London incidents

Mailman List Mirror (Read Only)
1

In message <Pine.LNX.4.63.0507111753360.5504@bacchus.billn.net>, Bill Nash writ
es:

Would the folks posting news related events please footnote source URLS,
especially if arguing over factual details?

http://networks.silicon.com/mobile/0,39024665,39150177,00.htm
has what Sean was referring to.

- billn

All this while I was trying unsuccessfully to use my
mobile to ring the office.

Some cell relays were temporarily shut to prevent a remote
detonation of additional explosives. Cellular remotes seem
to be a favorite of Al Qaeda and others.

UK Government officials deny they shutdown any cell phone service.

http://networks.silicon.com/mobile/0,39024665,39150177,00.htm

    --Steven M. Bellovin, Steven M. Bellovin

2

Then we have this:
http://us.cnn.com/2005/US/07/11/tunnels.cell.phones.ap/index.html

  "The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which runs area
  transit hubs, bridges and tunnels, decided last Thursday to
  indefinitely sever power to transmitters providing wireless
  service in the Holland and Lincoln tunnels, spokesman Tony
  Ciavolella said Monday."
    [ ... ]

  "The Department of Homeland Security said the decision in New York
  to cut off cellular service was made without any recommendation by
  the federal government's National Communications System, which
  ensures communications are available during national emergencies."

I gotta say, this is pretty typical of the lack of coordination and
actual rational thought that goes into reacting to security incidents.

There's been -nothing- from the Brits to say that cellphones were
involved in their explosions; And DHS says they haven't made any
recommendations one way or the other; And there's no reason to
believe that the threat to the New York subway system is any higher
than usual; And yet someone at the Port Authority has made a
unilateral decision to shut off the cells, and now if there -is- a
real emergency nobody can call 911.

Breathtaking.

  - mark

3

Basically it's damned if you do take action, damned if you don't. Once
again we see that you can't please all the people (yes, even those not
using NYC tunnels) all the time.

I think the world has shown that cellphones have been used over and over
to detonate explosive devices. Why wait for it to be proved again
before doing something? AFAIK "Emergency Only" mode allows for 911
calls, just not inbound/outbound calls. Besides, the US (at least) is
full of a lot of people who need to hang up the phone and start driving
good again.

-Jim P. (who is tired of being caught in traffic behind weaving,
slowing/speeding, hand-waving and head-shaking, cellphone "drivers")

4

I think the world has shown that cellphones have been used over and over
to detonate explosive devices. Why wait for it to be proved again
before doing something?

The logical conclusion to that line of thought would seem to be that
all cell phone services should be turned off in all densely populated
areas. Is this really what we want?

(It's certainly not what *I* want.)

Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug@nethelp.no

5

I think the world has shown that cellphones have been used over and over
to detonate explosive devices. Why wait for it to be proved again
before doing something?

  What do you suggest? Eliminating the entire mobile telephone industry?

                          AFAIK "Emergency Only" mode allows for 911
calls, just not inbound/outbound calls.

  You can only change to something like that after an emergency has happened, by which time it is too late. If the bombers do the kind of thing they did in Madrid (using the alarm function), then you don't need mobile phones at all, except as a cheap source of easily programmable digital alarm clocks.

  I'm sorry, I just don't see mobile phones being the bad guy here. I don't see any kind of activity designed to restrict their use as being a positive thing, regardless of the timing.

                                          Besides, the US (at least) is
full of a lot of people who need to hang up the phone and start driving
good again.

-Jim P. (who is tired of being caught in traffic behind weaving,
slowing/speeding, hand-waving and head-shaking, cellphone "drivers")

  All testing results I've heard of indicate that the real problem is that the driver is distracted when doing anything but driving. Many accidents happen when drivers are futzing about with their radios. Many happen when drivers are talking to other people in the car.

  The problem with mobile phones in the car has less to do with taking a person's hand off the wheel (although that is something to be concerned about), and more to do with the fact that the driver is distracted by talking to the person on the other end.

  So, to make good on this, you'd have to outlaw all activities which could potentially interfere with driving. All mobile phones of all sorts would have to be kept out of the range of hearing of the driver (also eliminating all hands-free units), all car audio/video systems would have to be eliminated, you could not allow any GPS devices, you'd have to outlaw eating food and/or drinking beverages while driving (including soft drinks, coffee, etc...), and you'd have to have a muzzle law for all passengers.

  Drivers would have to be completely isolated from all sights, sounds, and other distractions not directly related to driving.

  Do you honestly think that there's a snowball's chance of ever being able to achieve even one of these goals?

  Believe me, I understand your frustration. Unfortunately, since we have the best government that money can buy (or worse, depending on what country you live in), I don't see that you or I or anyone else will be able to do anything to even slow down the introduction of new technologies whose primary goal (or side-effect) is to further distract drivers.

6

> http://networks.silicon.com/mobile/0,39024665,39150177,00.htm
> has what Sean was referring to.
> >> UK Government officials deny they shutdown any cell phone service.

In London, the mobile operators do not provide any service
anywhere in the London underground network. The only place
that I know of where there is service is on the Heathrow
Express platforms at Heathrow but that is technically not
part of the London underground. Outside of Central London
the lines run aboveground and there is obviously mobile
coverage in those areas. Also, some of the lines run in shallow
tunnels, sometimes little more than uncovered trenches and
so there are areas where the signal from local cells does
penetrate into the trains.

There has been some talk recently of setting up microcells
inside the tunnels to give mobile coverage throughout the
system as is found in other countries. I wonder if this will
now be reconsidered.

There are always tradeoffs when building infrastructures
of any type. Like the requirement for generator capacity
at 60 Hudson versus the desire of Tribeca residents to
not live next door to a fuel dump.

--Michael Dillon

7

The logical conclusion to that line of thought would seem to
be that all cell phone services should be turned off in all
densely populated areas. Is this really what we want?

(It's certainly not what *I* want.)

Not sure about that, a life with no mobile phones? It certainly
has its plus points! :slight_smile:

Regards,
Neil.

8

There's been -nothing- from the Brits to say that cellphones were
involved in their explosions; And DHS says they haven't made any
recommendations one way or the other; And there's no reason to
believe that the threat to the New York subway system is any higher
than usual; And yet someone at the Port Authority has made a
unilateral decision to shut off the cells, and now if there -is- a
real emergency nobody can call 911.

Basically it's damned if you do take action, damned if you don't. Once
again we see that you can't please all the people (yes, even those not
using NYC tunnels) all the time.

No, it's damned if you take stupid action, damned if you do not do something you should.

People in charge of our security should not be allowed to take whatever action comes to mind in the name of security. Intelligent, useful, competent decisions should be made. If they cannot make them, we should find someone who can.

Billions of dollars, millions of person-hours, and more frustration than I can quantify is not a good price to pay for the infinitesimal increase in security (if any) we have received through decisions like this one.

I think the world has shown that cellphones have been used over and over
to detonate explosive devices. Why wait for it to be proved again
before doing something? AFAIK "Emergency Only" mode allows for 911
calls, just not inbound/outbound calls. Besides, the US (at least) is
full of a lot of people who need to hang up the phone and start driving
good again.

Your logic is ... illogical. If you cannot see why, I will not be able to explain it to you. (But you probably feel safer knowing I can't pack a Zippo in my checked in baggage.)

As for the "Emergency Only" mode, the original poster said _power was cut_ to the repeaters. Could you explain to me how this allows for 911 calls please?

-Jim P. (who is tired of being caught in traffic behind weaving,
slowing/speeding, hand-waving and head-shaking, cellphone "drivers")

Not really relevant to the discussion at hand.

9

No, it's damned if you take stupid action, damned if you do not do
something you should.

People in charge of our security should not be allowed to take
whatever action comes to mind in the name of security.

Then who should, and with data from who's mind? I suppose they (the
ones in charge) could spend their time polling the audience, but that
has it's price and uncertainty too.

Intelligent, useful, competent decisions should be made. If they cannot
make them, we should find someone who can.

But they did make a decision, it is only some (majority or not, but clearly
not all) that are still not convinced of the competency of their decision.
(note: some will never be convinced, some will always be convinced).

Billions of dollars, millions of person-hours, and more frustration
than I can quantify is not a good price to pay for the infinitesimal
increase in security (if any) we have received through decisions like
this one.

How can you accurately know this? I think you are just presuming, but
you (like I) will never really truly know. We don't like spending that
money, but we have no proof that not spending it is better. We can all
agree that it could probably be spent wiser, but this is the US Government.

> I think the world has shown that cellphones have been used over and
> over
> to detonate explosive devices. Why wait for it to be proved again
> before doing something? AFAIK "Emergency Only" mode allows for 911
> calls, just not inbound/outbound calls. Besides, the US (at least) is
> full of a lot of people who need to hang up the phone and start
> driving
> good again.

Your logic is ... illogical. If you cannot see why, I will not be
able to explain it to you. (But you probably feel safer knowing I
can't pack a Zippo in my checked in baggage.)

No, your logic is ... illogical.., and I will not show you where. :wink:

As for the "Emergency Only" mode, the original poster said _power was
cut_ to the repeaters. Could you explain to me how this allows for
911 calls please?

The original poster quoted a news report, how may times have you seen
technically accurate news reports? I don't know the source of the
report but I do know that some people think the the whole internet is
down when only it is their connection. In this case (someone saying that
the port authority had shutdown cellphone access) there are so many
possible interpretations that it is impossible to really know without
firsthand knowledge. Speculation as to "how", is just as bad as speculation
as to "why" (which is why I jumped into this cat fight).

> -Jim P. (who is tired of being caught in traffic behind weaving,
> slowing/speeding, hand-waving and head-shaking, cellphone "drivers")

Not really relevant to the discussion at hand.

Mom? :slight_smile: <--- notice the smiley

-Jim P.

10

Billions of dollars, millions of person-hours, and more frustration
than I can quantify is not a good price to pay for the infinitesimal
increase in security (if any) we have received through decisions like
this one.

How can you accurately know this? I think you are just presuming, but
you (like I) will never really truly know. We don't like spending that
money, but we have no proof that not spending it is better. We can all
agree that it could probably be spent wiser, but this is the US Government.

To date, the TSA, the OMB, Congress, the FBI, and the CIA all agree that the TSA has not made us any safer. (Note the first department in that list.)

Of course, maybe we averted World War III, but everyone who's been asked (including the security people themselves), and real-world tests of our security efforts, show that we are not any safer.

IOW: No, it is not a presumption.

I think the world has shown that cellphones have been used over and
over
to detonate explosive devices. Why wait for it to be proved again
before doing something? AFAIK "Emergency Only" mode allows for 911
calls, just not inbound/outbound calls. Besides, the US (at least) is
full of a lot of people who need to hang up the phone and start
driving
good again.

Your logic is ... illogical. If you cannot see why, I will not be
able to explain it to you. (But you probably feel safer knowing I
can't pack a Zippo in my checked in baggage.)

No, your logic is ... illogical.., and I will not show you where. :wink:

Others in the thread have shown fallacies in your argument. I am sorry you did not understand them.

As for the "Emergency Only" mode, the original poster said _power was
cut_ to the repeaters. Could you explain to me how this allows for
911 calls please?

The original poster quoted a news report, how may times have you seen
technically accurate news reports? I don't know the source of the
report but I do know that some people think the the whole internet is
down when only it is their connection. In this case (someone saying that
the port authority had shutdown cellphone access) there are so many
possible interpretations that it is impossible to really know without
firsthand knowledge. Speculation as to "how", is just as bad as speculation
as to "why" (which is why I jumped into this cat fight).

I was not speculating. From the post:

Then we have this:
http://us.cnn.com/2005/US/07/11/tunnels.cell.phones.ap/index.html

  "The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which runs area
  transit hubs, bridges and tunnels, decided last Thursday to
  indefinitely sever power to transmitters providing wireless
  service in the Holland and Lincoln tunnels, spokesman Tony
  Ciavolella said Monday."

The Port Authority spokesman said they decided to "indefinitely sever power to transmitters". The source seems reliable, knowledgeable, and specific.

So you "jumped into this cat fight" by "speculating" on something when you had an authoritative source with good, specific information.

11

When I was in the Lincoln Tunnel yesterday, my Cingular (GSM) phone
clearly reported that it had no service, not even "SOS-only" mode.

As I understand it, cellular service in the tunnels is provided by
cells co-located in the Weehawken, NJ and New York City, NY vent
buildings, with "leaky coax" cable shared by all carriers running
inside the tubes. Since the vent buildings are owned operated by the
NY/NJ Port Authority, it seems conceivable they could have pulled the
power if they wanted to. Whether or not they did is best left as an
exercise for the nanog-l army of political commentators and
counter-terrorism specialists...

Hope this helps,
-a

12

Since the news this morning reported that service had been restored,
one could assume it had been turned off.

13

Personal attacks/differences aside.. you need to read that article. It in no
way is specific about any one thing. There are several tunnels in NYC, some
which the article says have had "power severed" and some which they say have
"suspended mobile service" (what if the reporter got them mixed up? which
tunnel are you speaking to? etc., etc.).

There is also quite a few other open-ended statments like who "ordered" the
service to be shut off, and then their is the final paragraph which seems to
refute your claim that some higher US government power orchestrated this whole
thing (presumably to get under your skin)

I stand by my claim that, in the absense of more data, speculation on "why" is
best left to others. I am not going to second guess their every decision until
such time that I have as much info as they do. I'm sure they are not perfect,
so I don't expect perfection either. YMMV.

-Jim P.

14

They say this, but it doesn't work that way for me, as a datapoint.

It's not the conversation that's the big thing, IME; it's *holding a
phone up to your ear*, which is an action we train ourselves to follow
up with *ignoring what's going on around us*.

When I talk while driving *without* a headset, my driving's usually
fine... it's my *navigation* that fails totally. Using a headset, both
are fine. YMMV.

Shutting down the networks just because they can be used to trigger a
bomb is asinine, though, yes.

Cheers,
-- jra

15

Its the first step toward the Police State mentality that I fear is going to
develop over time.
And damned if I know what to do about it. But the enhanced security required
when crossing borders now is case in point. Are they just going to keep on
locking down all the freedoms which we've come to enjoy in the last 50
years, in order to prevent their use in assistance of, or vulnerability to,
terrorist activity? Thats a _big_ can of worms.

Funny the cellphone stuff is being discussed, tho - Local Media had this
today:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3343357a11,00.html

"People using cellphones while driving are four times more likely to have a
serious crash than non-users, and using a hands-free phone does not lower
the risk, new research has found.

The British Medical Journal has today published the results of a Perth study
of drivers using cellphones who have been involved in road crashes requiring
hospital treatment."

"Using phone company records, researchers assessed phone use immediately
before the crash.
They found a third of calls in the 10 minutes before the crash were made on
cellphones. This was associated with a four-fold increased likelihood of
crashing, and the risk was irrespective of age, sex or whether the phone was
hands-free.
Researchers said more new vehicles were being equipped with hands-free
technology. Although this could lead to fewer hand-held phones in cars, the
study showed it might not eliminate the risk."

I'm saddened by it, because IMHO people who let their driving suffer through
cellphone use have gotten it the wrong way around. Personally I let my
conversation skills slip :slight_smile: Safer that way. Seems to make sense. Or is
that just too obvious?

Mark.

16

Well, the terrorists wanted to deprive us of the freedoms we enjoy, and
they've talked us into doing the hard parts for them...

but I see no way to configure a router to enhance personal freedom, so
I guess we'll take this subthread off list. :wink:

Cheers,
-- jra

17

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

sthaug@nethelp.no wrote:

I think the world has shown that cellphones have been used over and over
to detonate explosive devices. Why wait for it to be proved again
before doing something?

The logical conclusion to that line of thought would seem to be that
all cell phone services should be turned off in all densely populated
areas. Is this really what we want?

Doesn't Al Queda use the Internet to communicate? Probably would be a
good idea to shut that down too...

- --
Chris A. Epler <cepler@HostMySite.com> | PGP KeyID: 0xBD1BE609
HostMySite.com - Network Operations | 6092 42BA 666E 73CF 91C9
UGZY znvy vf gur fcnja bs FNGNA! | 34AC 38D5 DDBA BD1B E609

18

Mark Foster wrote:

"Using phone company records, researchers assessed phone use immediately
before the crash.

There are 3 kinds of lies:

  lies
  damn lies
  statistics

They found a third of calls in the 10 minutes before the crash were made on
cellphones. This was associated with a four-fold increased likelihood of
crashing, and the risk was irrespective of age, sex or whether the phone was
hands-free.
Researchers said more new vehicles were being equipped with hands-free
technology. Although this could lead to fewer hand-held phones in cars, the
study showed it might not eliminate the risk."

Coincidence != cause and effect.

Despite all these studies saying that cell phone use "causes accidents", the overall accident rate is NOT going up. Therefore, the cell phone using drivers who get in accidents are drivers who would have been in an accident *anyway*. They are inattentive drivers. Take away their cell phones and they will get in accidents while driving and eating, or driving and tuning the radio, or driving and arguing with a passenger.

Take the above "four-fold increase". Suppose you go BACK a step and find out why they were making a phone call within the 10 minutes before a crash. Odds are that the reason they made the phone call is highly related to the reason they got in a crash - they were running late - their boss called and yelled at them (employee) - they called home and were chewed out for not being home yet (teenager) - just had an argument with spouse, etc. So after engaging in a call of this nature (while driving or while NOT driving), they are more likely to get in an accident due to being upset and/or in a hurry. The *cell* phone use was totally incidental, rather than cause/effect.

jc

19

And the *other* 2/3rd of the calls were made on what, exactly?

A land line just before departure, followed by a crash less than 10 minutes into
the drive? (This would tie in well with the "agitated by the phone call" theory
advanced by JC Dill...)

20

Oh, gawd. Now I have to go read it myself. You can track this down
pretty easily at the BMJ site, bmj.com, and download a PDF version.
It's only 5 pages long.

I don't see where they got that "one third of the calls" number above.
As far as I can tell, the study only looks at mobile phone calls.

As for the "inattentive-risky driver" and "agitated driver" theories, the
researchers took (tried to take) this into acount by using a case-crossover
design whereby individual drivers are their own control.

Feel free to argue the results of the study, but read the study, not
some confused newspaper summary, and please don't do it on NANOG.