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. -M<
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Hannigan, Martin wrote:
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.
Would the folks posting news related events please footnote source URLS, especially if arguing over factual details? Thanks. - billn On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Sean Donelan wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Hannigan, Martin wrote:
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.
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
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Sean Donelan wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Hannigan, Martin wrote:
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, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 10:57:55PM -0400, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
In message <Pine.LNX.4.63.0507111753360.5504@bacchus.billn.net>, Bill Nash writes:
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.
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 -- Mark Newton Email: newton@internode.com.au (W) Network Engineer Email: newton@atdot.dotat.org (H) Internode Systems Pty Ltd Desk: +61-8-82282999 "Network Man" - Anagram of "Mark Newton" Mobile: +61-416-202-223
On Tue, 2005-07-12 at 19:20 +0930, Mark Newton wrote:
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. 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")
At 6:16 AM -0400 2005-07-12, Jim Popovitch 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?
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. -- Brad Knowles, <brad@stop.mail-abuse.org> "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -- Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), reply of the Pennsylvania Assembly to the Governor, November 11, 1755 SAGE member since 1995. See <http://www.sage.org/> for more info.
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 12:34:32PM +0200, Brad Knowles wrote:
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.
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 -- Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com Designer +-Internetworking------+----------+ RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates | Best Practices Wiki | | '87 e24 St Petersburg FL USA http://bestpractices.wikicities.com +1 727 647 1274 If you can read this... thank a system administrator. Or two. --me
----- Original Message ----- From: "Jay R. Ashworth" <jra@baylink.com> To: <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 9:17 AM Subject: Re: London incidents
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 12:34:32PM +0200, Brad Knowles wrote:
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.
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.
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 :) Safer that way. Seems to make sense. Or is that just too obvious? Mark.
On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 09:26:33AM +1200, Mark Foster wrote:
Shutting down the networks just because they can be used to trigger a bomb is asinine, though, yes.
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.
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. ;-) Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com Designer Baylink RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates The Things I Think '87 e24 St Petersburg FL USA http://baylink.pitas.com +1 727 647 1274 If you can read this... thank a system administrator. Or two. --me
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
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 09:26:33 +1200, Mark Foster said:
"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.
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...)
Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 09:26:33 +1200, Mark Foster said:
"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.
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...)
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. -- Crist J. Clark crist.clark@globalstar.com Globalstar Communications (408) 933-4387
On Jul 12, 2005, at 7:09 PM, Crist Clark wrote:
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.
The drivers are "their own control" by looking at their driving the one, three, and seven days before. Not exactly a good control if the drivers did not get an "agitating call" on those days. But whether it is the call, the phone, the headset, the drivers, etc., JC's point of "accidents are not increasing in general" sounds pretty strong to me. And MOST importantly, none of this is even slightly on topic. :) -- TTFN, patrick
In message <200507122211.j6CMBANM030410@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>, Valdis.Kletni eks@vt.edu writes:
--==_Exmh_1121206268_8796P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 09:26:33 +1200, Mark Foster said:
"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.
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 in to the drive? (This would tie in well with the "agitated by the phone call" theor y advanced by JC Dill...)
Sure, but there have been other studies *on simulators* that show similar effects: it's the call, not the handset, that causes the problem. --Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
On 7/12/05, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu> wrote:
They found a third of calls in the 10 minutes before the crash were made on cellphones. 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...)
Landline *during* the drive. Long extension cord. Really yanks the steering wheel around when you reach the end. (This probably wouldn't become any more operationally relevant if I noted that analog land lines avoid the need for IPv6 VOIP header overhead....) Some fraction of phone calls made immediately before driving are conversations about "Please get here right away" or "sorry, I'm N minutes late but I'm leaving now", which don't lead to safe driving ---- Thanks; Bill Note that this isn't my regular email account. And Google probably logs and indexes everything you send it.
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 06:11:09PM -0400, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 09:26:33 +1200, Mark Foster said:
"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.
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...)
No doubt VOIP via satellite or other wireless LAN ... an exciting concept, no? And putatively even on topic. -- Joe Yao ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This message is not an official statement of OSIS Center policies.
X-URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/12/technology/12auto.html?pagewanted=print The New York Times July 12, 2005 Hands-Free Cellphone Devices Don't Aid Road Safety, Study Concludes By JEREMY W. PETERS DETROIT, July 11 - A study of Australian drivers found that those using cellphones were four times as likely to be involved in a serious crash regardless of whether they used hands-free devices like earpieces or speaker phones that have been perceived as making talking while driving safer. ..... -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
On Jul 12, 2005, at 6:16 AM, Jim Popovitch wrote:
On Tue, 2005-07-12 at 19:20 +0930, Mark Newton wrote:
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. -- TTFN, patrick
--- "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net> wrote:
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. ;-)
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? :-) <--- notice the smiley -Jim P.
On Jul 12, 2005, at 12:56 PM, Jim Popovitch wrote:
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. ;-)
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. -- TTFN, patrick
--- "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net> wrote:
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.
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.
So you "jumped into this cat fight" by "speculating" on something when you had an authoritative source with good, specific information.
Let's look at a different source of different information on the same theme. It is undeniable that London Transport shut down the entire underground network on the day of the bombings right out to the ends of the lines in the suburbs. And it is undeniable that they shut down the bus network within Central London. Thames river boats continued to run right through the centre of the city and most mainline trains continued to operate except at Kings Cross station. Was this a good thing? Did it make people safer? Did it somehow limit the damage? Or did it magnify the effect of the terrorists by creating a massive denial of service effect in the city? Another data point. 3 of the bombs exploded virtually simultaneously, either through timing devices (no evidence of timers has been found) or through suicide bombers synchronising their watches. It is now virtually certain that these were suicide bombers. However on of the bombs exploded almost half an hour later on a bus. Given that there are bombs in the city ready to go off, either with timers or triggered by a suicide bomber, are people made safer by shutting down transport systems? Many of the people who died in that bus bomb were on the bus because the underground trains had shut down. And if the suicide bomber was not in a bus, where would he be? In another train? In a crowded street? Real security is tough, very tough, because seemingly obvious decisions can have repercussions many steps removed from the decision itself. I didn't feel any safer stuck in an underground train waiting to find out what was the problem. I didn't feel any safer crammed into a crowded bus after the tube system shut down. But I did feel a lot safer walking home after I realised that I was not going to make it into the city that day. Here in London, people talk a lot about business as ususal. But last Thursday, the actions of the authorities in shutting down the entire tube system and the bus system in Central London were clearly not business as usual. Personally, I believe that the best way to secure the transport infrastructure is diversity. Lots of buses, tube trains, mainline trains, trams, taxis, shuttles, cars, boats etc. If the authorities had subscribed to that philosophy then they would have kept the systems running instead of shutting them down. --Michael Dillon
On 2005-07-12-12:56:42, Jim Popovitch <jimpop@yahoo.com> wrote:
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).
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
On 07/12/2005 13:51 PM, Adam Rothschild allegedly wrote:
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...
Since the news this morning reported that service had been restored, one could assume it had been turned off.
In message <42D4071B.4050006@employees.org>, Scott W Brim writes:
On 07/12/2005 13:51 PM, Adam Rothschild allegedly wrote:
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...
Since the news this morning reported that service had been restored, one could assume it had been turned off.
Partially restored: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/12/nyregion/12cell.html --Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
Since the news this morning reported that service had been restored, one could assume it had been turned off.
Partially restored: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/12/nyregion/12cell.html
And as is commonplace with this kind of gross technology botch, everybody's pointing his finger in the direction of "the guy on my left". -- -- Todd Vierling <tv@duh.org> <tv@pobox.com> <todd@vierling.name>
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005, Adam Rothschild wrote: 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. I was intrigued by the concept, and did a bit of googling. I managed to dig up a fascinating article on the applications for "leaky coax" antennas, in the tunnels we are discussing, to boot! http://wirelessreview.com/mag/wireless_trouble_tunnels/ matto --matt@snark.net------------------------------------------<darwin>< The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke
Matt Ghali wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005, Adam Rothschild wrote:
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.
I was intrigued by the concept, and did a bit of googling. I managed to dig up a fascinating article on the applications for "leaky coax" antennas, in the tunnels we are discussing, to boot!
http://wirelessreview.com/mag/wireless_trouble_tunnels/
matto
It works great for in-building Wifi too if you do the proper engineering. Thomas
Orange used to supply something like this to put in your building to improve coverage - worked reasonably well also.
-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of Thomas Kernen Sent: 15 July 2005 10:21 To: Matt Ghali Cc: Adam Rothschild; nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: "Leaky Coax" [was: London incidents]
Matt Ghali wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005, Adam Rothschild wrote:
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.
I was intrigued by the concept, and did a bit of googling. I managed to dig up a fascinating article on the applications for "leaky coax" antennas, in the tunnels we are discussing, to boot!
http://wirelessreview.com/mag/wireless_trouble_tunnels/
matto
It works great for in-building Wifi too if you do the proper engineering.
Thomas
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005, Jim Popovitch wrote:
--- "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net> wrote:
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.
Indeed it does, but I have to question whether the cellphone decision was well-thought-out. I really can't believe it was. -- JustThe.net - Steve Sobol / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED Coming to you from Southern California's High Desert, where the temperatures are as high as the gas prices! / 888.480.4NET (4638) "Life's like an hourglass glued to the table" --Anna Nalick, "Breathe"
On Wed, 2005-07-13 at 00:19 -0400, Steven J. Sobol wrote:
Indeed it does, but I have to question whether the cellphone decision was well-thought-out. I really can't believe it was.
Are spontaneous "moments notice" decisions ever well-thought-out? Take this scenario away from terrorism and apply it to a presumed pending DoS/Spam attacks of years past. I know of a few m-f (Mon -> Fri, not mother f...) businesses who would shut down corp email servers on the weekend just to avoid problems. Is that a half-baked solution, sure is. Did it help, who knows? What we know is those admins slept well that weekend. :-) -Jim P. (die thread die!)
Jim Popovitch 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? AFAIK "Emergency Only" mode allows for 911 calls,
And means nothing if power is cut to the cell sites and you can't connect to anything. Emergency mode only works where there is a signal.
-Jim P. (who is tired of being caught in traffic behind weaving, slowing/speeding, hand-waving and head-shaking, cellphone "drivers")
Well, Jim, it's a good thing that your dislike of cellphone drivers isn't completely orthogonal to this discussion, eh? It also doesn't make you sound biased. -- JustThe.net - Steve Sobol / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED Coming to you from Southern California's High Desert, where the temperatures are as high as the gas prices! / 888.480.4NET (4638) "Life's like an hourglass glued to the table" --Anna Nalick, "Breathe"
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
UK Government officials deny they shutdown any cell phone service.
And they are correct. There was no shutdown of the mobile phone networks during or after the incidents. There was a request to give priority to emergency services and/or to limit cell site logins so that capacity was always available. This was confirmed during a conf call of all the major operators in the UK just after the events. [source - me, I was on the call :-)]
On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 08:49:47PM -0400, Sean Donelan wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Hannigan, Martin wrote:
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.
My personal experience, with the last few disasters, is that cell 'phone services tend to shut themselves down in the affected areas. Sort of a natural feedback type of thing. ;-] -- Joe Yao ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This message is not an official statement of OSIS Center policies.
An entity claiming to be Joseph S D Yao (jsdy@center.osis.gov) wrote: : : On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 08:49:47PM -0400, Sean Donelan wrote: : > On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Hannigan, Martin wrote: : > > > 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. : : My personal experience, with the last few disasters, is that cell 'phone : services tend to shut themselves down in the affected areas. Sort of a : natural feedback type of thing. ;-] : I heard it was a feature called Catastrophic Response Adaptive SHutdown. Mark -- [] | [] Mark Rogaski | I think there is a world market [] wendigo@pobox.com | for maybe five computers. [] mrogaski@cpan.org | --Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943 [] |
participants (26)
-
Adam Rothschild -
Bill Nash -
Bill Stewart -
Brad Knowles -
Crist Clark -
David Lesher -
Hannigan, Martin -
Jay R. Ashworth -
JC Dill -
Jim Popovitch -
Joseph S D Yao -
Mark Foster -
Mark Newton -
Mark Rogaski -
Matt Ghali -
Michael.Dillon＠btradianz.com -
Neil J. McRae -
Patrick W. Gilmore -
Scott W Brim -
Sean Donelan -
Steve Sobol -
Steven J. Sobol
-
Steven M. Bellovin -
Thomas Kernen -
Todd Vierling -
Valdis.Kletnieks＠vt.edu