Hacker News Reader

It was kind of lame that I couldn't read LessWrong on my commute home. I really enjoy that part of my day.

Otherwise, yeah. The comparisons to Egypt are a little over the top. It's awesome that cell phones work in the Bart tunnels at all.

It's awesome that cell phones work in the Bart tunnels at all

Upvote this man (and give me some downvotes if it balances things out for you). Too few see the world this way.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r1CZTLk-Gk

In regards to the right to assemble/demonstrate, I personally believe that the public's idea (or at least perception) of what makes an effective (nonviolent) demonstration has changed.

"Unifying issues" seem to be somewhat of a thing of the past- it is rare you see tens or hundreds of thousands protesting anything anymore. As demonstrators grow more fringe (due to the lack of "unifying issues"- they protest things that interest only a small minority), their numbers have dwindled to the point a traditional protest is ineffective, and in an effort to secure results they have adopted more... radical techniques.

As an example, if the majority of the San Francisco Bay Area really cared about the issue at hand here, it would have been trivial to stage an effective protest. E.g., call for a boycott (effective, easy and captivating, but only if you have a large following). Pack the cars with protesters, so many that regular commuters can't get on, and refuse to get off. Protests are about demonstrating a majority, a plurality, or a very significant minority, not a tiny vocal minority.

On top of that, I have to wonder about the mindset of the protesters. If they protest, and cause an interruption or major inconvenience to me, then odds are I won't care what their cause is, I won't support them. That is no way for them to gain my support. Do something for charity, for the community, or in some other non-disruptive manner, and be respectful of others in the community.

It's like that band in California that caused the huge traffic jam as a publicity stunt. By doing what they did, they caused huge inconvenience to a lot of people, and got nothing but negative press out of it. They even ended up in court over it. Rightfully so.

If they feel that the only way to get any media attention out of their protest is under the headline of "thousands delayed for hours", then screw them and their cause.

I tend to believe that these disruptive tactics are more to get their name in the paper than to actually try and bring about change.

It was even better when I was in college and protesters trashed campus buildings.

Uhhh, where do you think the money that's going to have to be used to clean up your mess comes from? Yeah, you have not exactly won my support.

Freedom of speech implies the freedom to communicate. Given the era of technology has made it such that the communications infrastructure is fundamental to our speech and communication, it could be construed that removing this is violating our constitutional rights.

Does it MEAN that, or simply imply it?

I don't think it means that there is a requirement to provide the most convenient method available. Cel phone service isn't even classified as an essential service. Never mind internet access.

They didn't stop communication, they made it less convenient. The protesters had to stay within range of a normal cel tower, rather that use the locally/BART provided repeaters. "Can you hear me now?" "No."

What's next? BART has to provide the paper and photocopying to the protesters for their pamphlets so they can communicate their issues?

"The United Nations has proposed that Internet access should be a human right."

"In some countries such as Estonia,[5] France, [6] Spain,[7] Finland[8] and Greece,[9] Internet access has already been made a human right."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_access#Access_as_a_hum...

Well, as IANAL - I used the word implies as I am not 100% positive...

However, I would propose this is one example where the populous needs to start exerting their opinion on how these things should be interpreted. We are far to reticent to express our view and too complacent in accepting the position of the government in matters where it is critical that we remind the government that this is a REPRESENTATIVE democracy and as such, our views must be properly represented.

I am reminded of when I had a dispute with my home owners association about a ridiculous rule whereby I was precluded from putting up anything other than white curtains in my townhome.

The rule stated that the externally facing view of any curtains must be white. Which is what I had.

The complaint came that due to me having gold colored curtains on the interior side of my windows, at night, when the lights were on - they could tell these were not white.

They attempted to fine me. We battled for months. I went to several HOA meetings and was confronted with an opinion that "these are the rules, we do them to uphold the property values of the community" -- I emphatically reminded the HOA that not only was this argument ridiculous that WE were infact the HOA and thus WE should change the rules to not be so "fucking retarded".

I ended up winning - but the lesson was that bureaucratic authority applied unnecessarily begets mediocre minds reaching for abuseable power.

I could just as easily say that those same mediocre minds are looking for rights where none exist.

And I won't comment on the mindset it takes to move into a place that is controlled by an HOA in the first place. ;)

Complaining about morons on an HOA is like moving next to an airport and complaining about the aircraft that always seem to be around.

Sure, you can claim that assuming you have had prior experience with an HOA or other groups... My problem was that I had no idea this level of ridiculousness existed. So it is not like I entered into that thinking "this time it will be different" :)

Also, Iam trying to point out in my other comments that I am not lokoing for rights where they do not exist, per se, but that I think we as a whole need to be open to the possibility that the framework and definition of said rights need to evolve with the changes in our society, and the expression and level of our civilization.

It appears to me that anyone denouncing those who question the current state refuse to stray from the centuries old definitions.

Would you say that airlines are violating your right to free speech because they make you turn off your cell phones in flight?

What about all the subway tunnels that don't have cell service - is their lack of cell service unconstitutional, or is it just that once you offer someone cell service, you can never take it back?

is their lack of cell service unconstitutional

As I understand it, no. The way Free Speech works in regards to newspapers (which are the closest well-established analogue to cellular) is you have the right to say whatever you want, in your own newspaper, because you own it.

You do not own the cellular networks, in the same way you do not own the San Francisco Chronicle, and you do not have the right to have your speech carried by either.

How then does free speech interact with cellular networks? Well, if you owned and operated your OWN cellular network (no matter the size, technology or hardware) the government cannot prevent you from transmitting to others (unless, of course, you are in violation of FCC regulations)

In short, you have a right to speech (broadcast), but there are no requirements that say intermediaries you do not own must pick up and deliver your speech (broadcast).

What about the fact that not only do I own my phone, but I am in a contract with the carrier to provide service for which I pay for. Thus, there needs to be measurable compensation for anytime the contract I pay for service of is inhibited by the carrier or any third party providers participating in the delivery off service governed by that contract.

This could be an important subject, where the service's impingement could realistically represent a violation of my constitutional rights.

The problem is that is will be argued that using their service is at will, being on BART property is at will etc.. etc.. -- but then this is a farked up loophole to the rights within the constitution whereas we are allowing for the constitution to only be upheld in a silo of presence, property and service I directly own.

Does this mean, then, that if I have a mortgage on my home - that truly it is the banks property and therefore am not entitled to my rights?

Why so, then, would we say that when I am out of my house, on public or private property, that my rights are suspended?

We need to either protect communication and speech throughout - or not. I do not see much middle ground here.

Finally I agree that such efforts to cutoff such a fundamental service is malfeasance in that it would prevent any notification of imminent danger outside the group.

This will likely be fought by only permitting 911 - but what if the threat is from the system itself. This is directly opposed to the constitution which is designed to uphold inalienable rights of the people against tyranical systems of governance... if the only authority you can contact is the one who is directly attacking you - this is entirely flawed.

You honestly think BART is part of your contract with AT&T/Verizon?

You honestly think when AT&T/Verizon inhibits your cellular service, your constitutional rights are being violated? You are aware that a private party cannot, by definition, violate your constitutional rights, as they are only protection from government, not private parties?

When you have a mortgage on your home, you own your home. It is simply used as a security, which means if you cease payment it will then no longer be your property. In any case, as your home is not a transmission vector for your speech, unlike air/radio/newspaper, ownership is irrelevant to free speech. However, if you do not own the home, damn straight you don't have the right to assembly there, any more than your neighbor has the right to assembly in your living room.

You are trying to sneak "communication" in with "speech". Communication is not a right. Recall that the First Amendment has been alternatively dubbed "Freedom of Expression".

I really wish folks would cease with this bandying about how everything should be a right. It is especially ridiculous when it is declared that a service provided by a business is a right, and it makes me wonder if many people are actually familiar with the Bill of Rights. It's hard to imagine you could be, and not understand how fundamentally different those wonderful 10 are from things like cell service and internet.

"You are aware that a private party cannot, by definition, violate your constitutional rights, as they are only protection from government, not private parties?"

Superb. That means I can finally ban all redheads from my restaurant.

"You are trying to sneak "communication" in with "speech"."

Oh go fuck yourself sideways with a cactus, that is the most retarded reading of the the first thatI have ever heard. FURTHERMORE, you make the mistake of thinking that we only have the rights specifically mentioned on some piece of paper. This is not the case.

BART is not under contract or obligation to provide you with cell phone service. They offered this as a convenience to their customers, nothing more. They are well within their right, in my opinion, to not provide it. Just because people got used to it doesn't mean it's automatically a "right" of theirs now. (I could go off on a rant about the overly developed sense of self-entitlement that seems to be running rampant, but I won't).

And there is no obligation on their part to provide access to 911. I'm sure there is some requirement for them to provide emergency assistance, but that doesn't mean passengers being able to call on their own.

If anything, I see this as being the end of their deployment of repeaters altogether. "We tried to be nice, people got upset, it became a political shitstorm, so we'll eliminate the problem and remove them so there are no future issues."

@ SilverStorm:

My point is that our understanding needs to evolve. While i appreciate your opinion, I think that the definitions you are holding onto so vehemently are outdated.

I am not claiming my statement should be absolute but that these ideas and definitions need to be continuously looked at. The very nature of these concepts are disrupted, adapted and morphed with the growth of civilization, thus the basis of design for societal frameworks needs to be adapted as well.

I will add that if BART had instead employed the use of cell phone jammers, this would be much murkier. On the one hand, you could argue a jammer is essentially "intercepting" your transmission. On the other hand (the view that I favor, knowing a thing or two about radio) you could argue the jammer is in reality simply "drowning you out"- which could infringe upon your right to be heard, except I don't know if such a right actually exists.

It would boil down, I think, to "letter of the law" vs. "spirit of the law". Personally, while I am in general a "spirit of the law" kind of guy, I find myself falling back on the letter for the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, etc. Back then they meant what they said, and they said what they meant - with incredible clarity- and it's interesting to see how much sense a rigorous "letter of the law" interpretation of those ancient laws often makes.

An interesting thought: Constitutional rights cannot be violated by private enterprise. They are only protections from government.

Is BART government?

It's not private enterprise, at the very least.