BART website hacked, hundreds of users' data stolen


A marketing website for BART,, was hacked today and data for hundreds of users was stolen and posted to the Internet. The stolen

data included names, addresses, phone numbers and passwords.

"We are working to mitigate the attack," BART spokesman Jim Allison said. "We're also working to notify the people whose information has been breached."

The hacker protest group "Anonymous" took credit for the attack, and posted links to the stolen user data on its Twitter account. It also posted contact information for BART employees on its website and encouraged its members to flood them with emails and phone calls.

Allison said that BART is working with federal officials to respond to the attacks and to prevent any future security breaches. He said

that any users that have had their information stolen should not open any unsolicited emails and immediately change any passwords that my have been shared with their account.

The website was defaced using the logo of Anonymous and to add a link to its Twitter account. The site is normally used for marketing, announcing and deals near BART stations, and sends subscribers regular emails.

As of 2:30 p.m., BART's main website, was still accessible. Allison said that if BART's website did go down, travelers are recommended to use for transit information.

Allison also noted that BART's website infrastructure is not at all connected to the computer systems that run the trains themselves, and that the web attacks would not result in any service delays.

Another website not associated with BART, was also hacked with the logo of Anonymous and to add fake news stories containing racial slurs. California AVOID is a state-sponsored partnership of law enforcement organizations to prevent drunk driving.

Anonymous announced its intention to hack BART websites in a posting on its website. The shadowy hacker group said that it is already engaged in a phone, email and fax campaign to disrupt BART's operations, and that there will be a live protest in the Civic Center BART station Monday at 5 p.m.

The hacking attacks and protest are in response to BART's interruption of wireless cell phone service in several downtown San Francisco BART stations to prevent a disruptive protest on Thursday.

Last week BART announced on its website that it was anticipating demonstrations on the BART platforms in August. Commuters were "advised that

protesters may attempt to disrupt train service during August commute periods beginning as early as Thursday, August 11, 2011, in downtown San Francisco BART stations."

On July 11, protesters prevented trains from leaving the Civic Center BART station in response to the July 3 BART police shooting of Charles Hill in the same station. Protesters blocked the train doors and one even climbed on top of a train.

The Civic Center, Powell Street and 16th Street BART stations were all temporarily closed due to the protest. As a precautionary measure on

Thursday, BART temporarily suspended wireless cell phone service in several downtown San Francisco BART stations.

"They were clear in stating they could use mobile devices to organize," Allison said. He said protesters intended to use cell phones to

communicate about the number and location of BART police.

While the protest never materialized, Allison said he did not know if that was an effect of disrupting cell phone service in the stations.

The move has been widely criticized and reported worldwide, provoking further protest announcements and statements of disapproval from

Bay Area public officials. Mayoral candidate Phil Ting released a statement Saturday that said the move violated fundamental principles of democracy.

"The decision was made at the very highest staff level of the agency," Ting's statement said. "Censorship is not, and must not become, a public safety tool."

State Sen. Leland Yee also released a statement blasting BART officials for their decision. "I am shocked that BART thinks they can use authoritarian control tactics," he said. "BART's decision was not only a gross violation of free speech rights; it was irresponsible and compromised public safety."

The planned actions against BART have been widely discussed on Twitter using the hashtags #OPBart and #MuBARTek, a reference to deposed Egyptian President Hosni Mubarek, who reportedly disrupted Internet and wireless communications to stifle growing protests in Egypt. As of 11 a.m. today, over 100 people said they would be attending Monday's protest on a Facebook announcement.

Allison said no decision has been reached on whether BART will further disrupt cell phone services for Monday's demonstrations. "The top

priority for us is the safety of our passengers. We'll be taking steps to try to make sure our customers get home safely," he said, but did not specify what those steps may be.

He said that BART allows for protests in the station, but outside the fare gates. "We firmly believe in free speech, that's why we have an

expressive activities program that allows for activities outside the fare gates, where it's safe," Allison said.

In an announcement for Monday's protest it was not clear whether demonstrators intended to gather on the platform or outside the fare gates.

Organizers from Anonymous said the protest would be peaceful.


Like this comment
Posted by Alan
a resident of Blackhawk
on Aug 15, 2011 at 4:56 pm

If any of these "free speech" extremists would read Brandenburg v. Ohio, they might be enlightened on the fact that the 1st Amendment actually does have boundaries. One is more than welcome to stand on a "soap box" and spout off to their heart's content, but when your "free speech" might incite "imminent lawless action" (e.g. riot), free speech rights end there. I believe that BART did what was necessary to protect the, "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" for their patrons as many "peaceful protests" end in riots. The safety rights of many very much outweigh the soap box rights of the few!

Like this comment
Posted by Jessica Lipsky
a resident of Danville
on Aug 16, 2011 at 11:01 am

Major media outlets in the Bay Area have been saturated with coverage of last night's protest, some featuring interesting discussions of the free speech v. BART's right to protect its passengers and trains (check out Democracy Now's War and Peace Report and KQED's Forum).

Many of these sources reiterate that the government took away the right to free speech/cell phone usage, but I'm curious as to whether BART, as a private entity, has the right to turn off or power down cell phone reception in a train station. Thoughts?

Jessica Lipsky

Like this comment
Posted by Alan
a resident of Alamo
on Aug 16, 2011 at 3:36 pm

Please take these protesters and the TEA party ... and send them off to some distant island. Both are making our lives miserable.

Like this comment
Posted by [clarify]
a resident of Alamo
on Aug 16, 2011 at 3:38 pm

Dear Editor,

The mobile repeating service in BART facilities is the property of BART and is offered as a service that may be refused at any time or permanently discontinued. There is no contractual obligation to provide the service to any user. The same is true for public networks including AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile and other service providers. Each has the right to refuse service at any time based on their terms of service.

Please refer to US DOJ COPS informational pages and the various FCC pages for details of rights to refuse service. In this matter, those that have hacked the BART network have the potential for having their connective permanent removed under terms of service and various state and federal laws restricting criminal actions.

I suggest contacting US Attorney's office in San Francisco to validate such rights of services providers to refuse service. It would be worth noting the punishment for such criminal actions reported in this exchange.

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

The valley needs strong leadership on BART board
By Tim Hunt | 3 comments | 4,194 views

3 Great Ways to Showcase Your Strengths on College Applications!
By Elizabeth LaScala | 0 comments | 371 views