2011-08-30 "New Jersey Ruling Calls Police Tactics Into Question" by Sam Taxy
[http://www.care2.com/causes/new-jersey-ruling-calls-police-tactics-into-question.html]
Last week, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that current police tactics for eliciting eyewitness evidence are woefully inadequate [http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/25/nyregion/in-new-jersey-rules-changed-on-witness-ids.html]. They are revising guidelines for traditional police lineups. This makes it just one of two states that has any kind of uniform guideline for these police procedures. Given that these faulty tactics are responsible for at least 190 known wrongful convictions [http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/29/us/29witness.html], this decision is likely to shed further light on an issue that would improve the justice of America’s criminal justice system.
The New York Times explains the logic of the decision [http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/29/us/29witness.html]: “In its ruling, the court strongly endorsed decades of research demonstrating that traditional eyewitness identification procedures are flawed and can send innocent people to prison.” The court then “attached consequences for investigators who fail to take steps to reduce the subtle pressures and influences on witnesses that can result in mistaken identifications.”
Anyone who has seen a TV crime show is familiar with the police lineup, in which an officer guides an eyewitness to a room where he or she can identify a criminal from a line of possible suspects. Though it is no longer done this way (the police officers use pictures now), this is how most police departments put together eyewitness accounts. It turns out, though, that only 25-30% of police departments across the country have any kinds of guidelines for this part of the investigation [http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/29/us/29witness.html].
Not surprisingly, with no oversight, as much as 1/3 of all eyewitness testimony is incorrect. In light of these inconsistencies, increasing regulation on police lineups is expected to have little impact on public safety; there is no reason why these rules will make it easier for criminals to get off. Lt. Matthew Murray, a spokesman for the Denver, Colorado police chief, noted that in his city (which has implemented similar regulations on lineups) regulations “don’t impact cases negatively, and actually have just the opposite effect.” [http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/29/us/29witness.html]
In New Jersey, the proposed changes are minimal, but expected to have a big effect. Most importantly, the lineups will be done blindly, so the police officer who shows the witness the pictures will not know which pictures are those of suspects. Also, instead of giving witnesses one batch of pictures, officers will now do the lineup more gradually, so witnesses do not feel pressure to pick an innocent person out of a group.
Adam Serwer of The American Prospect goes further [http://prospect.org/csnc/blogs/adam_serwer_archive?month=08&year=2011&base_name=you_cant_believe_your_eyes], suggesting that the way that police lineups are conducted is not the only problem – eyewitness testimony in general is unreliable at best because, though “our memories may seem vivid, they’re often not as accurate as we think they are.” If studies do show that “even under ideal conditions most of us are lousy at IDing people, and under the conditions of most crime scenes we’re a whole lot worse,” Kevin Drum of Mother Jones argues, the New Jersey court decision should merely be the first step in a series of national regulations [http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2011/08/who-you-gonna-believe].
Indeed, with the US Supreme Court reviewing police methods this November, the New Jersey court decision could set the stage for much needed reform. When reviewing the case, the nation’s highest court should consider the hundreds of people who have been misidentified and forced to go to prison for crimes they did not commit… and the low-cost remedies that New Jersey is about to implement.

2011-08-22 Anonymous - "OpBART"

2011-08-23 "BART Hates Free Speech, Anonymous #OpBART Protest, Civic Center station, 8/22/11: video" by dave id from "Indymedia" newswire
[http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2011/08/23/18688466.php]
In justification of BART's shutdown of mobile phone service on August 11th, the agency began to disingenuously claim that demonstrations against BART's police brutality were a threat to passenger safety, even though no one has ever been hurt during a BART protest. On August 22nd, at the second demonstration called by Anonymous, BART took this safety rationale to new heights, not only claiming that holding a banner was safety concern but additionally that even raising one's voice was an arrestable threat to safety. Apparently, any criticism of the agency within the BART system is now a safety issue, or at least BART believes that legal rationale relieves them of all obligations toward respecting Constitutionally-protected free speech.
In the video below, BART officer J. Conneely from the BART police department's "Tactical Team" steps up to three demonstrators holding a blue banner, starts to grab it, and tells them that they are subject to arrest for displaying the banner. "You are free to express yourself upstairs. It's a safety issue. You are not allowed to do that down here," he says. Conneely refuses to explain how the banner is a safety issue.
Within another couple of minutes, Conneely tells a demonstrator who is discussing the BART police killing of Charles Hill on July 3rd that she has to "keep [her] voice down… for safety reasons," and that by speaking loudly she is subject to arrest. Picking up on this strange BART police declaration, another protester announces that "if we raise our voices, we will be arrested." That demonstrator then leads a chant of "No justice, no peace, disband the BART police," and is promptly surrounded by BART riot police who proceed to physically remove him from the station for arrest. (Reports are that those arrested within Civic Center station have been charged with trespassing. Go figure.)
It is clear that BART's policy against "expression" within stations is not content-neutral. Four people were arrested in the Civic Center station on August 22nd for speaking out against the BART police, but a passenger who was yelling at protesters was not arrested nor even confronted by BART police, allowed to rant at length. And somehow a political banner has been determined by the agency to be a safety issue, yet BART stations are filled with commercial advertisements, across the walls and sometimes even on station floors and stairs.
BART refuses to hold its police accountable when they beat or kill passengers, and now the agency appears to be at wits end on how to deal with Bay Area community members that won't shut up about it. Being a public transportation system, BART simply cannot stop in-station protests, short of declaring itself an independent country and implementing martial law. And so the agency is grasping at straws, setting new Constitutionally-dubious precedents in its attempts to stifle free speech, from pulling the plug on mobile phone antennas to declaring that raising one's voice on a platform (if the speech is critical of BART) is an arrestable offense. The problem with BART's new approach is that as it futilely tries to ward off public criticism of its violent and unaccountable police force, and the managers and executives that look the other way or help to cover it up, BART has brought upon itself a wave of new critics, from civil libertarians to Anonymous, people who have never protested BART before yet are more than willing to join in the fight for civil rights in the battle against BART.
---
2011-08-22 "Video of the first arrest inside the Civic Center BART station in San Francisco" by dave id from "Indybay.org" newswire


2011-08-22 "BART arrests protesters for speaking out" by Shawn Gaynor from "San Francisco Bay Guardian" newspaper
[http://www.sfbg.com/politics/2011/08/22/bart-arrests-protesters-speaking-out]
Faced with yet another protest over BART's disruption of cell phone service on August 11 to preemptively disrupt a protest, and with lingering anger over the BART police shooting of Charles Hill on the Civic Center station platform on July 3, BART police stifled vocalizations of dissent with immediate arrests during an Aug. 22 protest on the Civic Center Station platform.
“Free speech is the best kind of speech,” said one protester on the Civic Center BART platform as the second protest called by the international hacker group Anonymous in as many weeks challenged the BART system at rush hour.
As a few protesters began to gather, surrounded by dozens of riot police and media, a uniformed BART police officer told a young African American man he would be arrested if he raised his voice. Chanting began in response among the small pack of protesters, and the man was promptly arrested by BART police.
As he was being led off the platform by police, a woman who stood in the center of the platform began verbally engaging a BART officer, saying, “BART police need to be reformed. Make BART Safe. Make BART safe.” She was apparently arrested for nothing more then her words. Deputy BART Police Chief Daniel Hartwig said he could not provide any information about what the arrestees would be charged with.
Shortly after, BART police declared the small gathering an illegal assembly. Riot police surrounded some 40 protesters for arrest as media was ejected from the station.
Civic Center station and Powell Station were both shuttered, blocking many transit passengers from their evening commute.
What started as a cell phone disruption has apparently escalated into BART arresting anyone expressing an unfavorable opinion of BART.
When asked if the arrested represented a new BART police policy for protests, Hartwig told the Guardian BART's policy remains the same. “This environment has to remain safe, and if that safety is jeopardized in any way, we will make arrests," he said. "We have a responsibility to maintain a safe station.”
Protesters said it was appropriate to protest on the Civic Center platform because it is the location of the July 11 shooting of Hill by BART police.
Earlier in the day, the National Lawyer's Guild issued a statement calling on BART to respect passengers' and community members' civil liberties during the Aug. 22 demonstration.
"First and foremost, the BART Police should provide transparency regarding the killing of Charles Hill and should stop shooting people, especially unarmed and incapacitated individuals," the NLG statement read. "Second, BART should apologize for its disruption of cell service on August 11th and not repeat this unconstitutional action. Finally, BART should recognize passengers’ right to freedom of speech on platforms and in trains."
Calls to the BART for the names of the arrestees and number of arrests had not yet been returned by press time.
---
2011-08-22 video by Shawn Gaynor





An unidentified man joins an organized protest by the group known as "Anonymous," after it shut down Bay Area Rapid Transit Civic Center Station, in protest of what they perceived was a violation of their First Amendment Right three weeks ago by Bart Police, In San Francisco Monday August 22, 2011. (Maria J. Avila Lopez) ( Maria J. Avila Lopez )
An unidentified man is arrested by Bay Area Rapid Transit Police, during a protest organized by the group known as "Anonymous," at Civic Center Station in San Francisco Monday August 22, 2011. The group say perceived that Bart Police violated their First Amendment Right three weeks during another protest. (Maria J. Avila Lopez) ( Maria J. Avila Lopez )


2011-08-23 "At least 40 arrested during BART protest, 3rd protest called for Monday" by "Bay City News"
[http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/bay-area/2011/08/least-40-arrested-during-bart-protest-3rd-protest-called-monday]
San Francisco police said about 40 people were arrested during Monday evening’s BART protest, which shut down two downtown San Francisco BART stations at several points throughout the roving demonstration.
Protesters gathered on the Civic Center BART platform at 5 p.m. The protesters chose the platform to gather because Charles Hill was killed there by a BART police officer on July 3, after Hill allegedly attacked the officer with a knife. The shooting set off a string of protests that have shut down San Francisco BART stations three times since then.
San Francisco police Officer Albie Esparza said dispersal orders were given several times throughout the protest which started at the Civic Center and made its way east on Market Street and back toward the Civic Center throughout the evening.
Two people were arrested shortly after the protest began after disobeying dispersal orders, Esparza said.
At Fourth and Market streets one person was arrested on suspicion of igniting a flammable substance and when demonstrators marched to the first block of Grove Street, at least 35 others were arrested, Esparza said.
All protesters were arrested on suspicion of failing to disperse upon command of a traffic officer and pedestrian in the roadway, Esparza said.
Police also recovered a hammer from the demonstration.
Police said their goal is to accommodate demonstrators and allow them their constitutional right to protest while protecting lives.
Previous BART shut downs stemmed from the July officer-involved shooting. On Aug. 11, BART said it had intelligence that a disruptive protest was being planned and shut down cellphone service in several stations to prevent protesters from communicating in stations and tunnels.
That protest failed to materialize, leading BART spokesman Linton Johnson to declare the precaution was successful in disrupting the protest.
But blocking cellphone service angered the hacker protest group “Anonymous,” who has been behind many of the protests. The group called on their loose collective of members to hack BART websites, flood BART offices with emails, faxes and phone calls, and had called for another protest on Aug. 15.
Anonymous has established the hashtag #opBART on Twitter, on which the group called for a third protest Monday, Aug. 29 at the same time and location as Monday’s protest, which affected commuters, BART and Muni riders for the second week in a row.

Justice for Rahiem Brown

Say NO to Murderers in our Schools
Wednesday August 24
4:00 PM - 7:00 PM
The Oakland Unified School Board, 1025 2nd Avenue, Oakland CA
Event Type: Protest
Contact Name Cat Brooks
Email Address artisticintentions [at] yahoo.com
WHO: The Coalition for Justice for Oscar Grant, ONYX, The Oscar Grant Committee to Stop Police Brutality & State Repression and various community members, parents and students
What: Press Conference & Rally
Where: The Oakland Unified School Board, 1025 2nd Avenue, Oakland CA
When: Wednesday, August 24, 2011, 4:00 Press Conference, 5:00 Rally
Why: The Oakland Unified School District Police Chief, Peter Sarna, was recently forced to step down, after he said black people were not welcome in his hometown of Orinda and were "n----rs who should be hung in the town square".
Who did they replace this racist with? A murderer named Barhin Bhatt, whose promotion comes less than a week after the community went to the school board meeting to demand he be fired for executing Raheim Brown as he ...SAT in his CAR and was no danger to the police officer.
The community demands the termination of Bhatts and Bellusa as well as their arrest and immediate prosecution for the murder of Raheim Brown.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 22, 2011, 20-year-old Raheim Brown was sitting in his car outside of Skyline High School when he was approached by Sgts. Bhatt and Bellusa. In a short while, Raheim Brown would be dead; shot five times and his female companion beaten and arrested. Police alleged Brown was armed with a screwdriver but even if that is so, the young man was sitting in his car and never exited the vehicle thus posed absolutely NO threat to the officers. This is at a minimum excessive force, but the community believes it is actually no less than murder.
On Wednesday, August 10th, community members attended a school board meeting to demand the termination of Bhatts and Bellusa but less than a week later, not only was Bhatts not fired; he was promoted into a position of prominence and power.
The community demands the termination of Bhatts and Bellusa as well as their arrest and immediate prosecution for the murder of Raheim Brown.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* more info on the former police chief's racist comments:
[http://www.baycitizen.org/policing/story/top-oakland-schools-cop-accused-racial]
* more info on the current police chief's murder of Raheim Brown:
[http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2011/08/13/18687578.php]
[http://sfbayview.com/2011/the-oakland-school-police-killing-of-raheim-brown-jr]

2011-08-23 "Threats or payback?Activist arrested after criticizing the SFPD and its tactics on television" by Josh Wolf
[http://www.sfbg.com/2011/08/23/threats-or-payback]
Officers from the San Francisco Police Department arrested a 21-year-old activist from Hunters Point less than 24 hours after he appeared on a public access television show where he indicted the police for a recent shooting and named officers he says have personally harassed him.
Around 4 p.m. on Saturday, July 23, Debray Carpenter, who is also known as Fly Benzo, was arrested near the intersection of Oakdale Avenue and Lane Street and booked on charges of threatening a police officer and resisting arrest. After spending almost four days in jail, the District Attorney's Office declined to file any charges and Carpenter was released.
"If they feel like they can charge me, they would've," Carpenter said after his release. "SFPD lies and that's a fact. I just want the people to see how they lie. Just like they are lying about me, they could be lying about Kenneth Harding. Anything they say needs to be taken with a grain of salt."
On July 16, police shot and killed Kenneth Harding Jr. while he was running from police. When officers stopped Harding at the 3rd and Oakdale Muni platform and asked him to produce a transfer, he bolted. The official story is that while he was running away, Harding pulled out a gun and fired at least one shot at police before they returned fire. Police later said the shot that killed him pierced his neck on the right side and was fired from his own gun, but some witnesses say that Harding didn't have a gun, and many people in the community still have doubts about what happened.
Carpenter has spoken out against Harding's death on the TV news, and he has participated in and organized protests calling for greater police accountability in the weeks following the shooting. On July 22, Carpenter appeared as the only guest on the public access program "CLAER Da Corner," a 90-minute show hosted by Sharen Hewitt, the executive director of Community Leadership Academy & Emergency Response Project (CLAER), an anti-violence nonprofit.
During his appearance on the program, Carpenter named several SFPD officers who he claimed had harassed him in the past. He also recounted an exchange that took place a few days earlier on July 19. It was during this encounter that police say Carpenter made the criminal threat for which he was later arrested.
The police version of the incident differs significantly from the story that Carpenter shared with Hewitt on her show before his arrest.
According to Carpenter, he was with a group of people having a casual conversation with an SFPD officer as two other officers drove up and aggressively pursued a teenager for no apparent reason. When the group asked the officers about their behavior, one of the officers explained that she's from New York, said Carpenter.
This prompted Carpenter to bring up Sean Bell, a young man who was gunned down by the NYPD, and the officer replied, "I haven't shot anyone, yet," according to Carpenter.
"Ya'll bleed too. Just how we bleed, ya'll bleed," Carpenter shot back.
He told the host that the officer then responded by asking, "Is that a threat?"
"No, that's a fact," replied Carpenter. The police then drove away, he said.
But the police say that Carpenter threatened to kill one of the officers and was aggressive from the moment they arrived.
"Carpenter started yelling at them and he said, 'White pig bitch I'm gonna put one in you,'" SFPD spokesman Lt. Troy Dangerfield told us.
"You bleed like I do. I'm gonna put one in you and show you," Carpenter allegedly told police after being asked if his previous statement had been a threat, according to Dangerfield.
"There was a large crowd of people that began circling around the officers and they determined it was unsafe to make an arrest at the time," Dangerfield said. "One of our rules is if you know somebody you don't have to make an arrest right there and cause a big scene."
The police arrested Carpenter four days later and booked him for allegedly making terrorizing threats and resisting arrest. While in jail Carpenter told his lawyer, John Hamasaki, that he didn't know why he had been arrested and Hamasaki said at the time he wasn't sure either.
"The arrest stinks," Hamasaki told us. "Just an exercise of power by the police letting folks know if they speak up, they can be locked up."
The District Attorney's Office said that it declined to file charges because there was insufficient evidence to secure a conviction but declined to go into further detail.
"It is not uncommon for the District Attorney to drop charges that are against the police," said Dangerfield, the police spokesman. "Unless there's injuries, photos and things like that, they rarely want to prosecute a lot of threats against police officers, and even more resisting arrest, because they think that's the type of business we're in."
"That's bullshit," said Hamasaki. "(Crimes against police are) the hardest things for us to negotiate to get them to come down. ... The DA doesn't want to upset the rank and file."
Erica Derryck, a spokeswoman for the District Attorney's Office, also disagreed with Dangerfield's assessment.
"We take seriously any threats against San Franciscans whether they are uniformed sworn officers or members of the general public," Derryck said. "We review every case on a case-by-case basis."
Carpenter says he isn't the only one being targeted for his activism in Hunters Point. Police arrested Henry Taylor, 54, as he was on his way to speak up at the July 20 town hall meeting at the Bayview Opera House in which Chief Greg Suhr's appearance ignited pandemonium (see "Anger erupts over police shootings," July 27).
Dangerfield said that police arrested Taylor for violating a stay-away order, but Taylor says that he isn't under a stay-away order for that area and that police arrested him to prevent him from testifying at the town hall meeting.
No recordings are known to exist between Carpenter and the officer, just as no video recordings have revealed exactly what happened between Harding and the police on the 3rd Street Muni platform. There are several videos of the immediate aftermath, including footage of Harding writhing on the ground while police raised their weapons and denied him first aid, but apparently no video of the shooting itself. In Oakland, all officers are now issued small cameras to wear on their uniforms that record every interaction an officer has with the public. In the case of both Carpenter and Harding, such equipment would likely provide answers to what actually transpired, but Dangerfield said the SFPD has no plans to follow Oakland's lead. "I know the chief of police has said he is looking into cameras for officers who do plain clothes assignments, and warrant arrests, and things like that. For the general patrol force, at this point, that's not the case," Dangerfield said. "There are some officers who do carry their own. ... There's no rule that says that can't be done."

2011-08-19 "Like BART Protests, Internal Documents Reveal UC Has Spied on Student Fee Hike Demonstrations" by Eric Lee
[http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/site/node/9279]
Eric is a 21- year-old recent graduate of UC Davis who has been active in student anti-austerity protests for the past three years. He is a native of Santa Rosa. He can be reached at ca.ericlee@gmail.com.
---
BART actions to inhibit free speech activity isn't new to University of California students who earlier this year uncovered internal documents showing officials has conspired to monitor and control constitutionally-protected fee hike protests at UC Davis.
High-ranking University of California, Davis administrators including Chancellor Linda Katehi, several vice chancellors, more than 30 staff members, and campus police were involved, according to internal documents uncovered by students involved in the demonstrations.
Students and community members are particularly disturbed in light of similar Bay Area Rapid Transit police transgressions on the freedom to communicate.
We feel threatened that public institutions like UC Davis and BART are actively pursuing policies that treat students and passengers respectively like criminals. In the throes of the current economic meltdown, it is perhaps more valid to question the criminality of dishonest actions taken against those who are trying to fight for a better life. It is a telling sign that decision makers in these institutions feel the need to incriminate others in order to avoid public pressure for their own, sometimes violent, actions.
The documents, obtained through the state public records act, reveal high-ranking administrators, staff members, and leaders of the campus police department formed a network called the “Activism Response Team” to keep close tabs on student activists, including monitoring student Facebook activity, infiltrating protests and attempting to obtain information about “anticipated student actions," and individuals involved in the protests.
In one case, an undercover campus police officer marched with students in plain clothes and refused to identify herself as a member of the UCD police department. UCD has apologized, calling it a "mistake."
Students, faculty, staff, and the Sacramento and Yolo Chapters of the American Civil Liberties Union are extremely concerned about the deepening abuse of police power in publicly used spaces—both public transit terminals and college campuses.
Students take offense at these incursions in light of the political merit of campus protests against tuition hikes: undergraduate tuition at the University of California has increased by more than 40 percent since 2009 and 300 percent since 2001 as essential services have been cut, class sizes reduced, and lower proportions of in-state students admitted.
We students worry about the precedent that is being set by a law enforcement apparatus that is using the pulpit of “security” to restrict our rights as citizens of the United States and as human beings. Time and time again history has shown that the false cry of “security” can only be used to roll back the hard-fought advances of a democratic society.
If we wish to learn from history, we must not sit idly as the pillars of democracy begin to erode and tremble in the wake of a polarizing and precarious reality.
People, including students at a major university and commuters using public transportation, have the right to dissent without being "monitored" by a secret team of administrators and undercover police or having their right to communication impinged upon.
If police or administrators wish to observe in a public fashion protests then that is their right. But it ought not to be done in manner more befitting a totalitarian regime than an open public university.

2011-08-15 Anonymous - "OpBART"

2011-08-16 "Scenes from #opBART: video of the Civic Center protests" by Shawn Gaynor from "San Francisco Bay Guardian" newspaper
[http://www.sfbg.com/politics/2011/08/16/scenes-opbart]
Protesters shut down afternoon rush hour BART operations on Aug. 15 as part of a campaign by international hacker group Anonymous in response to the transit agency's unprecedented move to shut off cell service to prevent a protest. Here's footage from underground at Civic Center Station, and on the street as stranded commuters sought a way home [Video by Shawn Gaynor]:


Comment:
This is the Civil-Rights movement!!!
And this movement of the people is never popular in that it takes risks to bring to light todays social inequities. None of you who prosper from the mad game of capitalism will ever understand what it is to see your own brother shot coldly by the police in front of your eyes for no criminal reason. Activists who are not engaged in civil-disobedience are still being violently targeted by the police for nothing more than engaging in research about police brutality: Guy Jarreau's mother in Vallejo, for example... Fly Benzo in San Francisco's Bay View... if nobody stands up to protect our neighbors, then this country doesn't stand a chance at upholding our freedom against Tyranny!


2011-08-15 "Anonymous BART Protest Shuts Down Several Underground Stations" by Damon Poeter
[http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2391160,00.asp]
Supporters of Anonymous took to the streets and subways Monday to rally against BART's suspension of cell phone service during a previous protest, forcing police to shut down several BART and Muni underground stations in San Francisco.
"I'm here to fight censorship and shutting down people's right to protest with cellphone usage," said one Anonymous supporter wearing the global activist and hacking collective's trademark Guy Fawkes mask to protect his identity.
Gathering at about 5pm PT at the UN Plaza near the Civic Center BART and Muni station, the protestors began marching northeast on Market Street towards Powell station at about 5:25pm, right around the time that SFPD and BART police officers emerged from Civic Center station to inform that public that the station was being shut down for safety reasons.
Later, as the protestors descended upon Powell station about three blocks away, that station was also shut down. Several more stations on Market street were reportedly shut down temporarily, but all had been reopened as of Monday evening.
Cell phone service on BART remained active during Monday's protest.
Last week, Bay Area transit authorities shut down underground cell phone service on BART trains and platforms during a protest over the shootings of two men by BART police. BART authorities said they shut down cell service last Thursday from 4-7pm in an attempt to prevent protest organizers from communicating and organizing via mobile devices.
They have maintained their right to conduct such actions to protect public safety.
But protestors like the several hundred or so that Anonymous rallied Monday in just about 24 hours say hindering people's ability to communicate while organizing protests amounts to a violation of free speech.
While dozens of protestors at the San Francisco event wore masks of some sort, many more of the people on hand wore no masks. And while the event was ostensibly organized by Anonymous to protest the cell phone shutdown, chants yelled by the crowd as it marched down Market Street were clearly aimed at BART police for a series of incidents in recent years that have left suspects injured and dead.
Anonymous on Sunday hacked the mybart.org website, defacing some Web pages and also publishing user emails, phone numbers, addresses, and login credentials. Critics of the hacktivist group say the data dump shows that Anonymous has little regard for innocents caught in the cross-fire of its various battles.
Justin Minnich, an Anonymous supporter at the San Francisco protest, defended Anonymous' tactics.
"There always is [collateral damage] but that's like any battle you take, if you stand up against anything, if you believe in something, if you fight a fight, there's going to be collateral damage," Minnich said.
"There's collateral damage on their side," he added, pointing to several BART police and SFPD officers at Civic Center station about 15 minutes before they shut it down, along with Powell station on Market Street.
"They consider what they're doing is right, protecting people, serving the community. Well obviously there's collateral damage on their side, there's people getting shot."
A counter-protestor at Civic Center station who identified himself only as Robert carried a sign claiming that Anonymous "used to be cool." He said hacking websites was "teenage stuff" and that Anonymous, which he claimed to have once been a part of, should be focused on more serious targets.
"I've done things with Anonymous in the past and this strikes me as scraping the bottom of the barrel," Robert said of the BART protest. "Anonymous seems to be going through some teething problems right now, it's got this newfound freedom, from anonymity on the Internet, and it's using it for picking on targets that really shouldn't be taking up their time.
"I think the hacking of websites and the release of private information is ridiculous and we shouldn't be wasting our time on those things. We should be dealing with the perpetrators of the biggest problems we have to deal with right now, the financial crisis, militarism, all these other things that are valid targets."
---
Photographs by Anna Vignet.





2011-08-15 "Waves of protest pound at BART, shutting down stations" by Shawn Gaynor from "San Francisco Bay Guardian" newspaper
[http://www.sfbg.com/politics/2011/08/15/waves-protest-pound-bart-shutting-down-stations]
The latest battle between BART and its growing group of grassroots foes played out during today’s (Mon/15) afternoon rush hour, shutting down some San Francisco stations.
What started as a fizzled anti-police brutality protest at BART's Civic Center station has spiraled into a San Francisco moment with echoes of the Arab Spring and V For Vendetta. Following an unprecedented decision by BART officials to preemptively cut off cell phone service on August 11, in a bid to disrupt a protest that never developed, public outrage led to further protest today and a hacking attack on MyBart.org by the notorious international hacker group Anonymous over the weekend.
BART stated that it cut cell service to several of its stations during the evening commute on August 11 as a matter of public safety, fearing what officials characterized as a civil disturbance. BART did not return our call for comment, but it was apparently worried about a repeat of the July 11 protest that flooded Civic Center BART station at rush hour, preventing trains from leaving the station platform. At issue in that protest and the one that never materialized on August 11 was the fatal shooting of Charles Hill by BART police on July 3, on the Civic Center BART station train platform [http://www.sfbg.com/politics/2011/07/07/rally-planned-protest-latest-bart-shooting] [http://www.sfbg.com/2011/07/27/anger-erupts-over-police-shootings].
Today’s protests to disrupt rush hour BART service threatened by Anonymous materialized out of the rush hour crowd. Protestors, some in Guy Faulks masks, some with bloody shirts, spoke into cell phones repeating, “Can you hear me now? Can you hear me now?” over and over and over.
Upset by what they characterized as BART's record of police brutality, and the recent disruption of cell phone service, they poured into the station as the platform swelled to capacity.
One protestor stood silently with a shirt that read, “Dear BART, you can't take away our ability to call 911 while also making it a habit to shoot your riders.”
“It's incredibly ironic to squelch free speech in San Francisco, which has long been a bastion of civil liberties,” said Rainey Reitman of the Electronic Frontier Foundation who was on hand for the protest.
Others sat on the platform floor, making messages on little red hearts decrying the shooting of Hill. A yellow handbill from #ObBART, the Anonymous name for the protest, even decried BART's record and free speech.
Some began to block trains from exiting the platforms, promoting riot police to move in and clear people away. After a half-hour, BART Police Sgt. Coosndz ordered the protestors to clear the platform.
Protesters peaceably complied, spreading out through the Market Street corridor and causing closures at other nearby stations.
“No arrests were made on the platform and the protesters have peaceably dispersed,” Sgt. Macaulay of the BART police told the Guardian later.
BART officials said they did not shut down in-station cell service during the protest, which hardly seemed relevant as the stations were closed. On the street, amidst the stranded rush hour commuters it was difficult to tell who was protesting, with small groups of protesters gathering vocally but briefly and then melding back into the crowd.
Though inconvenient, the protest took the form of perhaps the most civil of civil disturbances the city has seen surrounding the police brutality issue – a stark contrast to some of the recent tense stand-offs between police and protesters.
One BART official struggled to keep up with a stream of people on the corner of Market and Montgomery trying to find another way home. “People have been very understanding,” he said while catching his breath for a minute.
As of press time, well beyond the normal evening commute hours, BART stations throughout the city’s downtown remained closed.

LEGAL QUESTIONS
According to the ACLU of Northern California, “BART is the first known government agency in the United States to block cell service in order to disrupt a political protest.”
As often happens in unprecedented cases, the legality of BART's cell service disruption has been widely debated. BART asserts that it was with its rights to disrupt phone service.
“Organizers planning to disrupt BART service on August 11, 2011 stated they would use mobile devices to coordinate their disruptive activities and communicate about the location and number of BART Police. A civil disturbance during commute times at busy downtown San Francisco stations could lead to platform overcrowding and unsafe conditions,” the agency said in an official statement.
Some have said that view constitutes prior restraint, and a breach of Federal Communications Commission cell service regulations, while others have suggested that BART may have been within its rights.
“Cell phone service has not always been available in BART stations. The advent of reliable service inside of stations is relatively recent,” acknowledged Eva Galperin of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a group that advocates for free speech in the realm of electronic communication. “But once BART made the service available, cutting it off in order to prevent the organization of a protest constitutes prior restrain on the free speech rights of every person in the station, whether they’re a protestor or a commuter.”
Michael Rifher, staff attorney ACLU of Northern California, was less sure BART's actions crossed the line of legality. “BART contracts for phone service likely allow for this,” he said. “But from a policy point of view our government should never shut down the free flow of information. It's dangerous to our democracy to react to protest by silencing them.”
While the legality of BART's phone service shutdown seems unclear, the reaction of free speech advocates has not been.
Galperin characterized the action of BART officials as shameful. “BART officials are showing themselves to be of a mind with the former president of Egypt, Hosni Mubarak, who ordered the shutdown of cell phone service in Tahrir Square in response to peaceful, democratic protests earlier this year.”
Rifher echoed the same sentiments when asked about the ethics of BART's decision. “All over the world oppressive regimes shut down basic communications to silence dissent, and we rightly condemn them. Now we are seeing similar acts here. Do we really want a system where police can call up a cell phone provider to cut service to an area over a demonstration? I think no. Demonstrations and communication are upheld by the first amendment.”
Outraged by BART's actions, San Francisco state Senator Leland Yee called on the BART Board of Directors to take immediate action to prevent a repeat incident in the future. Yee also plans to contact the Federal Communications Commission to request an investigation on the constitutionality of the decision.
“I am shocked that BART thinks they can use authoritarian control tactics,” said Yee. “BART’s decision was not only a gross violation of free speech rights; it was irresponsible and compromised public safety.”

THE HACK
In a statement released by BART on August 14, the agency acknowledged its MyBART.org site was attacked in response to the disruption of cell service. The MyBART.org website was hacked using the logo of Anonymous and to add a link to its Twitter account. About 2,200 user identifications, emails and passwords were also stolen from the site and publicized.
"Today myBART.org account information was compromised in connection with an illegal and unauthorized intrusion into the myBART system. In response to this intrusion, we have temporarily shut down the myBART.org website, and have notified law enforcement authorities."
The attack, claimed by Anonymous, had been threatened the day before. “The data was stored and easily obtainable via basic SQLi. Any 8-year-old with an Internet connection could have done what we did to find it. On top of that none of the info, including the passwords, was encrypted,” read a statement included with the released data.
In a separate statement Anonymous claimed the attack saying, “Anonymous will attempt to show those engaging in the censorship what it feels like to be silenced.”

WHO IS ANONYMOUS?
“We are Anonymous. We are legion. We never forgive. We never forget. Expect us.” Thus read an August 12 release by the group announcing in advance the BART.org hack, and Civic Center station protest. But who is Anonymous?
Heroes to some, loathed by others, Anonymous has caused a worldwide stir in recent years as the group has become associated internationally with championing issues involving Internet censorship.
Anonymous has become an increasing presence, some would say nuisance, in cyberspace as the group's notoriety has rocketed after hacking attacks against major credit card companies and Paypal, in the wake of an extra judicial financial embargo of Wikileaks by major credit card companies.
In January, the federal authorities issued more than 40 search warrants and made more than 20 arrests in a nation wide sweep against Anonymous attacks on companies that illegally withheld donations to Wikileaks.
BART Police have come under increasing public scrutiny starting with the New Year's Eve 2009 shooting of a restrained Oscar Grant. The force has been involved in three fatal shooting in the past 18 months, as many incidents as the previous 30 years of operations. The death of Charles Hill in July was the most recent of these incidents.


2011-08-17 "Anonymous hackers not in sync on San Francisco BART protests" by Ari Burack from "San Francisco Examiner"
[http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/2011/08/anonymous-hackers-not-sync-bart-protests]
The hacker collective Anonymous, which accessed BART’s website Sunday and published passwords and personal data belonging to more than 2,400 riders, is not of one mind about how best to challenge the powers that be.
In response to news stories describing that incident, some people claiming to be affiliated with the group have expressed concern about the action and how Anonymous is portrayed.
“The group that conducted the hacking, people need to know that it was NOT part of the plan, was/is NOT condoned by the majority of Anonymous, and was done IN SECRET,” said 19-year-old Michela Marsh, who said she’s been associated with the group for six years.
A student at New York University who said she is in contact with the “major players” behind this and other operations, Marsh claimed in an email that a group of six “Anons” planned the BART hack Friday night. She said when she and other people argued against the action in an online chat, “they made the chat private.”
Marsh described a rift between older Anons, who favor more extreme methods, and newer ones, who prefer more peaceful actions.
Monday’s BART protesters did not all appear to be members of Anonymous, even though self-proclaimed group members purportedly scheduled the event. Other protesters, angry at perceived BART police abuses, were more actively involved in trying to disrupt BART operations.
Some defended the so-called OpBART hack. “OpBART was an amazing op,” the self-identified Anon “Freedom Forever” told The San Francisco Examiner via Twitter. “It shows BART that they cannot censor the peoples of this world and that they can not take away freedom.”
Anon “Alba and Omegle,” who said he was not involved in the hacking, directed his criticism at the “technocratic desk jockey fail” that provoked the hack — BART’s decision last week to shut down wireless service in response to a planned protest at the Civic Center station.
“Coming up with sound policies is hard work and should not be as easy as flicking a switch,” Alba and Omegle wrote to The Examiner.
Nonetheless, he tweeted, Anonymous could have done a better job of responding to the transit agency’s action. He said the personal information released could have been scrambled so innocent people’s names were not matched with their passwords.
“I support illegal methods if [they] cause less collateral damage than legal,” he wrote.
---
Evolution of Monday’s protest
July 3: Fatal shooting by BART police of an armed man at Civic Center station prompts a commute-delaying July 11 protest; BART officials promise to crack down on future protests.
Thursday: When BART shuts down cellphone service in stations for three hours as a counter-measure against protesters, a planned protest fails to materialize.
Sunday: Responding to the cellphone shutdown, Anonymous hacks into myBART.org website and releases personal information of more than 2,000 people.


2011-08-19 "Anonymous hacker quits, burns bridges on way out" by Eric Mack from "C-Net" news
[http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-20094821-93/anonymous-hacker-quits-burns-bridges-on-way-out/]
This past Sunday, after reporting on Anonymous' hack of BART's Web site and leak of user information from mybart.org [http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-20092221-93/anonymous-defaces-bart-site-leaks-user-data/], I started receiving messages on Twitter and elsewhere from sources purporting to be tied to Anonymous. They were all critical of the leak of personal info from mybart.org--pointing to dissent on Twitter and Anonymous IRC channels. "Just wanted you to know not all of Anon approves..." read one of the messages. Then today, it seems to have all become too much for one former Anonymous hacker.
Until now, he's gone by the handle "SparkyBlaze"--and he's not one of the people that contacted me earlier this week--but today he outed himself as a Manchester, U.K., resident named Matthew who has had enough.
(Credit: Screenshot by Eric Mack/CNET)
"Over The Past Few Months Things Inside Anon Have Changed. I Am Mostly Talking About AntiSec And LulzSec. They Both Go Against What I Stand For (And What Anonymous Says They Stand For)," he writes in a Pastebin posting [http://pastebin.com/WYJS303d]. "AntiSec Has Released Gig After Gig Of Innocent Peoples Information. For What? What Did They Do? Does Anon Have The Right To Remove The Anonymity Of Innocent People? They Are Always Talking About Peoples Right To Remain Anonymous So Why Are They Removing That Right?"
He goes on to say that "higher-up" Anons have thrown other members of the collective "to the lions," claiming that Anonymous' campaigns and leadership have been ineffective and prey on "kids" to do their dirty work and risk arrest.
SparkyBlaze does give some credit to Anonymous in a brief postscript:
"I Am Not Saying Everything Anon Has Done Is Pointless Things Like Getting Internet To People When Governments Cut It Off I Support. I Am Just Saying Most Of It Isn't Helping Anyone And Is Just Getting Kids Arrested."
CNET contacted SparkyBlaze and asked if the BART operation was the last straw for him. He says "That was one factor, mainly it was because I was just fed up with anon putting peoples data on-line and then claiming to be the big heroes."
He adds that he did find it hypocritical that Anonymous claimed to be fighting for the BART users by putting their data online.
Matthew/SparkyBlaze's defection has made at least minor waves within Anonymous. A post by Commander X, purported to have led a number of recent hacks, including Sunday's BART operation, suggests SparkyBlaze should be considered persona non grata:
(Credit: Screenshot by Eric Mack/CNET)
SparkyBlaze tells CNET that posting was in response to his calling Commander X an "idiot for exposing peoples data and supporting it" coupled with his Pastebin.
With regard to his own involvement with Anonymous, Matthew/SparkyBlaze says he supported a number of operations, "and some un-ethical ones that I am not proud of... but, I never exposed peoples data. I want to be clear on that."
When pressed for examples, he says he was proud to be involved in attacks on sites run by Iran's government, but not so proud to have been involved in the Sony hack.
"If I get arrested I will have to deal with it. I don't care about what anon do now and I just want to say. Not all anon's are bad only some... Some do want change, They are just going about it in the wrong way..."