Laws to shut down mobile phone networks

danniemcq · 16-05-2013 11:16AM #1

from rte.ie

Minister for Justice Alan Shatter is to introduce amendments to legislation currently going through the Houses of the Oireachtas to provide for the shutting down of parts of the mobile phone network.

Mr Shatter has told the justice committee that the forthcoming G8 Summit in Co Fermanagh had brought a particular reality to the necessity for legislation in the area.

His proposed amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill concern the threat to life and property posed by explosive devices that make use of mobile communications technology.

Under the amendments, a direction may be issued to mobile phone service providers to shut down services in areas where there is deemed to be a threat to life or property, in limited areas.

The provision will contain safeguards to ensure any interference with services is limited to the extent necessary to deal with the threat.

The minister said it was possible terrorist groups may use the G8 Summit to garner publicity for themselves, but that was not to ignore the very real danger of loss of life if such a device were successfully detonated.

The amendments will be introduced at report stage and involve a change in the name of the bill, which is currently titled the Criminal Justice (Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing) (Amendment) Bill 2013.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0515/450356-laws-proposed-to-shut-down-phone-network-during-g8/

is this a bit over the top? Is this a way to possibly bring in a law to disrupt future protests against bankers and government?

Don't get me wrong i know mobiles can be used to detonate explosives but even at the boston marathon bombings the cops didn't shut down mobile networks (there were reports they did but i think it was AT&T and someone else that came out and said nope they never received any guidence on it.

Is this a bit heavy handed? Would this be applied elsewhere, can they say a peaceful protest in dublin could possibly turn nasty and to prevent damage to property they shut down networks in Dublin City any time there is a march?

or have i joined the jim corr brigade?

Lando Griffin · 16-05-2013 11:19AM

Isn't the G8 being head in a different jurisdiction?

Sonics2k · 16-05-2013 11:20AM

Pfft, back in my day we just shoved a rag in a bottle of vodka, lit it and flung it at em.

You didn't see the Govt. banning Off-Licences then!

mikehammer67 · 16-05-2013 11:21AM

obama must be ringing round

Corkfeen · 16-05-2013 11:22AM

Lando Griffin wrote: »

Isn't the G8 being head in a different jurisdiction?

I guess in terms of explosive devices being triggered at the summit. It wouldn't be implausible that the perpetrators could trigger it from South of the border. Legitimately, it's only going to apply if there was an actual terrorist threat so it wouldn't be applicable for peaceful protests.

danniemcq · 16-05-2013 11:23AM

Lando Griffin wrote: »

Isn't the G8 being head in a different jurisdiction?

technically i guess so, I think that they are using it though as mobile networks from the republic can be picked up over the boarder. I haven't heard the UK attempt this (correct me though if anyone has) for the royal wedding, the olympics or this event so again i see no point in passing this

kneemos · 16-05-2013 11:25AM

Corkfeen wrote: »

I guess in terms of explosive devices being triggered at the summit. It wouldn't be implausible that the perpetrators could trigger it from South of the border. Legitimately, it's only going to apply if there was an actual terrorist threat so it wouldn't be applicable for peaceful protests.

Could trigger it from a different country for that matter.

Wacker The Attacker · 16-05-2013 11:39AM

There are other ways to detonate explosives

Zebra3 · 16-05-2013 11:39AM

So much for free speech. :rolleyes:

Red Crow · 16-05-2013 11:41AM

Corkfeen wrote: »

I guess in terms of explosive devices being triggered at the summit. It wouldn't be implausible that the perpetrators could trigger it from South of the border.

Well if they shut down the network how is that possible?

kylith · 16-05-2013 11:50AM

I don't get why the OP is worried about mobile networks being shut down at peaceful protests? What good would it do, for a start, except piss off everyone in radius, much like the shutdown in the op would. Is it that they might shut down networks so people couldn't organise protests? But they're organised well in advance.

AnonoBoy · 16-05-2013 12:04PM

Sonics2k wrote: »

Pfft, back in my day we just shoved a rag in a bottle of vodka, lit it and flung it at em.

You didn't see the Govt. banning Off-Licences then!

They do make 'em shut by 10 though. And that's probably why. It couldn't be that the government caved in to pressure from the Vintner's Association who were desperately trying to cling on to their position of power.... no, surely not that.

stevenmu · 16-05-2013 12:05PM

What if you spot a terrorist about to attack the G8, how are you supposed to call for help?

WilyCoyote · 16-05-2013 12:07PM

Zebra3 wrote: »

So much for free speech. :rolleyes:

Only 28c per minute.

danniemcq · 16-05-2013 12:12PM

kylith wrote: »

I don't get why the OP is worried about mobile networks being shut down at peaceful protests? What good would it do, for a start, except piss off everyone in radius, much like the shutdown in the op would. Is it that they might shut down networks so people couldn't organise protests? But they're organised well in advance.

I get worried when things like that are introduced, there is normally fairly piss poor wording of it that looks good but can be applied to other events then, For example the damage of property in the article. How do you define that? If you look at protests in other countries where a reliance on social networks and phones are needed it reeks of desperation. Will it be relaxed in later years to allow shutting down for other situations? Is this once again the Irish Government taking action against a problem that it will not solve? bit like forcing people to use real names or IDs online to stop bullying

danniemcq · 16-05-2013 12:14PM

Eli Manning wrote: »

Well if they shut down the network how is that possible?

well you could always have a failsafe,

it could be designed to detonate when there is no signal being received.

seamus · 16-05-2013 12:16PM

I fail to see how turning off a mobile network can disrupt a protest. The most successful marches and demonstration took place well before mobile phone existed.

And the camera on your phone will continue to work, even if they do turn off the networks (they won't), so all you're losing is the ability to tweet and update facebook live from the event.

well you could always have a failsafe,

it could be designed to detonate when there is no signal being received.

This would require a constant open connection to the device. Aside from this being impossible to guarantee in normal circumstances, an analysis of the logs from the base stations near the detonation site would have your device pop up like a bright flashing light.

RossFixxxed · 16-05-2013 12:16PM

Or use the remote from a radio controlled car like in boston. Or a bluetooth device. Or a radio based transmitter. Or wifi.

There's loads of ways.

16-05-2013 12:19PM

Don't see why there's any need to be upset about this. They will shut down mobile phone networks, but I don't see any mention of the internet itself. If you want to organize a protest, you don't need a phone as such. If anything, the internet is vastly quicker and better - look at the protests in Egypt and other places.

seamus · 16-05-2013 12:21PM

RossFixxxed wrote: »

Or use the remote from a radio controlled car like in boston. Or a bluetooth device. Or a radio based transmitter. Or wifi.

There's loads of ways.

Correct. But these are all short-range, requiring the attacker to be in the vicinity.

What this law can and will also do is allow mobile networks to be shut down in the vicinity of violent protests. A feature of violent protest in recent times has been the scumbags ringing and tweeting and texting all their scumbag mates to come and join them, fuelling the fire. If you can shut down the network in the area around a violent protest, you can quickly lock down the volume of people at the protest and stop it spreading elsewhere.

16-05-2013 12:25PM

Thinking about how devices can be detonated, this makes sense to me. Nothing to do with speech, all to do with turning a Big Switch in the Bomb goes Bang circuit to " off".

danniemcq · 16-05-2013 12:48PM

seamus wrote: »

I fail to see how turning off a mobile network can disrupt a protest. The most successful marches and demonstration took place well before mobile phone existed.

And the camera on your phone will continue to work, even if they do turn off the networks (they won't), so all you're losing is the ability to tweet and update facebook live from the event.

This would require a constant open connection to the device. Aside from this being impossible to guarantee in normal circumstances, an analysis of the logs from the base stations near the detonation site would have your device pop up like a bright flashing light.

Losing the abilty for real time communications disrupts abilities to have an effective protest.

Guards shutting down/kettling on X street, can't get everyone to meet up on Y street instead.

and on the point of constant "open" connection i don't mean have it calling just on, for example using tasker its not impossible to set up a phone to have a set up where if no 3g turn on wifi.

Now there is no difference to it from anyone looking for odd signals it just seems like a normal phone staying in the same place and not a 4 hour call from the same place.

Using apps like that you could even have it turn on the phone at X time.

danniemcq · 16-05-2013 12:52PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Don't see why there's any need to be upset about this. They will shut down mobile phone networks, but I don't see any mention of the internet itself. If you want to organize a protest, you don't need a phone as such. If anything, the internet is vastly quicker and better - look at the protests in Egypt and other places.

if they shut down the phones they'd shut down data to phones.

If they didn't then it will make 0 difference as people will be able to use the data connection to send signals instead of the cell signal.

Egypt worked better than we could as they are fairly practiced at this stage, a lot more motivated and knew exactly where to go and they were able to stay there and make a center out of it

Cianos · 16-05-2013 01:00PM

seamus wrote: »

Correct. But these are all short-range, requiring the attacker to be in the vicinity.

What this law can and will also do is allow mobile networks to be shut down in the vicinity of violent protests. A feature of violent protest in recent times has been the scumbags ringing and tweeting and texting all their scumbag mates to come and join them, fuelling the fire. If you can shut down the network in the area around a violent protest, you can quickly lock down the volume of people at the protest and stop it spreading elsewhere.

The flip side is losing the ability to live-broadcast the happenings of a protest. It gives the perpetrators of police brutality a chance to confiscate devices before the content has been uploaded.

It's a step towards further censorship by its nature, dressed up as public safety concerns.

What about people who require emergency medical assistance, children being lost in the crowd, or members of the public wanting to alert the police of acts of vandalism/violence taking place?

If someone wants to plant a bomb, they'll plant a bomb. Remember that the attacker would also have had to have been in the vicinity to place the device there in the first place.

take everything · 16-05-2013 01:04PM

I presume this would include emergency calls. Or is that a separate mechanism.

up for anything · 16-05-2013 01:33PM

Another freedom being chipped away at. On another note, I wonder will the government reimburse me for time my phone is offline, after all I am paying a monthly fee to use the damn thing.

kylith · 16-05-2013 01:38PM

danniemcq wrote: »

I get worried when things like that are introduced, there is normally fairly piss poor wording of it that looks good but can be applied to other events then, For example the damage of property in the article. How do you define that? If you look at protests in other countries where a reliance on social networks and phones are needed it reeks of desperation. Will it be relaxed in later years to allow shutting down for other situations? Is this once again the Irish Government taking action against a problem that it will not solve? bit like forcing people to use real names or IDs online to stop bullying

Well, there is that. Piss poor legislation drawn up in a hurry by people who don't actually know enough about what they're trying to do to do it properly, and leaving it open to abuse in the future.

Fratton Fred · 16-05-2013 01:44PM

On UK mobile networks there is a way of shutting down all but designated phones. The idea is to free up the networks for emergency use only.

I dont know if it has ever been used, but no one could make calls after the 7/7 bombs. The sms system still worked though.

Gummy Panda · 16-05-2013 01:56PM

I thought turn the networks was to stop co-ordinated attacks happen using mobile phones as communication

danniemcq · 16-05-2013 02:12PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

On UK mobile networks there is a way of shutting down all but designated phones. The idea is to free up the networks for emergency use only.

I dont know if it has ever been used, but no one could make calls after the 7/7 bombs. The sms system still worked though.

a lot of times its people themselves shutting down the networks by having to many people calling. Texts can get through though but it will be slower than normal as they take up so little data if you get reception/coverage/signal or network traffic goes down they can be sent.

That mixed with it being so long ago the old trick of using different ways of sending texts might not have been a trick more of a feature (turn off 3g in a busy area like a festival and you have a better chance of sending texts on the 2g network instead)

seamus · 16-05-2013 02:20PM

danniemcq wrote: »

Losing the abilty for real time communications disrupts abilities to have an effective protest.

Guards shutting down/kettling on X street, can't get everyone to meet up on Y street instead.

The Gardai don't shut down peaceful protests. Preventing a violent or tense mob from regrouping elsewhere is a good thing.

Peaceful protests by definition are not affected by this law.

Cianos wrote: »

The flip side is losing the ability to live-broadcast the happenings of a protest. It gives the perpetrators of police brutality a chance to confiscate devices before the content has been uploaded.

Scaremongering. Too many devices, too many people, not enough Gardai. The same volume of video/image devices didn't exist on May Day 2004 and yet footage still managed to get out.

It's a step towards further censorship by its nature, dressed up as public safety concerns.

Nonsense. Mobiles have been around as a mainstream communication tool for 15 years. Like I say, the most effective marches and protests all took place before this. How come they didn't suffer because they had no mobiles?

What about people who require emergency medical assistance, children being lost in the crowd, or members of the public wanting to alert the police of acts of vandalism/violence taking place?

You can, you know, walk over to a policeman? If I needed emergency assistance in a crowd, pretty much the last thing I'm going to do is ring 999.

What I'm finding bizarre is this attitude that there's some universal human right to be able to use your phone wherever and whenever you want. Phone use should be and can be restricted where public or personal safety is an issue.

The funny thing is that they will basically never use this law, except for the rare occasion when a US president or British Monarch is visiting. Yet people will complain that because the law exists, they are being censored.

Laws to shut down mobile phone networks

Comments