You may recall how law enforcement in California tried to shut down a protest last year by turning off mobile phone service at a BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit) station to prevent potential protestors (none of whom actually showed up) from communicating. This raised significant questions about whether or not such actions were even legal. Either way, a bill was introduced and passed in the state legislature that would have barred such a shut down in the future... but California Governor Jerry Brown has vetoed the bill, because apparently allowing law enforcement to cut off communications to prevent free speech is perfectly reasonable in his book. I still think the original action probably violated existing law, but it's a shame that Governor Brown couldn't stand up for basic freedom of speech issues, especially when it comes to having law enforcement shut down cell service to prevent public assembly and protest.

Following the astounding and likely illegal decision by BART to shut down mobile phone service in stations in an attempt to block protesters from being able to communicate, Christopher Soghoian and Jacob Appelbaum filed Freedom of Information Act requests for the internal communications concerning this decision. Those communications have now been released and can be seen here (pdf) or embedded below.

The interesting stuff is closer to the end. Basically, someone from BART, Dirk Peters, sent a single email to ForzaTelecom, who must be BART's partner in managing the cell service, saying that they needed it shut off:

Gentlemen,
The BART Police require the M-Line wireless from the Trans Bay Tube Portal to the Balboa Park Station, to be shut down today between 4pm & 8.
Steve , please help to notify all carriers.

The "Steve" in question appears to be Steve Dutto from Forza, who replied and sent an email to various telcos (including Verizon Wireless, Sprint, T-Mobile, AT&T and MetroPCS), saying

I have spoken to or left a voicemail for most of you. We have been told that we must shut down the DAS system from the Oakland portal to the Balboa St. Station from 4-8 pm. We do not believe that any of the carriers need to do anything, the nodes will be turned down from the Civic Center Headend and then turned back up when given the ok from the BART police.

The emails also note that beyond cell service, BART also shut down its WiFi service -- also via a single email from a BART representative to the WiFi partner, WiFi Rail, who noted that they were "happy to help in any way." Nice of them.

We'd already noted that the FCC was investigating whether or not BART broke the law when it decided to turn off mobile phone service in an effort to stop some protests (a direct attack on a specific form of speech). Now, some public interest groups, including Public Knowledge, the EFF and the Center for Democracy & Technology, have specifically asked the FCC to state that BART broke the law and that local government agencies cannot choose to turn off mobile phone networks:

Current events around the country and the world highlight the urgency and importance of this issue. Growing concern over “flash mob” crimes has led some policymakers to attempt to target communications network for increased scrutiny. In the wake of riots in London, politicians in the United Kingdom have proposed increased governmental surveillance of, access to, and control over social media platforms and other communications media. Such interference with communications has a long history of being used to suppress civil rights protests over a wide variety of traditional and new media, from distributing flyers to television broadcasting.

This tendency, multiplied by the number of state and local agencies willing to exercise control over CMRS, could wreak complete havoc on the reliability of CMRS service by rendering it dependent on the discretion of the most-restrictive authority in any given region. Moreover, inconsistency and unreliability of service would be only two of the many resulting problems. If local government agencies claimed the authority to impede or restrict communications at their own discretion, users’ rights to free speech, just and reasonable access, and emergency services would all be imperiled, subject to local determinations of the relative values of these rights as balanced against the peculiar interests of the restricting authority.

As made plain by the negative ramifications of BART’s alternative proposal, statutes exist – and have been upheld by the courts – to prevent actions like BART’s for good reason. When local and state agencies determine a need to restrict communications, they must work with local public utilities or communications agencies and the Commission pursuant to recognized processes. It is untenable legally and practically to allow the whim of any person or agency that has access to network hardware to dictate who is entitled to access communications services and when.

BART’s past shutdown of CMRS, and its apparent plans for similar shutdowns in the future, raise grave concerns. More troubling, other local agencies may use similar shutdowns of CMRS networks in the future--potentially disrupitng access to communications relating to public safety and protected speech. For the above-mentioned reasons, the Commission should issue a declaratory ruling clarifying that such shutdowns by local governments violate the Act.

When BART first announced that it had shut off mobile phone service in a station to stop protesters, it was seen as a brief aside by the transit operation. The news reports covering the story buried that part of the story as not very important. Then people began to realize it was a huge deal and perhaps a violation of telecom law and the First Amendment, and quite an uproar ensued. Not surprisingly, the folks at BART are now realizing that perhaps they were a bit hasty. BART held an emergency board meeting solely on this issue and announced that BART will only use such measures "in an extreme case where the public is imminently at risk." Of course, what constitutes such an "extreme case" is not entirely clear. But, at the very least, I would imagine that BART bosses will think about the consequences a bit more next time.

There's been a lot of coverage over BART's bizarre decision to shut down mobile phone service in one of its stations to hinder some potential protestors. With the FCC investigating, we've heard a number of folks say that there's no First Amendment violation here because there's "no right to mobile phone service." And while it's true that there's no right to mobile phone service, the law is pretty clear that there is a right to not have the government try to stifle a particular form of speech by shutting down infrastructure, solely targeted at that form of speech.

That is, the key issue isn't whether BART needed to keep its mobile phone service up all the time. If it goes down for maintenance, that's fine. But it can't turn it off if the decision is to try to block a particular type of speech. And that's exactly what BART clearly admitted to doing. Of course, it's not just the First Amendment at issue. There's also telecom law, and it appears BART violated that too.

Telecom lawyer/consumer rights advocate Harold Feld has a long and detailed explanation for why the shut down both violates telecom law and is also just a bad idea in general. It's pretty detailed, pointing out the specific citations in telecom law that were violated and a series of relevant caselaw decisions. There's a lot in there, but here's a key citation that reads like it could apply almost directly to the BART situation:

In Pike v. Southern Bell Tel. &Telegraph Co., 81 So.2d 254 (Ala. 1955), Mr. Connor, in his capacity as Commissioner of Public Safety for the City of Birmingham, ordered Southern Bell to remove the telephone of one Louis Pike, described by Mr. Connor as “a negro” of “questionable character” alleged by Mr. Connor to be a “well-known lottery operator in the city” and to be using his phone for unspecified “illegal purposes.” Reviewing cases from other jurisdictions (including People v. Brophy), the Alabama Supreme Court found that the right of every citizen to use a phone was guaranteed by federal law and could not be deprived without due process.  As the Court observed:

The present tendency and drift towards the Police State gives all free Americans pause.  The unconstitutional and extra-judicial enlargement of coercive governmental power is a frightening and cancerous growth on our body politic.  Once we assumed axiomatic that a citizen was presumed innocent until proved guilty.  The tendency of governments to shift the burden of proof to citizens to prove their innocence is indefensible and intolerable.

We are not able to glean from the bare conclusions set up in the letter of the Commissioner, whether it is claimed that the “illegal” use of the telephone was by the appellant, her husband, or a total stranger.  From aught that was alleged in the plea, except for the conclusion of the Commissioner, no “illegal” use of any type was made of this telephone by any one.

The notice alleged to have been received by the Telephone Company was couched in the terms of a direct order from the Commissioner of Public Safety.  What is the source of Mr. Connor’s authority to issue such an order?  We know of none.  And we hold that none exists.

If we took a contrary view, it would naturally flow and follow that the telephone company would be justified in acting on the notice of any over-zealous law enforcement official who, without evidence, and on mere suspicion, is impressed with the bad character or occupation of a particular telephone subscriber. The letter from Commissioner Connor set up in the plea is no defense.  It is the Telephone Company’s burden to show that the use being made of the telephone did, in fact, justify its removal.

These depredations of a subscriber’s legal right to telephone service constitute a denial of due process guaranteed by the Constitution of 1901, art. 1, § 6.  The gratuitous and arbitrary action of a police official is no justification for an abridgment of this right.  To hold that the Telephone Company is justified in discontinuing service by “order” of a police official would require judicial recognition of a police power which does not exist.  The bald assertion of an executive officer, be he the Attorney General of the United States or a constable of some remote beat, cannot be accepted as a substitute for proof in the judicial process.  No presumption arises as to the sufficiency of evidence based on a law enforcement officer’s conclusions.

Similarly, the BART's possession of “intelligence” that individuals may use their mobile phones to coordinate illegal activity does not confer “police power that does not exist.” BART must still go to the California agency with actual jurisdiction, the CPUC, and obtain a legal order authorizing the shut down of cellular service.

Late last week, after it came out that BART had decided to shut down mobile phone service in one station because of the threat of a protest (which never actually materialized) many people started questioning the legality of the move. Now comes the word that the FCC is investigating. It will be interesting to see what they have to say. I'm not sure if it actually did violate any specific FCC rules, though I would imagine that the FCC might worry about this kind of thing becoming more common. It seems to me that the First Amendment argument (which I would believe is outside the FCC's purview) is much stronger. Here, an entity acting on behalf of the government shut down a form of communication specifically directed at a form of protest speech in an attempt to block that speech. You can get away with things if they're "content neutral," but in a case where BART officials have flat out admitted that they were targeting speech they didn't like, it seems like there's a strong First Amendment claim, though I'm not sure who would actually bring such a lawsuit.

With all the talk in the UK from politicians about shutting down mobile messaging services, it's worth pointing out that it apparently takes much less to shut down mobile service in the US at times. Jacob Appelbaum points out that BART -- the Bay Area Rapid Transit train system here in the California Bay Area -- apparently shut down all cell service at a station under the (false, as it turns out) belief that protesters were going to show up there:

As an added precaution, the agency shut off cellphone service on the station's platform. While Alkire said the tactic was an unusual measure, he said it was "a great tool to utilize for this specific purpose" given that the agency was expecting a potentially volatile situation.

That's really quite incredible, and I'm at a loss to see how that could be allowed. Because BART feared people protesting it literally shut down mobile phone service at its station? Since this particular station is underground, it has special equipment as regular cell towers don't reach the station. However, that shouldn't give BART officials the right to just turn off the service because they're unhappy that people might protest.