Music Banter - View Single Post - Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Cuts Off Cell Phone Signals to Prevent Protest.
View Single Post
Old 08-16-2011, 07:57 AM   #6 (permalink)
Stoned and Jammin' Out
Mrd00d's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Northern California; Eugene, OR; mobile
Posts: 1,597

A successful, peaceful protest yesterday at 5pm caused BART to close down their four downtown stations for 2 hours, causing commuters (minimal) strife [[They had to go down to the 5th station or cab or carpool across the bridge or wait]]. No arrests. No cellphone disruption either. I would have gone if I hadn't had work. I agree with them here, but this should be the end of the Anonymous v. BART fight... that was their slap on the wrist.

^That's the one guy that blocked people from entering the train temporarily, which prompted BART to evacuate the station in case of flare-ups of aggression by commuters.

He said cell service was never switched off. "The bottom line with cell service is that it's always in the game plan, but we chose not to utilize that resource tonight," Hartwig said. "Once we read the dispersal notice and they complied, we didn't feel like any other actions were required."
Cell service stays on during BART protest in SF

Peaceful protest successful. Minor inconvenience for folks trying to get to the other side of the bridge, but, generally okay in my book. Even if I had been stuck in SF as they were, I would have thought it was great. How often does this happen? Enjoy the break in the monotony I say.

Also, crash_override:

This applies to both BART and Anonymous. In both cases they completely disregarded the implications on all individuals involved. Whether the end justified the means is up for debate
Agreed. I think Anonymous has loose ends to tighten up. I support them in theory, but a) they need to take more consideration for the Joe Everyman out there, too or they'll spurn many who otherwise would be for their causes [I'm not one, even though they ruined my Call of Duty addiction with the PSN attacks :P]] and b) I'm concerned that the group can be compromised and given a bad name by ... anonymous anti-Anonymous folks. As per the latter, I'm concerned that we'll see some rogue member [probably a plant from the government or just citizens that felt slighted by the group] do something in the name of the group that cast them in a bad light. I can see the group getting hijacked, basically. From what I hear, they have a fairly democratic system in place where an issue gets put on the table and any Anonymous members online vote up or down on taking action on it. That's what I hear/know. My concern is... make sure you don't get a bunch of rabble-rousers joining just to bring the org down or give it a bad name. What if a handful of folks start blowing up buildings and just taking credit for it under the Anonymous group name or something. I wish them luck, they need to figure out how they will proceed as a group. I feel like Anonymous could be a permanent facet of ... life from now on, and that may be a good thing or bad thing, depending on if they're compromised. And they could truly be freedom fighters for the people if they found a way to disrupt JUST their targets and not the folks caught in the crossfire.

Mrd00d is offline   Reply With Quote