no toleration of censorship is acceptable
I don’t support Anonymous. They violate property laws (PSN debacle).
Is someone gonna try to get on top of a train again?
Why did you post this, limitgov?
It doesn’t even describe what censorship is being protested.
“Why did you post this, limitgov?”
it wason rense.com and caught my attention. i assume its in protest of the police giving themselves the authority to cut off cell service.
I don’t think the BART police gave themselves the authority.
Edit:
A ‘recipe for disaster’
Contrary to some speculative reports, BART did not jam wireless signals or ask cell phone providers to shut down towers near stations. BART owns and controls the wireless network strung through its subways, and BART police ordered it switched off, after receiving permission from BART interim General Manager Sherwood Wakeman, former general counsel for the transit district.
Benson Fairow, BART’s deputy police chief, said he decided to switch off the service out of concern that protesters on station platforms could clash with commuters, create panicked surges of passengers, and put themselves or others in the way of speeding trains or the high-voltage third rails.
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/08/12/BAEU1KMS8U.DTL#ixzz1V8uJ0vOB
Who said anything about BART? I assumed he was talking about SFPD.
The SFPD didn’t cut off the cell phone service; BART did.
EDIT: I’m not sure why you would have assumed SFPD over BART police.
See:
A ‘recipe for disaster’
Contrary to some speculative reports, BART did not jam wireless signals or ask cell phone providers to shut down towers near stations. BART owns and controls the wireless network strung through its subways, and BART police ordered it switched off, after receiving permission from BART interim General Manager Sherwood Wakeman, former general counsel for the transit district.
Benson Fairow, BART’s deputy police chief, said he decided to switch off the service out of concern that protesters on station platforms could clash with commuters, create panicked surges of passengers, and put themselves or others in the way of speeding trains or the high-voltage third rails.
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/08/12/BAEU1KMS8U.DTL#ixzz1V8uJ0vOB
So what exactly did you mean by “I don’t think the BART police gave themselves the authority.”?
I was responding to:
i assume its in protest of the police giving themselves the authority to cut off cell service.
which I interpreted as:
i assume its in protest of the BART police giving themselves the authority to cut off cell service.
But the BART police didn’t give themselves the autohority; they got “permission from BART interim General Manager Sherwood Wakeman”. Furthermore, not withstanding any (statist) laws/etc. to the contrary, BART didn’t need to give its self authority since it “owned and controlled” the network. It would be like stating that John James gave himself the authority to shut down John James’ network. Wouldn’t the assumption be that John James already had the authority? Anyway, BART is a statist agency, so…
…so unless you want to argue that a state can legitimately own property, I’d say the argument that they “owned” the network is bunk.
Attempt #3 to post a reply (why, Telligent/server/et al., why?):
Correct.
As an aside, I had a much longer reply, but the forum software failed. Oh wellz.
Aristophanes,
Don’t incite violations of US law on the Mises forums. Your post has been deleted. Don’t let it happen again.