Denial of Service: Is Wireless Access Always a Right?
It is broadly understood that wireless service may be absent altogether in a given public space, that it may be present but unavailable due to factors such as maintenance or insufficient capacity during periods of high demand, and that its utilization may be subject to various terms of use restrictions. Intentional shutdowns to thwart free expression, however, are a different matter, and the criticisms that have been directed at BART are generally reasoned and accurate.
But it is also important to recognize that those criticisms are made from the safety of hindsight. We know now that there was no protest, that there was no rogue breakaway flash mob inside a station that exploited an otherwise peaceful event by using wireless messaging to single out the passengers of a specific subway car for a spree of robbery and assault. In a week that has also seen widespread rioting in the United Kingdom, some of it facilitated through wireless communications, and the imposition of a curfew in Philadelphia specifically in response to a spate of violent flash mob attacks, the question of when a wireless network owner has a right to impede its use in the alleged interest of the greater public good – or when a government can compel a network owner to take such a step – is more relevant than ever.