BART battles hackers, both sides lose

Sparks have been flying here in Cringeville of late. It must be all those inflammatory topics I’ve been tackling.

But judging by the flames shooting out of my inbox, my post about the battle between hackers and the Bay Area Rapid Transit system generated the most heat.

[ Want to cash in on your IT experiences? InfoWorld is looking for stories of an amazing or amusing IT adventure, lesson learned, or tales from the trenches. Send your story to offtherecord@infoworld.com. If we publish it, we’ll keep you anonymous and send you a $50 American Express gift cheque. ]

The backstory, for those who haven’t been paying rapt attention: BART cops shot and killed an armed homeless man in a downtown San Francisco station in July. Organizers gathered to protest BART police actions; BART decided to turn off the signal boosters for everyone’s cellphones during a protest, rendering e911 calls impossible and prompting an FCC inquiry. Hacker group Anonymous retaliated by breaching BART’s database and releasing personally identifiable information for BART passengers and cops. More protests ensued, though the cellphone shutdown was not repeated.

At the end of my post I asked, “Was BART’s mobile shutdown an egregious violation of our free speech rights or a smart and safe thing to do?” I got answers across all parts of the spectrum.

We’ll start with reader J. L. M., who sides with BART:

It was the safest thing to do, especially in light of the recent idiocy in London. Anonymous needs to grow up. They seem to have absolutely no concern for public safety or the rule of law.

But Cringester R. M. weighs in from the other side:

I think the actions of BART were totally wrong; I hope the FCC holds them responsible. Don’t shoot the messenger. Especially that 911 service was cut off is totally wrong …. I thank you for publishing this report. If nothing else, I hope it prevents some other officials from repeating such a stupid and dangerous act.

Cringe fan S. T. suggests the situation is not as black and white as it seems. He also compliments me on my backward-gazing crystal ball and suggests I point it forward for a change.

It easy to use 20/20 [hindsight] and say BART should have done things differently. At this time with information going viral at the drop of a cell phone, they jumped to a non-positive conclusion. On the other side it would have been even worse had the situation gone the other way, with protesters getting completely out of line (riots, anyone?). …Maybe your crystal ball is clearer than most, you might think about sharing it before an incident rather than after.

I’ve been trying to adjust the settings on that crystal ball for years, if only to do a better job playing the market. So far, no luck.

Reader T. R. B. points out there’s a longer history to these protests than I acknowledged in my piece, starting with the shooting of Oscar Grant two-plus years ago, and that previous protests caused significant disruption to BART service.

There’s a legitimate [yelling] fire-in-a-crowded-theater argument one could make about turning off cell service; I agree that the one BART’s board made through [spokesman] Mr. Johnson doesn’t work at all. The other thing is that the gentleman who was shot has a pretty long rap sheet and was wanted for a murder in Seattle. The police didn’t know that at the time, but I doubt that when they asked him to come along he agreed meekly. Lives were probably at stake.

On the other hand, L. S. has a few bones to pick with BART spokesman Linton Johnson, who among other things voiced the opinion that the right to free speech ends at the BART turnstiles. L. S. asks:

…where in the world did he ever read about a “Constitutional right to safety” in the Supreme Law of the Land? As far as I know, the Constitution does not guarantee the right to safety (only the right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”). The second amendment of that Constitution does, however, state that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” To me, this suggests that citizens have a right to defend themselves to protect their own safety, even when being assailed by uniformed thugs. If BART wants to ensure the safety of its customers, it needs to put some restrictions on the armed gorillas it hires who murder unarmed passengers with increasing frequency.

In a related post I urged white- (or at least plaid-) hat hackers to abandon their code of silence (“omerta”) and publicly refute those of their number who do really stupid or destructive things in the name of hacktivism — like leak the names and addresses of commuters and police informants to the public.

Reader C. S. says there are plenty of folks doing just that:

You say at the end of the article that its time for the hacker community to break the omerta in regards to some of the recent high-publicity/poorly directed attacks. I think that you will find that there is no lack of criticism/denouncement of lulzsec/anonymous action; you need look no further than the discussion of the attacks on Slashdot. Your article mentions Defcon in passing, I don’t know if you attended, but if you had you would have found the hour-long panel titled “He who fights monsters…”. In the primarily Anon/Lulzsec focused talk, the panel discussed the appropriateness of their targets in general and the police data leak you mention in specific.

Point taken. I’m aware there’s dissent in the ranks at Anonymous and other hacker groups; it’s the public display of it I’d like to see more of. But geeks clawing at each other on Slashdot and Defcon don’t really register on the radar for most of us — certainly not to the extent hack attack headlines do. More public condemnation would be welcome.

OK, this last one has nothing to do with BART or hackers, I just like it. In response to my recent post about my being Steve Jobs’s antimuse, C. D. writes:

At the risk of sounding like a fawning Cringley cult follower, your work is such a cut above all the rest. Always entertaining to read, informative too, and snarky, and witty, and often with a buried gem to think about after.

This post about Steve Jobs is a great example of why you are the best tech writer out there. Please keep the great stuff coming.

Thanks, Mom. The check is in the mail.

Got more Cringeworthy topics I should be writing more (or less) about? Stuff your suggestions into the box below or email me: cringe@infoworld.com.

This article, “BART battles hackers, both sides lose,” was originally published at InfoWorld.com. Follow the crazy twists and turns of the tech industry with Robert X. Cringely’s Notes from the Field blog, and subscribe to Cringely’s Notes from the Underground newsletter.