On July 3rd, 2011, a transit officer of San Francisco’s Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) service fatally shot Charles Blair Hill, a 45 year old transient who allegedly threatened the officers with a knife. On July 22, BART officials released a video of the shooting causing uproar from several residents and civil liberties groups over the escalation of force.
Up to this point, the story is uninteresting as it reflects the normal discourse on the intersection of citizens’ rights and the state’s responsibility to provide security. What happened next is very serious and worthy of discussion.
On 12 August, in the wake of the London Riots and upon hearing reports of civil protests in San Francisco, BART officials implemented temporary population control measures to shut down cell phone services from 4pm to 7pm in order to deter potential mass rioting and maintain law and order. To a counter-insurgent, these tactics seem reasonable within areas that lack control of the state, but they are highly questionable in a democratic society that treasures individual freedoms and protection.
BART’s actions, if taken to the courts, may test the limits of the state’s ability to implement population control measures when potentially threatened. These limits, in and of themselves, are a slippery slope that must be treaded lightly.
On 14 August, the internet group “Anonymous” conducted retaliation against BART hacking into their website, changing the logo, and releasing personal contact information of hundreds of the site’s users. This counter-attack is a direct assault on the state challenging its authority and control.
In this age of Information, are we entering a time when any individual with a grievance can shut down government services? How and should the state react to such attacks? The events in San Francisco over the last week may provide a good case study to test and analyze the threat of cyber-terror.
