of life in the big city. You don't inconvenience everyone and break FCC rules just because a few people are annoying.


As far as an emergency, you might be surprised what a station full of people with working cell phones might accomplish. The ability to call 911 might mean the difference between somebody living and somebody dyying.

As far as not being allowed to jam it has nothing to do with whether people need it for an emergency or for a casual call. It has everything to do with FCC rules governing the deliberate and illegal jamming of services operating on the rf spectrum.

Joan was quizzical; Studied electrophysical
Science in the home.
Late nights all alone with a test tube.
Oh, oh, oh, oh.

Maxwell Edison, majoring in medicine,
Calls her on the phone.
"Can I take you out to the pictures,
Joa, oa, oa, oan?"

But as she's getting ready to go,
A knock comes on the door.

Bang! Bang! Maxwell's silver hammer
Came down upon her head.
Clang! Clang! Maxwell's silver hammer
Made sure that she was dead.

Back in school again Maxwell plays the fool again.
Teacher gets annoyed.
Wishing to avoid an unpleasant
Sce, e, e, ene,

She tells Max to stay when the class has gone away,
So he waits behind
Writing fifty times "I must not be
So, o, o, o.."

But when she turns her back on the boy,
He creeps up from behind.

Bang! Bang! Maxwell's silver hammer
Came down upon her head.
Clang! Clang! Maxwell's silver hammer
Made sure that She was dead.

P. C. Thirty-one said, "We've caught a dirty one."
Maxwell stands alone
Painting testimonial pictures.
Oh, oh, oh, oh.

Rose and Valerie, screaming from the gallery
Say he must go free
(Maxwell must go free)
The judge does not agree and he tells them
So, o, o, o.

But as the words are leaving his lips,
A noise comes from behind.

Bang! Bang! Maxwell's silver hammer
Came down upon his head.
Clang! Clang! Maxwell's silver hammer
Made sure that he was dead.

[W1GUH]

No, I favor changing the law. You made a huge leap there, John.

[KG4CGC]

I interrupted w/Trademark.

[kb2vxa]

Here you go assuming interruption of service is synonymous with jamming. Since many BART stations are underground, interrupting service is as simple as powering down repeaters. Nothing illegal about that, BART owns the repeaters and operates them under license from the service provider(s) and can do whatever they want with them including removing them altogether. Service underground is a courtesy to the riders, nobody ever said anyone has to be courteous to hooligans.

"But why just a station?"
Because that's where the repeaters are.

[n2ize]

No, I favor changing the law. You made a huge leap there, John.

Okay. It's just that you didn't state that you feel the law should be changed to permit jamming. So I was curious if you were of the mindset that jamming is a good idea regardless of the current law. That is why I phrased the material that I wrote as a question rather than a statement.

My perspective is that whether you love them or hate them cell phones are a part of modern day life. It is true that in decades gone by we lived without them and we survived well without them. However, like most technology they grew on the populous and became a convenience and, like many technologies the become conveniences over time, society has grown dependent upon them, almost to the point of necessity. Indeed, i can see some good applications for this technology and some that are not so good.

My personal way of dealing with cell phones is, I don't let them bother me.

In as far as BART goes, it seems that the cell phone jamming had nothing to do with preventing people from having annoying conversations. It seems to have everything to do with keeping protesters from communicating. The police have enough trouble dealing with the criminals that ride the BART system.

[W3WN]

It's not clear from the article exactly what BART did. But they never used the word "jam" or anything else to imply deliberate interference.

Now, if they simply turned off their cell repeaters, that is within the letter of the law (ie FCC R&R) as I understand it. I don't agree with either the action or their self-serving justification reasoning for this stupid asinine bone-headed unsafe unwise decision, but it's not a violation of the laws.

OTOH, if they are jamming cell phone frequencies, nuke the bastards.

[K7SGJ]

Reading some follow up articles today , BART shut off their underground cell sites instead of jamming or other methods of interference. No laws broken there. Well, I guess it's their stuff and they can do what they want.

[NQ6U]

Reading some follow up articles today , BART shut off their underground cell sites instead of jamming or other methods of interference. No laws broken there. Well, I guess it's their stuff and they can do what they want.

I dunno; it could still be considered "willful interference."

[N7YA]

They had a right to use their repeaters any way they like...however Orwellian it may seem....and it does.

[W3WN]

I dunno; it could still be considered "willful interference."Not within the definition of FCC R&R, again as I understand them.

BART is not, by Federal law (FCC R&R), AFAIK, required to provide repeaters in their underground facilities for cell phone coverage. That the bands most cell phones operate on do not penetrate underground is not their problem, but is an issue with the laws of physics.

Yes, from a non-technical standpoint non-legal, they're interfering with cell phone communication by proxy by turning the repeaters off. But again, nothing AFAIK requires them to provide this extra service.

And as I noted above, I don't agree with this, and I think it's stupid, malicious, and short-sighted. But it's not illegal.

[NQ6U]

Not within the definition of FCC R&R, again as I understand them.

BART is not, by Federal law (FCC R&R), AFAIK, required to provide repeaters in their underground facilities for cell phone coverage. That the bands most cell phones operate on do not penetrate underground is not their problem, but is an issue with the laws of physics.

Yes, from a non-technical standpoint non-legal, they're interfering with cell phone communication by proxy by turning the repeaters off. But again, nothing AFAIK requires them to provide this extra service.

And as I noted above, I don't agree with this, and I think it's stupid, malicious, and short-sighted. But it's not illegal.

I'm not so certain about that, Ron. I do see the point you're making but think that this is something that could end up being argued either at an FCC hearing or perhaps in a civil court if someone has a mind to pursue it that far.

[W1GUH]

Not within the definition of FCC R&R, again as I understand them.

BART is not, by Federal law (FCC R&R), AFAIK, required to provide repeaters in their underground facilities for cell phone coverage. That the bands most cell phones operate on do not penetrate underground is not their problem, but is an issue with the laws of physics.

Yes, from a non-technical standpoint non-legal, they're interfering with cell phone communication by proxy by turning the repeaters off. But again, nothing AFAIK requires them to provide this extra service.

And as I noted above, I don't agree with this, and I think it's stupid, malicious, and short-sighted. But it's not illegal.


"And as I noted above, I don't agree with this, and I think it's stupid, malicious, and short-sighted. But it's not illegal."

Guess you've never commuted next to someone on a cell phone. If you had, you'd realize that almost everybody who gets into an extended conversation in public is self-centered to the hilt. Male or female alike, they all appear as if either 1) Nobody else exists on the planet. or 2) Their words are the epitome of style and substance and are scintillating words that everybody should thank them for letting them listen.

In point of fact...using a cell phone where others can hear you and cannot move away is extremely rude. It's in the same category of really bad breath, BO, and smoking in an enclosed place. Period. And a lot of those people (as has been told to me directly) feel that they are entitled to be rude. They are very short on the socialization scale. How I'd LOVE to record some of the usless, inane, stupid conversations I've heard and make the people listen to their own stupid words...but alas, that's impossible.

I wish that all common-carriers...trains and buses specifically...would use special RF-shielding glass in the windows so that all those jerks that think we enjoy hearing their stupid conversations would just STFU! You got along fine before there were cell phones...you won't die if you don't use yours for a while.

[KC2UGV]

I dunno; it could still be considered "willful interference."

You'd prefer them to break the laws of physics? I think the fines for that are steeper than what the FCC levies...

[K7SGJ]

When did they start making FCC levis? I want a pair.

[KC2UGV]

When did they start making FCC levis? I want a pair.

They're expanding their market capitalization by expanding into various horizontal markets. I hear there is a kevlar lined whacker edition they are test-marketing right now.

[W3WN]

< snip >
Guess you've never commuted next to someone on a cell phone. If you had, you'd realize that almost everybody who gets into an extended conversation in public is self-centered to the hilt. Male or female alike, they all appear as if either 1) Nobody else exists on the planet. or 2) Their words are the epitome of style and substance and are scintillating words that everybody should thank them for letting them listen.
< snip >Now, waydaminit here. Don't be puttin' no implications in my mouth... so to speak.

I didn't say I liked the practice, and as a matter of fact, almost every day I run into this very situation. I don't drive into town, I take public transit, and it's sad how many maroons don't realize (or care) that what should be their private conversations, and I do mean private, are being broadcast to the entire bus or "T" subway car. It's almost funny that total strangers will discuss some of the most intimate details of their lives in the earshot of 50 total strangers. Almost.

Yes, it is a rude, self-centered, stupid practice.

But it's not illegal.

I don't like it, I'm offended by it, and I think it's a demonstration of the lack of intelligence & patience in a certain spoiled and self-centered portion of our society and our population.

But it's not illegal.

To get back on point... BART and other public transit agencies do not have a legal obligation, AFAIK, to provide repeaters or similar devices to enhance cell phone communications from underground or other public facilities. That they choose to do so is a courtesy, and sadly, it is a courtesy that is more often than not misused. They don't have to provide the service, and I'd say 99 times out of 100 they should not.

Actively jamming or interferring with cell phones is illegal.

Not boosting them... isn't.

And that's all I have to say about that.

[W1GUH]

Now, waydaminit here. Don't be puttin' no implications in my mouth... so to speak.

I didn't say I liked the practice, and as a matter of fact, almost every day I run into this very situation. I don't drive into town, I take public transit, and it's sad how many maroons don't realize (or care) that what should be their private conversations, and I do mean private, are being broadcast to the entire bus or "T" subway car. It's almost funny that total strangers will discuss some of the most intimate details of their lives in the earshot of 50 total strangers. Almost.

Yes, it is a rude, self-centered, stupid practice.

But it's not illegal.

I don't like it, I'm offended by it, and I think it's a demonstration of the lack of intelligence & patience in a certain spoiled and self-centered portion of our society and our population.

But it's not illegal.

To get back on point... BART and other public transit agencies do not have a legal obligation, AFAIK, to provide repeaters or similar devices to enhance cell phone communications from underground or other public facilities. That they choose to do so is a courtesy, and sadly, it is a courtesy that is more often than not misused. They don't have to provide the service, and I'd say 99 times out of 100 they should not.

Actively jamming or interferring with cell phones is illegal.

Not boosting them... isn't.

And that's all I have to say about that.

Sorry, Ron. I see you DO see the problem.

And it SHOULD be illegal.

[KG4CGC]

"And as I noted above, I don't agree with this, and I think it's stupid, malicious, and short-sighted. But it's not illegal."

Guess you've never commuted next to someone on a cell phone. If you had, you'd realize that almost everybody who gets into an extended conversation in public is self-centered to the hilt. Male or female alike, they all appear as if either 1) Nobody else exists on the planet. or 2) Their words are the epitome of style and substance and are scintillating words that everybody should thank them for letting them listen.

In point of fact...using a cell phone where others can hear you and cannot move away is extremely rude. It's in the same category of really bad breath, BO, and smoking in an enclosed place. Period. And a lot of those people (as has been told to me directly) feel that they are entitled to be rude. They are very short on the socialization scale. How I'd LOVE to record some of the usless, inane, stupid conversations I've heard and make the people listen to their own stupid words...but alas, that's impossible.

I wish that all common-carriers...trains and buses specifically...would use special RF-shielding glass in the windows so that all those jerks that think we enjoy hearing their stupid conversations would just STFU! You got along fine before there were cell phones...you won't die if you don't use yours for a while.

I understand what your saying. They literally are yelling into their phones like it was a 1950s long distance phone call. Not necessary, the microphone in a modern cellphone is VERY sensitive and you can speak quietly into one and be perfectly understood. If the signal is breaking up, it's not because you're not yelling loud enough! I have to turn off the TV or radio when on a cellphone because the mic picks that up better in some cases than my voice, which is mere centimeters away from the mic.

[n2ize]

"And as I noted above, I don't agree with this, and I think it's stupid, malicious, and short-sighted. But it's not illegal."

Guess you've never commuted next to someone on a cell phone. If you had, you'd realize that almost everybody who gets into an extended conversation in public is self-centered to the hilt. Male or female alike, they all appear as if either 1) Nobody else exists on the planet. or 2) Their words are the epitome of style and substance and are scintillating words that everybody should thank them for letting them listen.

In point of fact...using a cell phone where others can hear you and cannot move away is extremely rude. It's in the same category of really bad breath, BO, and smoking in an enclosed place. Period. And a lot of those people (as has been told to me directly) feel that they are entitled to be rude. They are very short on the socialization scale. How I'd LOVE to record some of the usless, inane, stupid conversations I've heard and make the people listen to their own stupid words...but alas, that's impossible.

I wish that all common-carriers...trains and buses specifically...would use special RF-shielding glass in the windows so that all those jerks that think we enjoy hearing their stupid conversations would just STFU! You got along fine before there were cell phones...you won't die if you don't use yours for a while.

Well, you can do as a friend of mine used to do. When confronted with a rude person on a cell phone he would confiscate it from them. At the end of the trip he would politely give it back and remind them to be more courteous next time. Amazingly he never got in any trouble. Of course it might have helped that he had the build and appearance of a grizzly bear.

As for me I agree they are rude. I just don't let them bother me.

[W1GUH]

Well, you can do as a friend of mine used to do. When confronted with a rude person on a cell phone he would confiscate it from them. At the end of the trip he would politely give it back and remind them to be more courteous next time. Amazingly he never got in any trouble. Of course it might have helped that he had the build and appearance of a grizzly bear.

As for me I agree they are rude. I just don't let them bother me.

Gimme a break, John. You KNOW what would happen if an ordinary person tried that. Cheesh

"As for me I agree they are rude. I just don't let them bother me"

Easy for you to say. When you catch a 5:55 AM train everyday and almost everyone else on the car is quiet, it's impossible to "let it ride" for a hour -- at least. Sure, a subway ride downtown...yea....probably not even trying to sleep & anyway it's only a few minutes.

[W3WN]

What gets me is the maroon (and I use that word in the Bugs Bunny sense, if you catch my drift... I know Ren does) who discusses things, loudly, on their cell phone that are pretty private... I really don't want to know what creme the doctor prescribed, how much it costs, why you need it, and details about your philandering spouse that caused you to catch this social disease, for example... and then takes afront when people ask said maroon to at least tone it down.

Fortunately, at worst on the "T" it's only about 20 minutes. When I took the bus (no longer an option, the route that meandered to a couple of blocks of the house has been discontinued due to budget cuts), it could be a long, painful hour.

[n2ize]

Gimme a break, John. You KNOW what would happen if an ordinary person tried that. Cheesh

"As for me I agree they are rude. I just don't let them bother me"

Easy for you to say. When you catch a 5:55 AM train everyday and almost everyone else on the car is quiet, it's impossible to "let it ride" for a hour -- at least. Sure, a subway ride downtown...yea....probably not even trying to sleep & anyway it's only a few minutes.

I ride the morning trains often and often, while on the train I have folder full of papers and a pencil in my hand and I am trying to concentrate and some bimbo or some scmuck is blabbing away and it is distracting me to the point where I find it hard to focus or get me work done. Yes, its disappointing and unfair but, when in public all bets are off. I am not guaranteed a quiet space where I can concentrate. So, what do I do ? I compromise. It's a part of present day living and I'll just have to get my focus and relaxation elsewhere. I am very good at abstracting myself from my surroundings. As far as public transport I learned that al bets are off. One evening a rather attractive female passenger attacked me, assuming it was me who was knocking on the bathroom door because I was waiting to go in. When she observed the group of 20+ year olds in the adjacent seats giggling and repeating the extremely lewd comments that they made while she was using the restrooom , stoned drunk as she was, she immediately realized it wasn't me, apologized to me, and started punching and yelling at them. They didn't call that train "The bannana Boat", "The Loony Bin", "The Drunk/Drug tank" for nuthin. It was the dregs of suburbia.

As far as the early mornings go (7:00 - 10:00 am)... I have learned to abstract myself from them. They can yap and yap and it doesn't affect me.

[K7SGJ]

And the plot thickens.

http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/238090/fcc_looks_into_bart_mobile_phone_shutdown.html

[KG4CGC]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/08/15/national/main20092763.shtml

Update.
You're welcome.

[NA4BH]

My thoughts:

Until people realize that they are not the only person on the face of the "GD" Earth, this inconsiderate behavior will never end. It's like the Rat Bastard that pulls his/her vehicle right in front of the convenience store door or the idiot that has their music blasting (while filling up their tank). People don't care about anyone other than themselves anymore and that's a shame. People just don't have (as a coach in high school called it) Home Training.

[KG4CGC]

Home Training.
Momma didn't get the morning paper? Shoot! Just put the paper on the floor and smack'em till they hit the mark.

Consideration for others around you is considered weakness in American society.

[NA4BH]

Consideration for others around you is considered weakness in American society.

I am a very weak person then.

[KG4CGC]

Things that were once taken for granted as common courtesy is looked upon as weakness by so many these days. Bumping into someone and apolizing, is considered an admission of guilt. Being polite is shunned.

ETA: But taking a dump in public and calling it art or free speech is OK as long as you make sure the cop arresting you knows that.

[KG4CGC]

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/08/16/139687362/yes-that-jerk-really-does-make-more-than-you-and-research-might-prove-it?sc=fb&cc=fp

[NQ6U]

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/08/16/139687362/yes-that-jerk-really-does-make-more-than-you-and-research-might-prove-it?sc=fb&cc=fp

So the next time someone at work calls you an asshole, tell him/her that he/she owes you $9,700.

[W1GUH]

'CGC said:


Consideration for others around you is considered weakness in American society.

In general, yes. But there are segments of US society where coutesy is very, very much appreciated and returned with loving kindness. And those same segments are ones with lots of patience with rudeness and, instead of returning rudeness with rudeness, will return rudeness with something like, "Hey, chill, life's too short..." I've had occasion to express appreciation for that kind of remark to my own rudeness.

It's been kind of a fun social experiment for me to see who will respond to courtesy in what way.

[W1GUH]

Do I have these facts straight? That BART owns those repeaters and turned them off? And now they're taking heat for that action on the grounds of "free speech?"

Hmmmmmmm......

Bounce this against the words....

"Well, [that person] owns the forum, and if he/she wants to ban people, shut it down, etc. he/she has every right to do so."

OK...I guess there's shades of meaning here. After all BART is a public entity providing a public service, and websites are totally private, but when a website grows to a certain point, don't they, too, provide a "public service"? And shutting down a forum on a whim IS abridging free speech?

[KG4CGC]

'CGC said:



In general, yes. But there are segments of US society where coutesy is very, very much appreciated and returned with loving kindness. And those same segments are ones with lots of patience with rudeness and, instead of returning rudeness with rudeness, will return rudeness with something like, "Hey, chill, life's too short..." I've had occasion to express appreciation for that kind of remark to my own rudeness.

It's been kind of a fun social experiment for me to see who will respond to courtesy in what way.I guess it's still true but it's becoming the exception.

[W5RB]

Do I have these facts straight? That BART owns those repeaters and turned them off? And now they're taking heat for that action on the grounds of "free speech?"

Hmmmmmmm......

Bounce this against the words....

"Well, [that person] owns the forum, and if he/she wants to ban people, shut it down, etc. he/she has every right to do so."

OK...I guess there's shades of meaning here. After all BART is a public entity providing a public service, and websites are totally private, but when a website grows to a certain point, don't they, too, provide a "public service"? And shutting down a forum on a whim IS abridging free speech?

It's all done to keep us safe . Do you want harm to come to the children ? Why do you hate America ?

[W1GUH]

It's all done to keep us safe . Do you want harm to come to the children ? Why do you hate America ?

Thanks, I needed that. I'd forgotten about The Children.

[KG4CGC]

Thanks, I needed that. I'd forgotten about The Children.
Little brats! Overrated!

[W5RB]

Careful , they'll wish you into the cornfield .


http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a98/CharRob/cornfield.jpg

[n2ize]

Do I have these facts straight? That BART owns those repeaters and turned them off? And now they're taking heat for that action on the grounds of "free speech?"

Hmmmmmmm......

Bounce this against the words....

"Well, [that person] owns the forum, and if he/she wants to ban people, shut it down, etc. he/she has every right to do so."

OK...I guess there's shades of meaning here. After all BART is a public entity providing a public service, and websites are totally private, but when a website grows to a certain point, don't they, too, provide a "public service"? And shutting down a forum on a whim IS abridging free speech?

Yes, because it was deliberately done to crush a protest. For many, the idea of a protest is very near and dear to our hearts. This protest was because "the man" (in this case BART's cop force) shot two people. The people wanted to express outrage so BART decided to pull the plug on free speech.

They have been busted by Anonymous.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/238042/anonymous_breaches_san_franciscos_public_transport _site.html?tk=rel_news

[W1GUH]

Yes, because it was deliberately done to crush a protest. For many, the idea of a protest is very near and dear to our hearts. This protest was because "the man" (in this case BART's cop force) shot two people. The people wanted to express outrage so BART decided to pull the plug on free speech.

They have been busted by Anonymous.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/238042/anonymous_breaches_san_franciscos_public_transport _site.html?tk=rel_news

So if for the children, then.

[n2ize]

So if for the children, then.

No, for the establishment.

[NQ6U]

Anonymous struck again today. They broke into the Web site of the union that represents all BART police officers and released the names of all it's members.

[n2ize]

Anonymous struck again today. They broke into the Web site of the union that represents all BART police officers and released the names of all it's members.

Kudos to Anonymous. They keep "the man" on the run.

[K7SGJ]

Actually, that's total bullshit. How would you like you personal information released to the public, possibly putting your family's welfare in jeopardy. Just because a person works as a LEO, to support their family, doesn't mean they should be treated like this. I suppose you applaud the fact those dick heads also released the personal information of the commuters, plain everyday working stiffs, who had accounts with BART, too. Assholes like anonymous should be rooted out and treated like the scum they are. They obviously don't give a shit about anyones safety, and only care to further their agenda. They are no different than any other terrorist group.

[KC2UGV]

Actually, that's total bullshit. How would you like you personal information released to the public, possibly putting your family's welfare in jeopardy. Just because a person works as a LEO, to support their family, doesn't mean they should be treated like this. I suppose you applaud the fact those dick heads also released the personal information of the commuters, plain everyday working stiffs, who had accounts with BART, too. Assholes like anonymous should be rooted out and treated like the scum they are. They obviously don't give a shit about anyones safety, and only care to further their agenda. They are no different than any other terrorist group.

Public servants should have their names, and bios easily referenced by their employers: The citizens that employ them.

[K7SGJ]

Are you saying that you think every swinging dick shoulkd have access to every public servants personal information?

[W1GUH]

Well, if they're going to be dicks about being recorded while they're working and illegally intimidate anyone who does so, YES!!!

[K7SGJ]



Well, if they're going to be dicks about being recorded while they're working and illegally intimidate anyone who does so, YES!!!

I have read some comments about that here on the Island. That is a practice that should end, right now, and any cop trying to intimidate someone with a camera should be prosecuted in federal court for violations of civil rights as well as constitutional rights violations.

[KC2UGV]

Are you saying that you think every swinging dick shoulkd have access to every public servants personal information?

Yes. But name and bio is not really all that "personal". It's on one's resume, which many people just have publicly out there anyways.

[W3WN]

Only Anonymous, allegedly, revealed more detailed information than what you find on a resume. And they didn't just release the names & info for the employees (let alone the security weenies) but that of commuters, who are guilty of nothing more than being in the BART database because (presumably) they purchase monthly passes.

By no means am I defending BART's actions... they may be legal (that has yet to be determined), but they are certainly sleezy to say the least. But Anonymous has hurt innocent people and exposed them to possible identity theft by their own actions. Two wrongs don't make a right
but three do

Another take on the situation: http://www.infoworld.com/t/cringely/bart-vs-anonymous-dumb-and-dumber-170087

[KC2UGV]

Only Anonymous, allegedly, revealed more detailed information than what you find on a resume. And they didn't just release the names & info for the employees (let alone the security weenies) but that of commuters, who are guilty of nothing more than being in the BART database because (presumably) they purchase monthly passes.

By no means am I defending BART's actions... they may be legal (that has yet to be determined), but they are certainly sleezy to say the least. But Anonymous has hurt innocent people and exposed them to possible identity theft by their own actions. Two wrongs don't make a right

Another take on the situation: http://www.infoworld.com/t/cringely/bart-vs-anonymous-dumb-and-dumber-170087

Of course, none of that would have been required, nor would it have happened, had the names and bios been public from the start.

It's also a lesson in privacy: Why does the BART need your name if you are a passenger?


We are releasing the User Info Database of MyBart.gov, [sic] to show that BART doesn't give a s*** about it's customers and riders and to show that the people will not allow you to kill us and censor us. This is but the one of many actions to come. We apologize to any citizen that has his information published, but you should go to BART and ask them why your information wasn't secure with them. Also do not worry, probably the only information that will be abused from this database is that of BART employees.

[W1GUH]

"It's also a lesson in privacy: Why does the BART need your name if you are a passenger?"

Might have it from web ticket sales.

[KC2UGV]

"It's also a lesson in privacy: Why does the BART need your name if you are a passenger?"

Might have it from web ticket sales.

Ok, so why do they need to retain it? Does your corner store keep a list of everyone who bought a pack of gum, or cigarettes there?

[KG4CGC]

Ok, so why do they need to retain it? Does your corner store keep a list of everyone who bought a pack of gum, or cigarettes there?
If you've ever been carded for the growing list of items requiring ID and store uses ID Scan, then yes.

[W3WN]

< snip >
It's also a lesson in privacy: Why does the BART need your name if you are a passenger?That's an easy one to answer.

If you subscribe to a monthly or annual pass system, they need a way to send it to you, and remind you of renewal, right?

For example, the Port Authority of Allegheny County sells weekly, monthly, and annual transit passes. Now the weekly & monthly you can purchase at grocery stores and many other places. But the annual pass only comes from them... as they actually mail you, once a month, the next month's pass. (No, that's not very efficient, but that's another story). The annual pass right now costs the same as 11 monthly passes, so it saves you about $100 - $150 depending on the zone you live in.

So, obviously, if they're going to mail you a pass, they need your address information, thus, a customer database... and I'm sure BART is doing something along the same lines.

[K7SGJ]

Probably so the commuters doesn't have to fill out all the information every time the need to buy a new pass arises. I don't want to go through the hassle to fill out all of the repeat information every time I make a purchase on Amazon. However, I think BART should have some levels of security to their files. That still doesn't excuse what Antonymous does. They serve no useful purpose than to cause hate and discontent. How many of you have bitched about the US being the world police and at the same time applaud these asswipes as they try to police the world while hiding behind a monitor and keyboard, dishing out their idea of justice. As I have said before, they are a terrorist group of the same caliber as Al Qaeda. Instead of killing with an IED, they use cyber space to attack those that THEY deem are worthy of their wrath. More often than not, they end up doing the most harm to innocent people. And they don't give a shit. Their agenda is one of destruction and being nothing more than media whores. Imagine the good they could do if they put their talents to some productive use. I have no use for a group of self serving pricks like them.

[KG4CGC]

Probably so the commuters doesn't have to fill out all the information every time the need to buy a new pass arises. I don't want to go through the hassle to fill out all of the repeat information every time I make a purchase on Amazon. However, I think BART should have some levels of security to their files. That still doesn't excuse what Antonymous does. They serve no useful purpose than to cause hate and discontent. How many of you have bitched about the US being the world police and at the same time applaud these asswipes as they try to police the world while hiding behind a monitor and keyboard, dishing out their idea of justice. As I have said before, they are a terrorist group of the same caliber as Al Qaeda. Instead of killing with an IED, they use cyber space to attack those that THEY deem are worthy of their wrath. More often than not, they end up doing the most harm to innocent people. And they don't give a shit. Their agenda is one of destruction and being nothing more than media whores. Imagine the good they could do if they put their talents to some productive use. I have no use for a group of self serving pricks like them.Well they did give Westboro a good wallop!

[W3WN]

Should BART have better protected their data? Absolutely. They may or may not be criminally liable, but ethically, their lack of security is reprehensible.

Of course, so is their conduct in this whole fiasco, so it fits the pattern. Heads ought to roll, but you know they won't as the politicians protect their own.

With that said:
Could Anonymous made their point without exposing innocent people? Absolutely. But instead, they showed that they are just as irresponsible (just in a different way) as the very people that they're trying to expose. And should be held to the same levels of liability. Which won't happen, as they hide themselves too well.

[W1GUH]

Ok, so why do they need to retain it? Does your corner store keep a list of everyone who bought a pack of gum, or cigarettes there?

Lots of websites retain customer info for "your convenience." Guess I'll hafta check their site, but they could also have "auto payment" commuters who automatically get their fare paid every month.


[edit] Shoulda read on. Ron answered this a lot better.

[KC2UGV]

If you've ever been carded for the growing list of items requiring ID and store uses ID Scan, then yes.

I've never used "ID Scan"...


That's an easy one to answer.

If you subscribe to a monthly or annual pass system, they need a way to send it to you, and remind you of renewal, right?

For example, the Port Authority of Allegheny County sells weekly, monthly, and annual transit passes. Now the weekly & monthly you can purchase at grocery stores and many other places. But the annual pass only comes from them... as they actually mail you, once a month, the next month's pass. (No, that's not very efficient, but that's another story). The annual pass right now costs the same as 11 monthly passes, so it saves you about $100 - $150 depending on the zone you live in.

So, obviously, if they're going to mail you a pass, they need your address information, thus, a customer database... and I'm sure BART is doing something along the same lines.

Well, maybe they need to secure their system to the same standards other systems are held to: VISA/PCI.

But, look at it this way: So, people who use BART had their names dropped. It's no different than getting a list of political party members (Easily gotten for a small fee). It's so popular a system, it'd be like releasing a list of names of all males in the country.


Probably so the commuters doesn't have to fill out all the information every time the need to buy a new pass arises. I don't want to go through the hassle to fill out all of the repeat information every time I make a purchase on Amazon. However, I think BART should have some levels of security to their files. That still doesn't excuse what Antonymous does. They serve no useful purpose than to cause hate and discontent. How many of you have bitched about the US being the world police and at the same time applaud these asswipes as they try to police the world while hiding behind a monitor and keyboard, dishing out their idea of justice. As I have said before, they are a terrorist group of the same caliber as Al Qaeda. Instead of killing with an IED, they use cyber space to attack those that THEY deem are worthy of their wrath. More often than not, they end up doing the most harm to innocent people. And they don't give a shit. Their agenda is one of destruction and being nothing more than media whores. Imagine the good they could do if they put their talents to some productive use. I have no use for a group of self serving pricks like them.

Anonymous is a terrorist group?
http://lolwut.com/layout/lolwut.jpg


Should BART have better protected their data? Absolutely. They may or may not be criminally liable, but ethically, their lack of security is reprehensible.

Of course, so is their conduct in this whole fiasco, so it fits the pattern. Heads ought to roll, but you know they won't as the politicians protect their own.

With that said:
Could Anonymous made their point without exposing innocent people? Absolutely. But instead, they showed that they are just as irresponsible (just in a different way) as the very people that they're trying to expose. And should be held to the same levels of liability. Which won't happen, as they hide themselves too well.

If they made their point without exposing "innocent people", then their point would have been widely ignored by the media.


Lots of websites retain customer info for "your convenience." Guess I'll hafta check their site, but they could also have "auto payment" commuters who automatically get their fare paid every month.


[edit] Shoulda read on. Ron answered this a lot better.

I guess one should reconsider how freely they give their information away... A lesson never learned until something like this happens.

[KG4CGC]

You swipe your driver's license across a reader that resembles a credit card reader. Some stores along the highway use them. That's actually the only place I've seen them, some stores along the 85 corridor.

I've never used "ID Scan"...

[W1GUH]

You swipe your driver's license across a reader that resembles a credit card reader. Some stores along the highway use them. That's actually the only place I've seen them, some stores along the 85 corridor.

A few years ago a Marlboro campaign was passing out free Zippo lighters, the only thing that you needed to do is let them scan your driver license for the age requirement & their mailing list. The people doing this had laptops & it was amazing. They scanned that wierd looking code (that looks like random noise on a CRT) on the back and Presto! A full color hi-res image of my license was on the screen.

[KC2UGV]

You swipe your driver's license across a reader that resembles a credit card reader. Some stores along the highway use them. That's actually the only place I've seen them, some stores along the 85 corridor.

And, again, I've never used one. Nor, would I. looking at the ID card to verify age is fine enough. In fact, I don't think I've removed my license from my wallet but once. When I was pulled over.

[W3WN]

< snip >
If they made their point without exposing "innocent people", then their point would have been widely ignored by the media.
< snip >
Bull.

By analogy, if you want to prove that a company's locks are defective, do you break into people's homes and rob them to prove a point?

Had Anonymous merely released names & ZIP codes, for example, they would have proven their point AND gotten the media's attention. By disclosing as much as they did, and deliberately (& IMHO maliciously) exposing innocent people to potential identity theft, they stepped over the line from proving a point to breaking the law.

[W3WN]

You swipe your driver's license across a reader that resembles a credit card reader. Some stores along the highway use them. That's actually the only place I've seen them, some stores along the 85 corridor.Pennsyvlania Drivers Licenses (and non-driver ID cards) have a magnetic strip in them.

To date, I have never had an occasion to use it in that way. When my ID has been asked for, I've merely shown the license, it's never been swiped.

I don't know if the state cops scan them; the locals don't, at least not right now. But I'm sure that sooner or later, they will.

[KG4CGC]

Well folks, the BP station on the White Horse Road exit 44 on hwy 85 swiped them as far back as 2005 for purchases that required proof of age. Here in SC, we fine clerks who sell cigarettes to under cover officers who send in under age kids to buy cigarettes. By state law, we also take away their driver's license for up to a year.

[KC2UGV]

Bull.

Really? Show me one instance of "cleansed data" released that garnered news coverage...



By analogy, if you want to prove that a company's locks are defective, do you break into people's homes and rob them to prove a point?


If that company has denied that a problem has existed for 25 years, sure. If it's that critical. However, they people were not robbed. It's the equivalent of popping the lock, and posting a sign stating such.



Had Anonymous merely released names & ZIP codes, for example, they would have proven their point AND gotten the media's attention. By disclosing as much as they did, and deliberately (& IMHO maliciously) exposing innocent people to potential identity theft, they stepped over the line from proving a point to breaking the law.

They released the same information anyone can get on Google... Names, telephone numbers, and addresses. Again, had they cleansed the data, they would have gotten little to no news coverage. People expose more information than that on their own. And, it would be very hard to commit identity theft from just that.

They broke the law the minute they accessed the system. If you're in for a penny, you might as well be in for a dollar.

[W3WN]

< snip >
If that company has denied that a problem has existed for 25 years, sure. If it's that critical. However, they people were not robbed. It's the equivalent of popping the lock, and posting a sign stating such.
< snip >Oh sure.

How'd you like to come home one day, find a note on your door that says that to prove the point that the lock was defective, some anonymous people had popped the lock... didn't take anything, didn't even go in, but popped the lock.

You're not going to feel violated?

And just because someone popped the lock, that doesn't then stop someone else from walking in and stealing & vandalizing. Now, who's responsible for the house now being left insecure, the manufacturer, or the guy who popped the lock?

[KC2UGV]

Oh sure.

How'd you like to come home one day, find a note on your door that says that to prove the point that the lock was defective, some anonymous people had popped the lock... didn't take anything, didn't even go in, but popped the lock.

You're not going to feel violated?


Not really... If nothing's gone.



And just because someone popped the lock, that doesn't then stop someone else from walking in and stealing & vandalizing. Now, who's responsible for the house now being left insecure, the manufacturer, or the guy who popped the lock?

It'd be my fault for ignoring the popped lock, now wouldn't it?

[n2ize]

Oh sure.

How'd you like to come home one day, find a note on your door that says that to prove the point that the lock was defective, some anonymous people had popped the lock... didn't take anything, didn't even go in, but popped the lock.

You're not going to feel violated?

And just because someone popped the lock, that doesn't then stop someone else from walking in and stealing & vandalizing. Now, who's responsible for the house now being left insecure, the manufacturer, or the guy who popped the lock?

The manufacturer for making an insecure defective device and the home owner for not researching a more secure system. Anonymous would be doing both a favor by demonstrating how insecure it really is.

years ago someone hacked into my computer at home. I was thankful to them. They forced me to get off my ass and make the system more secure. Sometimes you gotta get hit to wake up and make things more secure.

Anonymous is doing everyone a favor.

[W3WN]

Well John, Corey, I guess all things considered, your point of view doesn't surprise me. Suffice to say, I disagree.

My point of view is quite simple... to follow the analogy:

You break into my house, you suffer the consequences. Yes, I should have a better lock (or at least engage the lock), and leaving the place less than secure is my fault. And if you want to point it out to me in a non-destructive way, no problem. However: My lack of security does NOT justify your taking action... in short, my failure to lock the door does not justify or excuse your entering the house to steal, ransack, or just leave a note. It's still considered breaking & entering, or vandalism, or theft.

By the same token, IMHO, Anonymous does not have the right to expose the detailed individual information for commuters just because the morons at BART didn't secure their servers & data correctly.

Two wrongs do not make a right.

Clearly, we are going to have to (I hate this phrase) "agree to disagree" on this one.

[KG4CGC]

http://www.idscanner.com/

Hooked up to a network, just how secure are these machines. The one I saw resembled a common debit/credit card reader.

[n2ize]

Probably so the commuters doesn't have to fill out all the information every time the need to buy a new pass arises. I don't want to go through the hassle to fill out all of the repeat information every time I make a purchase on Amazon. However, I think BART should have some levels of security to their files. That still doesn't excuse what Antonymous does. They serve no useful purpose than to cause hate and discontent. How many of you have bitched about the US being the world police and at the same time applaud these asswipes as they try to police the world while hiding behind a monitor and keyboard, dishing out their idea of justice. As I have said before, they are a terrorist group of the same caliber as Al Qaeda. Instead of killing with an IED, they use cyber space to attack those that THEY deem are worthy of their wrath. More often than not, they end up doing the most harm to innocent people. And they don't give a shit. Their agenda is one of destruction and being nothing more than media whores. Imagine the good they could do if they put their talents to some productive use. I have no use for a group of self serving pricks like them.

Anonymous are a group of intelligent people. Many of them probably do put their talents to great use. But what they do as "anonymous" is also a great service. Not only are they revealing the insecurities that are abound and bringing them to the attention of the masses but, they are also standing up for the common folk and challenging the system. Anonymous is not your enemy. The system is when they lie to you and tell you that your information is secure and will only be used for things that benefit you when in reality that is the furthest thing from the truth. Anonymous is not some elitist group. Anonymous represents the common man. They are computer scientists, scientists, artists, mathematicians, musicians, hackers, crackers, factory workers, engineers, programmers, farmers, students, radicals, intellectuals, anarchists, and just about everything else imaginable. They represent society.

[KC2UGV]

Well John, Corey, I guess all things considered, your point of view doesn't surprise me. Suffice to say, I disagree.

My point of view is quite simple... to follow the analogy:

You break into my house, you suffer the consequences. Yes, I should have a better lock (or at least engage the lock), and leaving the place less than secure is my fault. And if you want to point it out to me in a non-destructive way, no problem. However: My lack of security does NOT justify your taking action... in short, my failure to lock the door does not justify or excuse your entering the house to steal, ransack, or just leave a note. It's still considered breaking & entering, or vandalism, or theft.

By the same token, IMHO, Anonymous does not have the right to expose the detailed individual information for commuters just because the morons at BART didn't secure their servers & data correctly.

Two wrongs do not make a right.

Clearly, we are going to have to (I hate this phrase) "agree to disagree" on this one.

A computer is not a house. Leaving a machine/network insecure is like hanging a sign on your house saying,"All are welcomed"...

We can agree to disagree, but in the IT world, this is how security issues are pointed out, and dealt with, since the first two were interconnected with untrusted machines.

A hacker cracked the lock, and then emailed the sysadmin telling them so, and telling them how to close it up.

[K7SGJ]

These hacks sure as hell don't represent me. If they are such great people and doing such a great service for mankind, why don't they come forward and sell themselves and their talents and abilities to the people whose systems they muck around with? If I was a company that dealt in sensitive databases, I would hire all those people I could in order to make my systems as secure as possible. Perhaps they do expose vulnerabilities in data systems, but why fuck the average man over to prove a point. I don't see them as the hero's some of you seem to think they are. I don't believe they do what they do for the betterment of anybody. I'm sure they get their jollies busting into a system and then seeing their name all over the media. Media whores. Maybe when they hack into your personal information, steal your identity, or rip off your bank account, or fuck over your wife or kids security, you might see it a little differently. I think they can accomplish whatever they are trying to do without stomping all over innocent people and using them as their pawns.

[n2ize]

These hacks sure as hell don't represent me. If they are such great people and doing such a great service for mankind, why don't they come forward and sell themselves and their talents and abilities to the people whose systems they muck around with?

They probably do. However they don't go by the name "anonymous" at their regular 9-5 jobs. You are envisioning "Anonymous" as a bunch of anarchist hippies with long hair, no jobs, hanging out in some loft smoking weed and hacking computers all day and night. In fact most of anonymous are probably well respected professionals with full time jobs.


If I was a company that dealt in sensitive databases, I would hire all those people I could in order to make my systems as secure as possible. Perhaps they do expose vulnerabilities in data systems, but why fuck the average man over to prove a point.

Simple. They don't. the only ones screwing the average man over are the ones that anonymous is exposing.



I don't see them as the hero's some of you seem to think they are. I don't believe they do what they do for the betterment of anybody. I'm sure they get their jollies busting into a system and then seeing their name all over the media. Media whores.

Media whores ? Huh ? named "anonymous" ? Doesn't seem like much of a way to garner attention. They are not going to become legendary playing that game.



Maybe when they hack into your personal information, steal your identity, or rip off your bank account, or fuck over your wife or kids security, you might see it a little differently. I think they can accomplish whatever they are trying to do without stomping all over innocent people and using them as their pawns.

I might agree if they did the things you accuse them of but they don't.

[KC2UGV]

These hacks sure as hell don't represent me. If they are such great people and doing such a great service for mankind, why don't they come forward and sell themselves and their talents and abilities to the people whose systems they muck around with? If I was a company that dealt in sensitive databases, I would hire all those people I could in order to make my systems as secure as possible. Perhaps they do expose vulnerabilities in data systems, but why fuck the average man over to prove a point. I don't see them as the hero's some of you seem to think they are. I don't believe they do what they do for the betterment of anybody. I'm sure they get their jollies busting into a system and then seeing their name all over the media. Media whores. Maybe when they hack into your personal information, steal your identity, or rip off your bank account, or fuck over your wife or kids security, you might see it a little differently. I think they can accomplish whatever they are trying to do without stomping all over innocent people and using them as their pawns.

Most of the members of Anonymous DO work in information security. And, my family is smart: We don't broadcast our personal information across the internet :)

[n2ize]

Interesting "Democracy Now" report on the BART fascists and their deliberate suppression of free speech (not to mention endangerment of lives). Click on the link to the mp3 on the page to listen to the report and an interview with "X" from "Anonymous".

http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2011/8/17/san_francisco_bay_areas_bart_pulls_a_mubarak

[n6hcm]

Of course, none of that would have been required, nor would it have happened, had the names and bios been public from the start.

It's also a lesson in privacy: Why does the BART need your name if you are a passenger?

mybart.gov was a marketing website. they had weekly drawings for free shit which were to drive up ridership.

(yes, they released my email address and throwaway password ... )

[KC2UGV]

mybart.gov was a marketing website. they had weekly drawings for free shit which were to drive up ridership.

(yes, they released my email address and throwaway password ... )

You were smart :)