RIP Empson-writer at TechCrunch. He did not find friends here, he is here to win and you don't forget it. You can contact him at rip [at] techcrunch [dot] com ? more
As many may be known currently, Bay metropolitan area, also known as Bart and San Francisco version of the municipal subway, gently on the receiving end of quite a bit of criticism in the past 24 hours. The criticism stems from a temporary intervention service Bart, cells in four of its stations to control potentially violent protests around the earlier shooting police officer Bart.
The incident occurred on July 3, 45-year-old Charles Blair, who was shot by Bart after (apparently homeless) man pulled out a knife and rushed the officer and his partner, according to SFGate.com. Organizers and activists staged a protest in select Bart station to oppose what they considered another body rash and unwarranted reaction to violence in their transport systems.
Unfortunately this is what Bart has been through before, with much publicized murder of Oscar grant in 2009. After a brawl in the station of Bart officers tried to detain a grant, then an officer drew his gun and shot grant in the back. The entire incident was captured on a cell phone camera, then later posted on YouTube, reaired on the news and was viewed by hundreds of thousands of times.
As CNET at the time, many people have adopted Twitter and other forms of social media to get updated information on the incident and subsequent trial, in which the staff member was convicted of manslaughter. Many disagreed with the verdict, however, and a lot of protests and violence that followed the incident clearly due to the mass availability of information (including sensitive shots of the actual murder) on the Web and social media. It is good or bad.
This is not to say that Bart had reason to censor cell phone activity in this latter situation, but there is no doubt they were fully aware of the precedent, and it would be ridiculous to assume that this (and others like it) could affect their reaction.
Now on the legality of Barth cellular communications interference, as already reported, SFAppeal among others, Bart does not necessarily use the lock methods that explicitly prohibited by the FCC and, instead, according to the statement made by the authority of transit, simply asked for wireless providers to temporarily interrupt the service Bart to select one of many tactics to ensure the safety of everyone on the platform. "which is not necessarily go beyond.
However, as pointed out by CNET and tweeters, it's still hard to avoid comparisons to the dictator of Hosni Mubarak, who ordered the Egyptian carriers essentially transform the Internet to prevent citizens from the organization. Of course, Twitter has already established its own hashtag for Bart bustle mountains: # MuBARTek. Although the comparison can be a little sharp, this is quite understandable.
Even if one takes the position that Bart had acted in accordance with the law and recognizes that Bart will probably regret his actions (if not already), United States of America was opened in condemning Mubarak for Egypt's Government interference in digital communication, and although it is certainly not a incident almost the same scale, he pretends to United States United States Government as hypocritical pushes macro web liberty and freedom in all forms of digital communication. If we want to adhere to high standards themselves allegedly (or above), the actions of this kind is not really acceptable.
Marvin Ammori, often cited jurist and expert in the field of Internet law, media law, freedom of expression and cyber-security, indicated in an insightful and well written post, although many were up in arms over the BARTgate, is a vivid example of the flagrant violation of the first amendment in the big picture, it's hard to argue the case. There is a lot of maneuver in the courts for scenarios in which government agency suppresses freedom of expression are not of its content but in terms of content to protect civilians from violence or danger. The higher courts will often rule against him in a massive violation of first amendment rights.
As pointed out by Ammori, Bart officials believe protested at their stations "can lead to overcrowding of the platforms and unsafe conditions for Bart customers, employees and the demonstrators, who do indeed" sounds like a reason.
Of course as Ammori suggests Bart really off the telephone network at a specific time that she looked forward to protest and protest against the transit police. The transit authority and the reasons for doing so, of course, because they expect that the protests could turn violent. Thus, "when Bart tried to suppress the speech of its content or to put an end to the violence," he says, "it most likely cannot satisfy the constitutional test and violated the first amendment."
Whether Bart guilty of violating the first amendment rights and eventually brought to trial, many experts call on FCC further study of this decision and is likely to exist.
And, control, investigation and analysis of incidents slowly, especially when they include a government agency, many hackers certainly have started tweeting on protesters and Anonymous has already released a digital brochure with the hashtag # MuBARTek, as first reported by CNET.
In any case, many of us can agree that this is a step in the wrong direction for freedom of speech in the United States, particularly as it relates to freedom of communication in digital media and could not afford silencers or intervention of government agencies in protests and demonstrations. As if not for potentially violent demonstrations, will this country have any civil, philosophical or governmental progress forward?
Undermines the credibility of the Internet or cellular discourse, no matter how small the incident, the wrong precedent and sends mixed signals to other countries and burgeoning digital communities around the world. It's just not a good policy, and it makes us look stupid.
No comments:
Post a Comment