FCC seeks public comment on communication blackouts

[Qaanol]

Official notice of request for comment
NY Times article
MacWorld article

The FCC wants public comment on the issue of whether it is ever acceptable for government agencies to shut down wireless cellphone service in order to interrupt communication channels.

I say no, the right of the people to communicate must not be infringed by the government. That sort of censorship is the stuff of totalitarian regimes, and supremely anti-American.

Edit: Here is a direct link comment submission form. You want to enter 12-52 as the Proceeding Number.

[lutzj]

I like to think of myself as radically pro-free-speech but being able to prevent the use of cellphones to detonate bombs is irresistible. Using this kind of act just to prevent interpersonal communication, on the other hand, is much less justifiable. If people are organizing mobs, convict them for that.

[Belial]

The problem is how easy it is to do one under the guise of the other.

[Роберт]

Also, people might use smart phones to look at child porn. Think of the children!

[lutzj]

The problem is how easy it is to do one under the guise of the other.

Agreed. You ought to need solid evidence of real danger in order to shut down public infrastructure (and the people who rely on that infrastructure should have avenues to seek recompense if you abuse it).

[Shivahn]

I'm not sure it's often the case when a bomb is about to be triggered by a cell phone trigger and the police also know that this trigger is set up this way and also it's the only trigger and they just need to find it. It seems that Hollywood is almost the only time something like that happens.

[Qaanol]

Give me liberty or give me death.
– Patrick Henry

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
– Benjamin Franklin

Congress shall make no law […] abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
– U.S. Constitution

[lutzj]

I'm not sure it's often the case when a bomb is about to be triggered by a cell phone trigger and the police also know that this trigger is set up this way and also it's the only trigger and they just need to find it. It seems that Hollywood is almost the only time something like that happens.

Also true. But it is an example of a situation where a technology's use as a weapon overrides its protection as a medium for speech.

[EdgarJPublius]

I'm given to believe that modern IEDs are capable of being detonated by the interruption of cellular signals, and/or by jamming signals.

Giving the government the authorization to block cellular communications is not likely to solve the problem.

[Qaanol]

Well said, EdgarJPublius.

Here is a direct link comment submission form. You want to enter 12-52 as the Proceeding Number.

[lutzj]

I'm given to believe that modern IEDs are capable of being detonated by the interruption of cellular signals, and/or by jamming signals.

Giving the government the authorization to block cellular communications is not likely to solve the problem.

You'd have to be a pretty ballsy bomb-maker to build something that goes off whenever it loses cell service. The government should have the capability to temporary infrastructure for all sorts of reasons, although in the case of cell coverage those situations are very specific and rare.

[sourmìlk]

A right to physical safety does override the right to free speech (as is upheld by the court via the "'fire' in a crowded theatre" example), but you'd be extremely hard pressed to show that cutting off a cell network is necessary to preserve the public's physical safety. In reality, I don't think that it's ever appropriate to interrupt cell signals, even if I could theoretically come up with a situation in which it wowuld be acceptable.

[EdgarJPublius]

I'm given to believe that modern IEDs are capable of being detonated by the interruption of cellular signals, and/or by jamming signals.

Giving the government the authorization to block cellular communications is not likely to solve the problem.

You'd have to be a pretty ballsy bomb-maker to build something that goes off whenever it loses cell service. The government should have the capability to temporary infrastructure for all sorts of reasons, although in the case of cell coverage those situations are very specific and rare.

Well, for starters you don't actually need as much signal as it takes to carry a voice call or SMS message, so even weak, spotty reception would not necessarily detonate a device set to respond to signal interruption. Also, the device doesn't have to be armed until after it is placed, and can be armed remotely just as easily as detonated remotely.

An interesting possibility is that the government could co-opt the towers and simply redirect all calls in/out of a given area without shutting down the towers or blocking the signal. However, this is difficult since any given area is likely to be covered by over-lapping towers from different providers, and again, a device could get-around this by just attempting to dial out periodically and triggering on failed/redirected call. There's a near endless range of options, many IEDs in Iraq/Afghanistan have multiple detonation triggers including fail-safe and anti-tamper measures to prevent disarming, jamming or otherwise circumventing the device. These things are quite sophisticated and continuing to evolve as new counter-measures are developed.

[Thesh]

I'm not sure it's often the case when a bomb is about to be triggered by a cell phone trigger and the police also know that this trigger is set up this way and also it's the only trigger and they just need to find it. It seems that Hollywood is almost the only time something like that happens.

I'm not sure it's often the case that a terrorist has a bomb planted and we know about it at all. I'm guessing if we have enough intel to know about it, we have enough intel to stop it before it's even planted, or we just plain don't know anything at all until after the fact (whether it goes off or someone happens to spot it).

[BattleMoose]

In the unlikely scenario in where we know there is a risk of terrorist action using a cell phone signal to trigger an explosive device, then I absolutely think its appropriate to shut down the local cell phone infrastructure. With the a warrant signed by a judge though.

And violating an individuals rights, such as privacy, can be overridden with a court order and I see this as being somewhat like that.

Certainly there is a threat of abuse and that should be balanced with the threat of a terrorist act. Further, I would say that anyone worrying about this has got their priorities completely wrong when this has happened.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_D ... _Year_2012

[curtis95112]

If you have time to get a judge to sign the warrant, then you probably have time to remove the device or stop it from being planted in the first place.

Disclaimer: I am not an expert on this and may well be wrong.

[Randomizer]

So... does anyone think it was justified when Egypt shut down cell phones and the internet? Was it justified when BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit) in San Francisco, California shut down cell phone service? Would it be justified to shut down suspected rioters use of social media, as was being considered by David Cameron in the British Parliament?

[Belial]

nopenopenope

[Dauric]

This reminds me of the "24 Hours" scenario that the BushII administration tried to use to justify torture, that there was some hypothetical circumstance where they'd have a bomber in custody and need to know where he planted the bomb before it went off and they'd need to shove bamboo splinters under his fingernails while holding his head in an overflowing toilet to get the location... or somesuch like that... and that it was permissible for law enforcement agencies to ride roughshod over the rules that govern them as long as they were dealing with a suspected terrorist in a potential imminent threat scenario.

[sourmìlk]

So... does anyone think it was justified when Egypt shut down cell phones and the internet? Was it justified when BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit) in San Francisco, California shut down cell phone service? Would it be justified to shut down suspected rioters use of social media, as was being considered by David Cameron in the British Parliament?

Nobody here would be okay with that.

[Soralin]

So... does anyone think it was justified when Egypt shut down cell phones and the internet? Was it justified when BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit) in San Francisco, California shut down cell phone service? Would it be justified to shut down suspected rioters use of social media, as was being considered by David Cameron in the British Parliament?

Nobody here would be okay with that.

And, do you really think, that if they're given the capability to do such things, that they would never abuse it? I mean, police officers have already been taking people's phones at protests, and erasing incriminating content of themselves, and prevented people with recording devices from getting anywhere near the area, or arrested them. Do you really think they wouldn't, say, temporarily shut down cellphone service to the area before they crack down on it, to prevent video from leaking out, being uploaded?

Basically, the options are:

1. They aren't given the ability to do such things.
2. They are given the ability to do such things, and they just say to trust them that they won't misuse it (by their definition of "misuse" of course)

Do you really, honestly think that the people asking for this power are asking for it to stop some cellphone-triggered bomb(which, if they had this power, wouldn't exist, since the bomber would just use some other means of detonation instead, like any wireless device ever, which would be completely unaffected by this, making this completely pointless), and that they have no intention of using it for anything else?

[sourmìlk]

We give the government a few powers that we'd prefer they not use other than in extenuating circumstances, and I'm okay with that because if they abuse it, there are systems to hold them accountable. If police bust into a place without a warrant because they feel they have probable cause, but they really don't, they can be held accountable by the courts.

[Soralin]

We give the government a few powers that we'd prefer they not use other than in extenuating circumstances, and I'm okay with that because if they abuse it, there are systems to hold them accountable. If police bust into a place without a warrant because they feel they have probable cause, but they really don't, they can be held accountable by the courts.

And how are those systems working out? If police bust into a place without a warrant, they could theoretically be held accountable, but what do you think the chances are of that actually happening?

[aoeu]

We give the government a few powers that we'd prefer they not use other than in extenuating circumstances, and I'm okay with that because if they abuse it, there are systems to hold them accountable. If police bust into a place without a warrant because they feel they have probable cause, but they really don't, they can be held accountable by the courts.

And how are those systems working out? If police bust into a place without a warrant, they could theoretically be held accountable, but what do you think the chances are of that actually happening?

The correct question to ask is how often there will be an opportunity to avoid being held accountable.

[sourmìlk]

We give the government a few powers that we'd prefer they not use other than in extenuating circumstances, and I'm okay with that because if they abuse it, there are systems to hold them accountable. If police bust into a place without a warrant because they feel they have probable cause, but they really don't, they can be held accountable by the courts.

And how are those systems working out? If police bust into a place without a warrant, they could theoretically be held accountable, but what do you think the chances are of that actually happening?

I'm not entirely sure, but it would basically have to be nonexistent for me to be comfortable implementing laws preventing police from entering a home where there's violence going on because they didn't have time to get a warrant.

[BattleMoose]

I certainly don't think police are abusing their power to search homes with a warrant and certainly challenge the assumption that the police will abuse any additional powers that are granted to them.

The police have a lot of authority, well above and beyond those of an ordinary citizen and they do not abuse this authority at their every whim.

This attitude that the police will abuse any additional powers granted to them (and inherently that the current amount of authority they have is the perfect amount) is just an assumption, a completely unqualified one I might add and one that I challenge.

[sourmìlk]

Well you have the plan for the worst, so you should operate under the assumption that power may be abused (otherwise we can just give the government unlimited power). The trick is to place limits on it and ensure that there are systems in place to prevent and then punish abuses of power.

[Nordic Einar]

I certainly don't think police are abusing their power to search homes with a warrant and certainly challenge the assumption that the police will abuse any additional powers that are granted to them.

The police have a lot of authority, well above and beyond those of an ordinary citizen and they do not abuse this authority at their every whim.

This attitude that the police will abuse any additional powers granted to them (and inherently that the current amount of authority they have is the perfect amount) is just an assumption, a completely unqualified one I might add and one that I challenge.

Come down to D.C. and ask some local trans women about the Metropolitan Police Department and how great they are at "not abusing their authority at their every whim."

I imagine your perspective will change.

[BattleMoose]

I certainly don't think police are abusing their power to search homes with a warrant and certainly challenge the assumption that the police will abuse any additional powers that are granted to them.

The police have a lot of authority, well above and beyond those of an ordinary citizen and they do not abuse this authority at their every whim.

This attitude that the police will abuse any additional powers granted to them (and inherently that the current amount of authority they have is the perfect amount) is just an assumption, a completely unqualified one I might add and one that I challenge.

Come down to D.C. and ask some local trans women about the Metropolitan Police Department and how great they are at "not abusing their authority at their every whim."

I imagine your perspective will change.

For the most part, I suspect the police are probably acting unlawfully. There is plenty of that. But for the purposes of actually having a sensible discussion, it would be enlightening to learn which powers the police are specifically abusing in relation to trans women in D.C.

Well you have the plan for the worst, so you should operate under the assumption that power may be abused (otherwise we can just give the government unlimited power). The trick is to place limits on it and ensure that there are systems in place to prevent and then punish abuses of power.

Indeed the wording and specifics of any authority the police are given has to be handled very carefully, to clearly define what powers they do have and so that the average citizen and police person can understand it. In the context of limiting cell phone usage in an area, place specifics on it, only in the instance of imminent terrorist threat, define "imminent" and "threat" and the time period in which such cell phone usage can be limited. If the police act outside of these limitations then it actually becomes an unlawful act. And the police involved can and should be criminally charged.

[Princess Marzipan]

For the most part, I suspect the police are probably acting unlawfully. There is plenty of that. But for the purposes of actually having a sensible discussion, it would be enlightening to learn which powers the police are specifically abusing in relation to trans women in D.C.

Police in general tend to have bad track records with trans* people. I don't know if DC is worse than other cities, but it's bad enough that there's a whole coalition specifically about it.
http://www.dctranscoalition.org/

http://dctranscoalition.wordpress.com/k ... ro-police/
And bad enough that this coalition has to stress to trans* people that the police can't use their trans* status as a reason to stop them or as evidence of prostitution.

[Nordic Einar]

I certainly don't think police are abusing their power to search homes with a warrant and certainly challenge the assumption that the police will abuse any additional powers that are granted to them.

The police have a lot of authority, well above and beyond those of an ordinary citizen and they do not abuse this authority at their every whim.

This attitude that the police will abuse any additional powers granted to them (and inherently that the current amount of authority they have is the perfect amount) is just an assumption, a completely unqualified one I might add and one that I challenge.

Come down to D.C. and ask some local trans women about the Metropolitan Police Department and how great they are at "not abusing their authority at their every whim."

I imagine your perspective will change.

For the most part, I suspect the police are probably acting unlawfully. There is plenty of that. But for the purposes of actually having a sensible discussion, it would be enlightening to learn which powers the police are specifically abusing in relation to trans women in D.C.

So-called "Prostitution Free Zones" are anti-loitering laws that allow police to declare a neighborhood a 'PFZ' for up to 20ish days. While an area is a PFZ, individuals in that area whom police have a "reasonable suspicion" of engaging in prostitution can be asked to vacate the area, and it is then unlawful for them to return to the area (AT ALL) for the remainder of the PFZ. Things that count as "reasonable suspicion"? Standing in a group of two or more. Having more than 3 condoms in their person. Talking to anyone in a car, as a pedestrian.

In essence, these zones have become "Trans Free Zones". Trans women, particularly trans women of color, are forced to vacate areas (which are often, like, major residential areas or major business areas where tons of non-sex work related social interaction take place) and are then barred from entering those areas again, all because they were "walking while trans." Trans women are constantly harassed by police in these areas because, as far as many MPD officers are concerned, "If I see a trans woman walking down K Street after 11, I absolutely assume she's a prostitute. That's exactly what she's doing, it always is."*

If you really don't think police abuse their power, you have not taken a very serious look at our criminal justice system or the people it disproportionately affects. Nor have you seriously considered the protectionism rife in almost all police departments.

*Note, that's an almost-direct-quote from an officer participating in one of the Trans 101 trainings I've ran for MPD GLLU Affiliate Officers. The gist of that thought is repeated, almost verbatum, in every single training I've done for the MPD. It's widely accepted by the vast majority of officers in the trainings. And these are the people volunteering to be Gay & Lesbian Liaison Unit affiliates.

For the most part, I suspect the police are probably acting unlawfully. There is plenty of that. But for the purposes of actually having a sensible discussion, it would be enlightening to learn which powers the police are specifically abusing in relation to trans women in D.C.

Police in general tend to have bad track records with trans* people. I don't know if DC is worse than other cities, but it's bad enough that there's a whole coalition specifically about it.
http://www.dctranscoalition.org/
http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/2012/02 ... tabil.html

That feeling when people on a forum you've lurked for 4 years who you respect and admire link to your organization in a discussion. It's almost as amazing as watching tumblr freak out over shit you've written or reference to op-ed's and testimony you've been a part of.

THAT FEEL BRO. THAT FEEL.

[Princess Marzipan]

I love that I edited to add specificity and got ninja'd by a detailed explanation of the specificity I was adding.

[sourmìlk]

All that abuse is discriminatory and horrible, but it doesn't change that we can't refuse to give the government any power that it has the potential to abuse, because that strips them of all power.

[Nordic Einar]

It means we sure as fuck better be wary about giving the government power that infringes on civil liberties, because the likelihood of them abusing that power - and the likelihood that those abused by that power are going to be people w/ little power to fight back - is historically pretty fucking high. And clear, concise, and enforceable systems of oversight had better be set up before power is given.

As things stand, not expanding the already massive power of the government in the arena of limiting civil rights for dubious or unlikely "safety" concerns is probably the safest way to insure no government abuses of power occur.

[sourmìlk]

It means we sure as fuck better be wary about giving the government power that infringes on civil liberties, because the likelihood of them abusing that power - and the likelihood that those abused by that power are going to be people w/ little power to fight back - is historically pretty fucking high. And clear, concise, and enforceable systems of oversight had better be set up before power is given.

I don't think anybody is going to disagree with your conclusions there.

As things stand, not expanding the already massive power of the government in the arena of limiting civil rights for dubious or unlikely "safety" concerns is probably the safest way to insure no government abuses of power occur.

That's a potentially valid argument (and given the idiotically low probability that a situation in which it is necessary to save lives by cutting off a cell phone service, it's probably the correct one), but it's distinct from the argument that we can't give the government more power because it might abuse it.

[Princess Marzipan]

but it's distinct from the argument that we can't give the government more power because it might abuse it.

Refresh my memory, who exactly made that argument?

[sourmìlk]

Soralin did.

[BattleMoose]

@Everyone

It turns out that I came to this discussion with, not the common understanding of "abuse of power" , I thought that "abuse of power" was not explicitly an unlawful act but after some googling it turns out that it is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abuse and more specifically http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malfeasance_in_office

So, back to the original topic, if we grant police the authority to limit wireless communication with the appropriate requirements then they either:

A. Apply it appropriately and lawfully
B. Apply it inappropriately unlawfully

Curiously if we don't provide the authority to limit wireless communication with the appropriate requirements and they still apply it inappropriately then it is still an unlawful act.

The lawfulness of inappropriate limitation of wireless communication does not change if we give the police limited authority to apply it in specific circumstances.

It would certainly be easier for the police to use the limited authority that they have been given as a mask for actually performing unlawful actions. The actions are still unlawful. And if your society condones the police committing unlawful actions you have very very very very serious problems.

Verifiable discipline taken against MPD officers who violate policy related to trans people. Both 2010 and 2011 saw egregious attacks on trans people by police officers. In one case, while no criminal proceedings took place, MPD has been unable to explain whether or not the offending officer is still patrolling the streets, potentially endangering the lives of other trans people.

Which you apparently do have. :-/ There are very few things more deplorable than unlawful acts of police officers being ignored.

So-called "Prostitution Free Zones" are anti-loitering laws that allow police to declare a neighborhood a 'PFZ' for up to 20ish days. While an area is a PFZ, individuals in that area whom police have a "reasonable suspicion" of engaging in prostitution can be asked to vacate the area, and it is then unlawful for them to return to the area (AT ALL) for the remainder of the PFZ. Things that count as "reasonable suspicion"? Standing in a group of two or more. Having more than 3 condoms in their person. Talking to anyone in a car, as a pedestrian.

In essence, these zones have become "Trans Free Zones". Trans women, particularly trans women of color, are forced to vacate areas (which are often, like, major residential areas or major business areas where tons of non-sex work related social interaction take place) and are then barred from entering those areas again, all because they were "walking while trans." Trans women are constantly harassed by police in these areas because, as far as many MPD officers are concerned, "If I see a trans woman walking down K Street after 11, I absolutely assume she's a prostitute. That's exactly what she's doing, it always is."*

Wow. And this is just awful. Technically its not an abuse of power because it is actually lawful but no less awful. It is pure madness that the police were given this authority, Although the profiling and bias against trans women may well be unlawful, I am unsure, it certainly should be.

tl/dr

Treatment of trans people and other minorities around the world is often awful and unlawful.

We cannot be scared of giving police additional authority on the grounds of potential abuse, they need the appropriate power in order for them to effectively perform their Mandate. This is a transient thing and as things change we can and should alter the authority the police have enhancing or limiting as changing circumstances allow. We cannot expect police to perform their duties today with the authority they had 200 years ago, ergo, their level of authority has to be a transient thing.

We should be incredibly expedient in dealing with unlawful acts performed by the police force or even the judiciary.

[Princess Marzipan]

Curiously if we don't provide the authority to limit wireless communication with the appropriate requirements and they still apply it inappropriately then it is still an unlawful act.

We're talking about government that doesn't feel it needs to disclose its interpretation of the law to the public. I am not okay with this government having the power to shut down the public's communication networks.

We should be incredibly expedient in dealing with unlawful acts performed by the police force or even the judiciary.

Yes. We should.

We're not.

[BattleMoose]

Curiously if we don't provide the authority to limit wireless communication with the appropriate requirements and they still apply it inappropriately then it is still an unlawful act.

We're talking about government that doesn't feel it needs to disclose its interpretation of the law to the public. I am not okay with this government having the power the shut down to public's communication networks.

If you feel your government is acting unlawfully, then those persons involved should be prosecuted in the courts. I am unsure how this works in the USA but I think its usually Public Prosecutors Office who chooses when and to whom charges are laid. If this measure doesn't work then you are pretty much boned and certainly limiting authority to government on all levels seems prudent. Also, you may not have read my edit which I will put here also.

tl/dr

Treatment of trans people and other minorities around the world is often awful and unlawful.

We cannot be scared of giving police additional authority on the grounds of potential abuse, they need the appropriate power in order for them to effectively perform their Mandate. This is a transient thing and as things change we can and should alter the authority the police have enhancing or limiting as changing circumstances allow. We cannot expect police to perform their duties today with the authority they had 200 years ago, ergo, their level of authority has to be a transient thing.

We should be incredibly expedient in dealing with unlawful acts performed by the police force or even the judiciary.