SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Want Public Safety? Don't Disable Cell Phones
In response to outrage over last week's shutdown of cell phone service in four San Francisco stations on rumors of a planned protest, BART officials have repeatedly claimed their decision was necessary to maintain public safety. BART spokesman Linton Johnson has gone so far as to invent a new Constitutional "right to safety" which trumps the First Amendment.
Aug 20, 2011
In response to outrage over last week's shutdown of cell phone service in four San Francisco stations on rumors of a planned protest, BART officials have repeatedly claimed their decision was necessary to maintain public safety. BART spokesman Linton Johnson has gone so far as to invent a new Constitutional "right to safety" which trumps the First Amendment. As it happens, we are in full agreement that BART has an obligation to the safety of its passengers. We believe that working cell phones throughout the BART system do not pose a danger to riders; rather, they help to promote public safety.
Furthermore, BART riders agree with us, and if you go back to 2001, BART officials do too. BART made the decision to introduce cell phone service to trains and platforms shortly after 9/11, in response to popular demand from BART riders who saw that New Yorkers had found cell phones to be invaluable to communicating with authorities and loved ones in the midst of city-wide confusion.
And safety isn't just about emergency situations. Every day, we rely on mobile technology to communicate for peace of mind--such as when a parent uses a cell phone to alert a babysitter that rush hour delays will prevent the timely pick up of a child.
EFF voiced its strong support for widespread availability of cell phone and wifi service in our comments to the FCC about the proposed Next Generation 911 system earlier this year:
Communications technology has made us steadily safer and safer for over
a century by making it ever cheaper and faster to tell people who can
help about problems in a timely way. The 911 system is a great triumph
that represents an important piece of this puzzle, but another piece is
simply making communications cheaper, more reliable, and more
ubiquitous. Even communications channels that cannot contact 911
services at all aid public safety by increasing the chance that someone
who can help will find out about a problem promptly.
By framing this issue as a decision between communication and safety, BART officials have presented a false choice. As one BART rider commented in the San Francisco Chronicle, "Haven't we learned from the World Trade Center attacks that communication in any situation is necessary?"
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.
Eva Galperin
A lifelong geek, Eva Galperin misspent her youth working as a Systems Administrator all over Silicon Valley. Since then, she has seen the error of her ways and earned degrees in Political Science and International Relations from SFSU. She comes to EFF from the US-China Policy Institute, where she researched Chinese energy policy, helped to organize conferences, and attempted to make use of her rudimentary Mandarin skills.
In response to outrage over last week's shutdown of cell phone service in four San Francisco stations on rumors of a planned protest, BART officials have repeatedly claimed their decision was necessary to maintain public safety. BART spokesman Linton Johnson has gone so far as to invent a new Constitutional "right to safety" which trumps the First Amendment. As it happens, we are in full agreement that BART has an obligation to the safety of its passengers. We believe that working cell phones throughout the BART system do not pose a danger to riders; rather, they help to promote public safety.
Furthermore, BART riders agree with us, and if you go back to 2001, BART officials do too. BART made the decision to introduce cell phone service to trains and platforms shortly after 9/11, in response to popular demand from BART riders who saw that New Yorkers had found cell phones to be invaluable to communicating with authorities and loved ones in the midst of city-wide confusion.
And safety isn't just about emergency situations. Every day, we rely on mobile technology to communicate for peace of mind--such as when a parent uses a cell phone to alert a babysitter that rush hour delays will prevent the timely pick up of a child.
EFF voiced its strong support for widespread availability of cell phone and wifi service in our comments to the FCC about the proposed Next Generation 911 system earlier this year:
Communications technology has made us steadily safer and safer for over
a century by making it ever cheaper and faster to tell people who can
help about problems in a timely way. The 911 system is a great triumph
that represents an important piece of this puzzle, but another piece is
simply making communications cheaper, more reliable, and more
ubiquitous. Even communications channels that cannot contact 911
services at all aid public safety by increasing the chance that someone
who can help will find out about a problem promptly.
By framing this issue as a decision between communication and safety, BART officials have presented a false choice. As one BART rider commented in the San Francisco Chronicle, "Haven't we learned from the World Trade Center attacks that communication in any situation is necessary?"
Eva Galperin
A lifelong geek, Eva Galperin misspent her youth working as a Systems Administrator all over Silicon Valley. Since then, she has seen the error of her ways and earned degrees in Political Science and International Relations from SFSU. She comes to EFF from the US-China Policy Institute, where she researched Chinese energy policy, helped to organize conferences, and attempted to make use of her rudimentary Mandarin skills.
In response to outrage over last week's shutdown of cell phone service in four San Francisco stations on rumors of a planned protest, BART officials have repeatedly claimed their decision was necessary to maintain public safety. BART spokesman Linton Johnson has gone so far as to invent a new Constitutional "right to safety" which trumps the First Amendment. As it happens, we are in full agreement that BART has an obligation to the safety of its passengers. We believe that working cell phones throughout the BART system do not pose a danger to riders; rather, they help to promote public safety.
Furthermore, BART riders agree with us, and if you go back to 2001, BART officials do too. BART made the decision to introduce cell phone service to trains and platforms shortly after 9/11, in response to popular demand from BART riders who saw that New Yorkers had found cell phones to be invaluable to communicating with authorities and loved ones in the midst of city-wide confusion.
And safety isn't just about emergency situations. Every day, we rely on mobile technology to communicate for peace of mind--such as when a parent uses a cell phone to alert a babysitter that rush hour delays will prevent the timely pick up of a child.
EFF voiced its strong support for widespread availability of cell phone and wifi service in our comments to the FCC about the proposed Next Generation 911 system earlier this year:
Communications technology has made us steadily safer and safer for over
a century by making it ever cheaper and faster to tell people who can
help about problems in a timely way. The 911 system is a great triumph
that represents an important piece of this puzzle, but another piece is
simply making communications cheaper, more reliable, and more
ubiquitous. Even communications channels that cannot contact 911
services at all aid public safety by increasing the chance that someone
who can help will find out about a problem promptly.
By framing this issue as a decision between communication and safety, BART officials have presented a false choice. As one BART rider commented in the San Francisco Chronicle, "Haven't we learned from the World Trade Center attacks that communication in any situation is necessary?"
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.