Re Bart's interference w/ cell phones and the Anonymous protest

It has been repeated and generally undisputed by the media that the actions taken by BART last Thursday in interfering with cell phone communications were prompted by information BART had received about a planned protest and/or service disruption.

BART has offered NO information, however, to substantiate its alleged concern about a planned protest and/or service disruption.

And I wonder if anyone reading these words ever heard (from anybody other than the corporate news, that is) about any protest planned for last Thursday....

In the meantime, BART's word is repeated as fact, and it stands out there unchallenged.

This all makes me wonder what BART, and perhaps its federal allies, were really up to in disrupting cell phone service. Was it simply a question of BART having received a bad tip and taking things to an extreme? Was it a test to see what people and the courts would tolerate? Was it part of a sting/counter-insurgency operation?

It also disturbs me that the focus of the media and within the blogosphere has been to a large extent diverted from the subject of police terror—the CAUSE of recent actions at BART and in SF and Oakland in response to the murders of Oscar Grant, Raheim Brown, Charles Hill, and Kenneth Harding—to the subject of speech rights.