Slashdot Mirror
The Feds' Ramsey Electronics Raid Blow by Blow
The Raid
On the morning of November 10th, radio equipment manufacturer Ramsey Electronics was raided by the United States Customs Service by officers with a search warrant. In addition to building radio testing equipment, Ramsey Electronics is also a well-known vendor of electronic hobby kits used by organizations like the Boy Scouts of America. Like an action movie drug-bust, agents moved in at 10 a.m. to search and seize over $30,000 worth of Ramsey Electronics inventory. Company President John Ramsey offered this play-by-play of that morning's events:
They had already been here almost an hour when I walked in. I [had been] at the bank. When I came back in, I saw my controller, Ed VanVoorhis and his face was white as a ghost. There were these two guys wearing suits standing on each side of him. He told me that these guys were from the government and they were here with a search warrant. Then the agents took over; they pretty much bullied me down the hallway and into my office. I went to go sit at my desk, and they said 'No. you sit over here,' pointing to a couch in my office. The two of them proceeded to rattle off a lot of mumble jumble like Title 18 USC Section 2512 and other numbers, flashing badges and being surrealistically intimidating. I'm looking at my accountant. I have never seem him like this. The [agents] are verbally batting me back and forth, and I'm like, 'Hey, what's going on?' They proceeded to tell me that they were executing a search warrant to find goods that were in violation of section 2512, and they shove this four or five page search warrant in my face.
They said that they were here to find stuff that violated section 2512 and I said, 'Like our wireless FM mic kits?' The one [agent] gave me his card, and I noticed that he was from Buffalo, an hour and a half away. I said, 'you two guys came all the way here from Buffalo?' and he said, 'No. There's seven of us.' Then he said, 'If you don't cooperate with us, we'll shut you down. We'll lock the doors, send all the employees home, we'll go through all of your inventory, records, customer lists and computers. We'll go through your computers bit-by-bit. We have experts that do that, and we don't care if it takes months.' I was escorted out to the production and shipping areas, which they had pretty much commandeered. All the doors had 8 1/2 x 11 pieces of paper taped on them with a large handwritten letter on them - like A, B and C. There was a fellow wearing a photographers vest snapping pictures everywhere; we later counted 5 empty film cans in the trash!
About five hours after they arrived, they staged all of the official US government boxes near the back loading dock. They took a huge van and backed it up to my loading dock, and proceeded to load it with my goods. I walked over to the boxes to verify what they were taking; obviously, they would want me to confirm their counts and amounts. I was stunned! They wouldn't let me see what was in the boxes! I have no idea what they took. I went over to look in them, and they told me to get away. They told me they'd give me an inventory sheet. I said, 'That's my stuff and I should be able to check it.' Special Agent Craig Healy turned to me and said 'You can trust us.'"
After they had finished loading the van, they presented me with the inventory sheet, a simple handwritten sheet with no names, titles or signatures. There's nothing indicating who it was from on it. I looked at one of the sheets quickly and noticed the very first part number wasn't one of ours and the second item number listed was for a kit that had no function or bearing on their search warrant. They agreed to fish those two items out of the van and sure enough, neither item was correct. One of them said words to the effect of, 'gee, we must have picked up the wrong box from your shelf.' They corrected their mistakes, asked for a recommendation for a good local restaurant and were on their way...
After they left, employees told me that they surrounded the building, watching all the entrances while they entered along with a New York state trooper for back-up. This show of force, while maybe necessary for raiding an underground drug lab, was hardly necessary. Our building is located in a typical suburban office park and our showroom is open to all.
What's incredible is that two of the agents were here a week earlier, pretending to be customers! This 'recon' obviously would have shown them that no force would be needed, let alone seven agents on a three hour travel time round trip. What's especially aggravating was that during the earlier visit they tried to lead one of my technical people into saying something they wanted to hear. Questions were posed like 'if we placed one of these little kits across the street in that building - for instance - could we hear it over here?' Our technician assured them that although the units work great for model rockets, toy cars and such, they really weren't suited for transmitting out of a building. Steel construction, reinforcing rod and the like limits range. They then asked if they could boost the power to do the job. Our fellow once again reiterated that the kits were hobby stuff and that what they wanted couldn't be found here. After the raid, my technician told me that they were here last week, playing 'customer' and how they had left unsatisfied.
So, where do we sit now? I have a Federal Small Business Innovation Grant underway that uses our little FM-5 wireless mike to transmit muscle sensor data to a nearby computer system. The doctors who are partners in the grant specified the FM-5 due to its small size; present technology uses a six pound transmitter that straps to the back of a child. Tough to do on a forty pound kid. The research is on walking disorders on crippled kids. Now what? Shall we violate their interpretation of the law and work with the doctors and the SBIR people? How about all the schools, scout troops and hobbyists who use our kits? We're not talking big money here. The kits amount to a small portion of our business, but what will these folks do now?
I have personally received mail from many who say that they are now graduate engineers as a direct result of one of our little kits sparking their interest in electronics. I guess the mobsters, terrorists and kidnappers don't feel the need to write, huh?
The Aftermath - and the Feds
The raid on Ramsey Electronics has caused quite a stir online, in Ramsey's own discussion forum as well as the submission queue here at Slashdot. People have gotten into intense discussions about freedom of information, freedom of speech, and the importance of using modern electronics in the field of education. At first glance, the raid may look like a cavalcade of constitutional rights issues, but Joel Violanti, the attorney prosecuting this case for the United States Customs Service, disagrees. Here's his take on the Ramsey raid:
Slashdot:
What happened, Joel?
Violanti:
On November 10th, there were approximately 13 search warrants issued in New York City and Rochester, New York and Austin, Texas against companies believed to be in the business of selling electronic surreptitious intercept devices, in violation of federal law. Ramsey Electronics was one of those companies.
Slashdot:
Apparently, Ramsey's been selling this equipment for a very long time. Why did the raid occur last year?
Violanti:
If something's illegal, it's illegal.
Slashdot:
Is there any reason that Ramsey Electronics wasn't raided earlier?
Violanti:
Sometimes you can only act upon things when you're informed of them. There's a task force in New York City that's been investigating this for a few years now. They've been shutting down companies or preventing companies from selling these things, and they've been taking several criminal pleas because of this. These people have been pleading guilty in Federal court. San Francisco now has a task force. Other cities are joining in, trying to stop the manufacture and distribution of this equipment.
Slashdot:
Where does it stop? It seems like I could build something like this on my own, and then be just as guilty.
Violanti:
The statute prohibits people from manufacturing and distributing these devices, knowing they've been shipped through the mail.
Slashdot:
Where does the government draw the line at surreptitious use, as opposed to educational use?
Violanti:
I don't know how to answer that. Use is use. If you place a device in a clock, and you put that clock on the wall, and you monitor someone's conversation that you're not a part of, I think that surreptitious use speaks for itself. Clock, smoke detector, or picture frame, you're taking that device out of its primary use in order to secretly intercept someone else's conversation. We're not necessarily looking for kits or components. We're looking for items like clocks, smoke detectors and picture frames.
Mr. Violanti made it clear that the US Customs Service was not in any way attempting to 'crack down' on the hobbyist or educational use of electronic devices. The emphasis remains on specific items that fall under the category of surreptitious use. The specific items the feds were apparently looking for in the Ramsey raid were things like microphones and video cameras mounted inside smoke detectors or alarm clocks, effectively masquerading as something they weren't.
Despite Mr. Violanti's reasuurances, the Ramsey Electronics raid still leaves questions for innocent geeks who like to tinker with assorted electronic parts. What if, for instance, you build an alarm clock that will sense motion when it goes off, and will keep going off if it doesn't sense you getting out of bed and stops when you do? What if you rig your smoke detector with a video or audio system so that rescue workers can make sure your family gets out of your house safely in the event of a fire?
There are many uses for 'surveillance technology' other than listening in on boring conversations.
But even if you made these devices with the most innocent purposes in mind, and sold them through the U.S. Mail to people as innocent as yourself, it looks like the Federal Government would feel justified in taking them away from you just in case one of your customers decided to use one of your gadgets to break the law in some way.
It's a scary thought, isn't it?
Methink the feds should stay out of other peoples hair...
Apathy -- The state of numbness of the mind. When you are apathic, you can think.
...the government hates competition.
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
This has happened before. Stupid government raids initiated by bored agents. Judges have tended in the past to smack the feds silly. Ramsey electronics can kiss that stuff goodbye, as well as any losses or damages.
Does this mean that my Mr. Microphone is in violation too?
Thanks.
ANyone in the gun culture already knows that we have become the "Jews of Germany in the 30's".
We have raids on peoples house for the crime of owning a fully legal, registered firearm.
We comply with stricter and stricter laws, only to find that they use the registration lists to confiscate our firearms.
We in the firearms culture already see what other segments of US society are only beggining to see, America has become a police state.
If they want your goods, they will come and take them, good luck getting them back. If they want your land, they will take it, if some podunk police department wants your car, they will confiscate it.
Wake up already.
The bottom line is that, under current law, federal law enforcement can seize your entire business with little or no judicial oversight, you have no right to appeal, and no right to due process. It happens all the time, and noone cares because it's just the drug-dealers and the hackers whining about it, right?
You want an issue: this is it. Law & Order is not an excuse for unreasonable search and seizure. And the fact that this kind of nonsense is tolerated is wonderful evidence of just how downhill our courts have gone -- civil rights, RIP. Killed by judicial activism.
-- Slashdot sucks.
is yet another opportunity for geeks to pretend to be lawyers pretending to be geeks.
In dutch we have an expression for these kinds of things: Amerikaanse toestanden.
This translates approximately to 'American situations' with strong negative connotations. Needless to say it's never used in a positive sense.
//rdj
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
If Slashdot is so concerned about what this might mean for the tinkering geek, why didn't they ask the interviewee specifically about that?
Finally, I find it odd that I heard nothing about this in the local media (I live in Rochester). No letters to the editor, no articles in the paper, nothing. Might have been something on TV news, but I doubt it (since there was nothing in the newspaper).
Very odd indeed...
Powers&8^]
They raided Supercircuits in Austin TX.
I guess the Govt does not like any competition when it comes to spying on people...
Starman97@Gmail.com (bring it on spammers)
I may just not get this, but it seems that Violanti was not clear about wether or not it was illegal to make these things for personal use. Or maybe selling plans isn't illegal. I'm probably wrong on this one, but if plans for such a device aren't illegal, then Ramsey could probably make some more money on this one.
Your village called: Their idiot is missing.
They usually have such things like cameras hidden in clocks and radios in their catalogs. A wuick serach of their web page didn't show any, so maybe they've already been hit.
They do still mention their b&w surviellance cameras.
George
Well this would appear to be a huge misuse of authority. I would say that the owner of the store has a case for finding out what was in the boxes that were confiscated. Although by this time i'm sure that it is gone or disassembled.
--"Karma is justice without the satisfaction"
Policemen shout "freeze" and that sort of stuff before shooting. This makes no sense.
Ofcourse, those FM Mics are illegal according to the law, but what about a friendly nice notice first before raiding a store!
I don't know about the Dutch equvalent, but I guess this is just the way how the Feds operate...
- Artificial Intelligence usually beats real stupidity -
I just love being guilty until proven innocent....
So, I can't buy chemistry lab equipment because I might make drugs....
I can't buy small video cameras because I might put them in a clock....
I can't watch DVDs on Linux because I might make copies....
I can't duplicate a digital audio tape I made of my late grandmother because I might copy N*SYNC's latest album....
Ramsey also manufactures kits that, when assembled (very easily), transmit on the 88-108MHz band... FM radio. Pump Up the Volume :)
:)
There's specific FCC regulations for ultra-low-power FM devices, and Ramsey's kits (as shipped) all fall well inside, but the design of the devices is so simple and open that they can easily be modified to either put out more power on their own or to be the first stage in a massive pirate FM operation. It's a miracle that this legal action didn't originate from the FCC (Knock On Wood).
BTW: Ramsey makes good stuff and ships it out in good faith at a decent price. Truly a hobbyist's friend.
The company could be in real trouble - section 2512 is kindof vague. It uses the term 'surrepitious' apparently to mean 'disguised'. So on the face of things Ramsey should be OK. They make electronics kits, not hidden microphones.
But, the text of 2512 also makes use of the term "primary use or function", which I think gives the Feds a real lever to use against Ramsey - they don't have to find devices hidden in clocks and picture frames (which is what they apparently were looking for). All they have to do is be able to argue in court that the "primary use" for the kits would be for people to build their own hidden monitoring devices. That it is not the kit's stated or advertised use may not be defense enough.
IANAL of course, but I can see where Ramsey's lawyers might advise them to "settle" (ie. plead guilty to a lesser charge rather than challenge them in court), just like the "other cases" mentioned by Violanti in the follow up to the article.
...which is valid. I'm sure we're going to hear people screaming about they're freedom, but 'bugs' can also take away this freedom by being supplied and used by just about anyone who can use a soldering iron who can then place it where they believe a conversation will occur. But, this does not condone the way they are going about it. Surely there are better ways, such as finding the people who are actually using them to snoop, while not removing their educational element.
I for one found those little things great fun to build and tune.
-- "If you don't break it how can you learn how to fix it?" GU/E d->d-- s-:-- a--- C+++ L+ N++ w++>++++$ PS+ Y+(
Wow - I've been complaining about the quality of /. reporting for a while now. I hate to say it but - this is one of the better pieces I've seen /. do in quite a while. The interview with the attourney was good, and I'm glad to see that /. followed up on the story to give us both sides of the story.
If this is an example of what /. reporting is going to look like in the future - the future looks good! Hats off to Rob & the gang!
As for what happened to them - well, there is some case here (microphones and cameras imbeded into other devices.) However, the question is - did they sell these as 'home security' devices, or evesdropping devices? That would seem to make a huge difference to me!
Davis Ray Sickmon, Jr - looking for something to read? Check out my three free novels at MidnightRyder.org
I'm an amateur radio operator and Ramsey makes kits for that hobby. As far as I know, Ramsey is a hobbyist-oriented radio electronics company. Most of the employees are probably radio amateurs who are just happy to be making a living tinkering with transceivers.
I'm not familiar with the product in question, but my guess is that it complies with all FCC regulations and is intended for use as a small, short range transmitter. I can think of thousands of legitimate uses, from baby monitors to short range telemetry.
I wonder if their device has been showing up in cases of bugging like that State Department conference room incident in the news a few weeks ago.
Low power VHF/UHF radio is a tricky thing. If the transmitter and the receiver are in the right place and the weather is just so such a device might be heard from miles away. At the same time, a receiver 50 feet away might be totally unable to hear the signal from the transmitter.
As I said, I'd like to know more. I really doubt Rmasey made this thing with the intent (or even the inkling) that it would be used for illegal purposes. The DA (or was it a Federal Attorney?) could probably have contacted the company and told them about misuse of the product and I'd be willing to bet they would have discontinued or made modifications to the design to address those concerns.
I would only go after a company like this if I could find that they were owned or operated by persons directly engaged in the illegal uses of the devices (like finding out the KGB was a shareholder or somesuch).
Law enforcement should have the power to search and sieze. They can only do so with a warrant, which means they had to convince a judge that this was a good idea. I'd like to know how the judge arrived at his or her decision to grant this warrant.
An aside: I find some of the Slashdot response interesting. We're a bit schizophrenic. We are bananas about privacy issues and here is the state taking aciton against a company that makes a device that is used to illegally violate privacy and we, er, go bananas!
How can we get more information?
This sounds like the Steve Jackson Games raid all over again. Most likely Mr. Ramsey will have to sue to get his inventory back, and from the sound of things, most likely he'll win, but it will probably drag on for years in the courts.
I recommend he talk to Steve Jackson, try getting a contact from Steve Jacson Games' website.
You know, it's sad that a woman can spill coffee in her lap and get millions of dollars, but someone like this will be lucky to get their legal expenses covered.
Jon
All opinions expressed herein are my own, and not those of my employers, who are appalled.
You can trust us.
Christ, it sent shivers up my spine. This presumption of the inherent rectitude of their actions is what makes these little apparatchiks so freaking dangerous. There is no appreciable difference between these bastards and the occupants of the Black Marias.
illegitimii non ingravare
There should be a line drawn between selling equipment that can be modified to break the law, and equipment that can be used to break the law out of box vs. equipment that is sold solely for the purpose of breaking the law. Obviously these hobby shops were not selling this equipment for this purpose, they were supplying electronics. Of course, with enough modification, the products they sell can be used to break the law; any products that are sold can, with enough modification, break the law, but the responsibility for the digression in that case rests not with the person who sold the original product, but with the person who modified it and/or used it to break the law. If people could be arrested for selling this kind of equipment, then shouldn't all of the computer manufacturers of all the people arrested for "cyber crimes" (ew.. I feel dirty just saying that) be arrested as well? (Any govt officials reading the preceding sentence, please notice the EXTREME sarcasm). Not to mention gun makers...
These arrests set a bad precedent, and should be challenged.
//Phizzy
"Most European technology just isn't worth our stealing," -- Former CIA chief James Woolsey, referring to Echelon
Forgive me if I've got the wrong end of the stick here - I'm sure there's a difference between US and UK law. Is it illegal in the US to have an item (like a clock for example) that can double up as something else (like a surveillance camera)?
We have a store in the UK called Spymaster that sells nothing but that kind of equipment - the US authorities would have a field day if they visited! I also found a similar place in the US. Does this law mean that the pen shown would be illegal as well?
A kitchen knife could be used to kill someone. Therefore, we should ban knives, knife manufactures warehouses raided, the weapons siezed, and the factories closed down.
The irony of it is, there are two US agencies, FBI and the CIA, that make use of these devices quite frequently, for surreptitious listening. I believe that the average user, uses it mostly for educational or recreational purposes.
I feel that these raids are a way for the US government and its dirty tricks departments to aquire there surreptitius intercept devices free of charge.
It seems a bit of a shame that the law enforcement agencies are focusing on capabilities rather than intent. Given the rate of technological progress, it seems to be a bit of a losing game. Are they going to ban all blue-tooth chips because they can be used to transmit "private" information between people? "Can" is a long way away from "might" much less "will". Perhaps it might be worthwhile looking again at the legal system. Already there are enough federal legislation, state regulations and local by-laws to drive battalions of lawyers crazy, not to mention normal citizens.
I don't know how technology will alter things but perhaps some thought should go into how to encourage people to adopt good practices and just friendly warnings rather than coming down hard based on suspicion. For example, I can think of situations of when you've been convicted of your third misdemenour, you get a public survainlance camera attached in order to inpose social restrictions on the few rather than imposing an indirect cost on the whole of society. Alternatively reward public officials who have been shown to consistently act for community benefit, ie people working for the public should be seen to be working for the public.
Hmmmm, I think I'm rambling here but I'd just like to point out that social conventions and subtle peer pressure (old honor system) can probably do more to safeguard society than passing draconian laws which are not well communicated. Unless there's enlightened self-interest in identifying and educating people (hitting with a cluebat) that breaking the system has detrimental side effects, it looks like more prisons (and taxpayer-funded lifestyles) are only going to increase.
LL
These guys seem to sell a fair variety of equipment. I had a look at their web site and
some of the kit that was siezed had catalogue descriptions like 'Disguised Clock w/audio'
and 'Disguised Smoke w/audio'. If it's illegal to sell surveilance equipment
deliberately disguised as household objects, then these guys appear to be as guilty
as hell. Some of the other kit may have been legitimate, but nevertheless if this
supplier was breaking the law with some of their equipment and some other of their
equipment could easily be adapted to break the law, then they have little defence.
If they were only selling non-disguised gear then I'd have a lot more sympathy.
Nevertheless these laws presumably aren't just designed to protect the
public from terrorists and organised crime, but also other members of
the public. Surveilance devices are used by companies to monitor staff and
spy on competitors.
Simon Hibbs
I hear a knock at my door. I look through the peep hole, and there is a guy dressed like someone from the movie "Men in Black." How he got in the building, I don't know, it's a University dorm, and there's card access to the doors, and breakfast hasn't even opened yet (aka no awake students), so I don't think a student let him in. I asked who it was, and all he did was flash his badge at the peep hole and say something like "Federal Agent, Open Up" (I was still mostly asleep, and I'm not entirely sure what time it was, but it was still dark out).
Ok, so the feds, er, just one fed is standing outside my door, I guess I should open it. Just a warning: when opening the door to a fed, stand back, they come in like a bullet with out being invited in.
Basically, what he wanted was to let me know that my port scanning of their servers in California wasn't going to be permitted (I've never port scanned anyone but people I know). At school, we have dedicated IP addresses, and apparently there had been a lot of activity from my IP address checking out the ports on their computers. Only thing I can think of is that someone spoofed my IP and was portscanning them. I pleaded ignorance to him, but he wouldn't have any of it. He threatened me with obtaining a search warrant and siezing my electronic equipment.
Well, what do you do when you're staring at a guy who's probably packing heat, and knows how to use it, and who's in your face. You melt, that's what. I probably only got in about ten words for the fifteen minutes or so that he was there (oh, and a whole bunch of first syllables to words before being cut off by him).
About a week later, the school revoked my IP address, telling me that the government had requested it!!! According to the school, they knew about the episode in my room, and that I had been warned about scanning, and that the scans had actually continued after the guy in my room.
Finally:
While my IP was revoked (the school placed a filter on the routers, so noone on campus could use my IP address, not even spoof it, the routers simply wouldn't forward it, the portscans continued. There was no way for me to have perpetrated the scans. The government was back in contact with my school, warning that there would soon be legal action against the school if they didn't stop me, but the school responded that there was no way it could have been me, and suggested the possibility of a IP spoofing. The feds apparently concurred, my school appologized to me for the hassle, returned my IP, and I never heard from the feds again.
Scarry, huh? True story.
Slay a dragon... over lunch!
Ski masks are dangerous! Somebody won a Darwin Award for going to the bank with a ski mask on. The teller thought he was holding up the bank and gave him $10000. He didn't say anything and the police chased him off a cliff!
--
"I was a fool to think I could dream as a normal man."
What immediately springs to mind are those infamous nanny-cams that you see on the likes of Oprah. Would this not count as surreptitious, since they're usually embedded in clocks or knick-knacks placed on shelves, or whatnot?
/. employs a calibre of Geek that should be able to do more than regurgitate news from CNN. Originality is good...
I'd consider those much more of a "privacy violation" than the devices sold by Ramsey, which appear to be little personal monitoring devices. (They seem to be kissing cousins to the Polar heartrate monitoring watches.)
As an aside, I like to see this sort of thing on Slashdot.
"During your times of trial and suffering, when you see only one set of footprints, it was then that I was riding the pogostick."
A good traveller has no fixed plans and is not intent on arriving.
I dunno about anyone else...but I am once again
truely disgusted by this. It never ceases
to shock me what this government will do to its
people.
Of course, being a person who reads drug
decriminilization mailing lists, I have heard
about worst than this, many times over.
At least electronics manafacturers do not have
police in military gear raiding their houses
and fireing at anyone who moves too fast.
(case a coupla years back police raided a house
and killed him - no drugs were found)
check out:
http://home.earthlink.net/~ynot/victims.html
for a nice list (the one I am refering to is on
that page named: Pedro Oregon Navarro
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
There's this thing called the Bill of Rights, which among other things guards against unreasonable search and seizure.
No, the government is NOT allowed to just seize your property whenever the hell they feel like it! They have to have a good, clearly defined reason for doing so, and even then it's going to be difficult. Building new highways is very difficult, because it takes the government years, sometimes decades to clear the legal hurdles.
While the previous poster WAS mixing issues to some extent, and while he did mention the Nazis, I still think his point is well taken.
Jon
All opinions expressed herein are my own, and not those of my employers, who are appalled.
can save us now. America is hell and has been for some time. Problem is, the rest of the world is worse.
This post encoded with ROT26. If you can read it, you've violated the DMCA. Handcuffs please, sergeant.
I think I'm going join the NRA, even though I don't own a gun. It just seems like the federal goverment wants our lives to be totaly transparent to them, and they want to deny to us any tool that might enhance our personal security and privacy.
This is really scary, thanks to /. for running this story.
This seems fairly reasonable. Ramsey Electronics was suspected of selling surreptitious surveillance devices. And according the government information they were not saying things like "This clock has a microphone" but apparently the gvt believed that they were selling the devices under the table. Whether they are or not, if there is strong evidence they are, it must be investigated. The agents did return the two boxes mistakenly taken, and did provide an inventory list, and did get a warrant. They could have behaved more proffesionally, but thats a relatively minor concern in this case.
The bottom line: If the government believes you are selling equipment intended for use as surreptitious surveillance, and your products are not clearly labeled as surveillance devices(like baby monitors) then they must investigate. These agents did their job, got a warrant, and even returned wrongly taken property before even leaving the site. Perhaps the agents could be criticized for unproffesional behavior, but they did their job. And even the owner of Ramsey electronics admitted that some of the devices taken related to the search warrant. As long as all property is returned and Ramsey Electronics is compensated for lost profits in the case of an aquital there is nothing wrong with this situation.
Okay, here is a question:
Does this mean that the teddy-bear-with-a-camera that is sold in many places as a surveillance of your own children is illegal? Is it illegal to covertly film your nanny as he/she cares for your kids, to make sure he/she isn't beating them? Or how about NURSERY MONITORS that have clocks in them?
Shouldn't they be going after the people who misuse these things, rather than the ones who manufacture them? Yes, I know, go after the maker of the crack and you cut supply short for the dealers and addicts, but we're not talking about crack here, we're talking about stupid little radio bits. Educational toys. Where does it end? And since you aren't allowed to look at your own belongings when They box em up, how is anyone to know that they aren't being framed for something?
Jeez, this sounds as bad as the movies. Can I run away to another country now? But... is any place safe? Cripes, I can just see it now - we're either going to go Shadowrun and everyone with brains will be hiding from the corps and the cops at once, or we're going to become the Snow Crash society, with the US being a tiny section of land where NOONE does ANYTHING without being monitored. Ick, or we're there already and Big Brother isn't just a fiction anymore. Ok, I'm scared. Is there a solution to this? Please tell me we're not headed for a revolution, cause if we are I'm going to hide under my bed now.
-Elthia
This really shouldn't surprise anyone. For some time technology has been making the transmission of information, be it sound, video, or whatever, easier and easier. However, people with power want this flow of information to be a one way street. It is trivial to attach a microphone to a wireless transmitter, but note they are going after hobby shops and not Apple computer. The wireless transmission capabilities of the iMAc portable are good enough to meet the federal definition, but Apple is too big a company to bury in this fashion. They want successful prosecutions, not solutions to the problem. Fear is required, and not sanity. This is hardly a surprise, the laws currently on the books make many people federal criminals unknowingly. For example, if you have a note on your car, and drive it across a state line without explicit permission from the lender, you can be successfully charged and prosecuted for felony theft across state lines. Your only protection from prosecution, increasingly, is the good will of law enforcement. Incidents like this make that good will suspect at best. The current judicial system in the US is largely immune from peer review. The people involved are legally silenced, the court records sealed, and anyone who talks may be prosecuted. Hopefully cases like this will wake people up, but I don't think it's gotten bad enough yet.
Henry David Thoureu(sp? - I need a spell checker) would probably disagree with you.
Ungh
While this is a travesty, it is also why companies should always have a couple of backups, and at least one off-site.
For instance, I can see the feds raiding one of my clients, but I can't see them also raiding the President's home computer (which has encrypted data backups sent to it via a dedicated line each night) and a storage locker in the name of the president's wife (which has a locked file cabinet filled with backup tapes).
Remember, kids: The feds aren't omnipotent. If you squirrel away enough backups, they won't be able to grab them all and you can get back into business with a few emergency sub-$1000 computers from Best Buy. The feds almost never look for off-site backups.
Of course, the issue here is that the devices being sold were illegal under US law. If you don't like the law, that's one thing, but criticising law enforcement is like criticising fire for burning down your house after you left those candles burning. I also find it amusing that all the geeks who routinely rail against Big Brother also run to protect the people who make their tools (where do you think corporate security buys their gear?)...
----
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
Apparently the Goverment is trying to create a monopoly. They want to be the only ones who can listen in on converstations and use 'spy' equipment. How Neat.
Perhaps this is 'For the Children' or 'The War on Drugs'
Here ya go:
http://www.inficad.com/~dmorg/1218.html
While I'm sure the 'feds' will get the majority of /. attention, bear in mind that they are doing their jobs as defined by law and doing raids as defined & requested by the investigators - who are doing their investigations at the request of private citizens who feel violated by one thing or another. They don't leave names because it would open them to retalliation (imagine having a whole group of 'experts' in survellance having it out for you...).
Basically, before you all start screaming holy hell and damn the government, try to bear in mind that the mentality and state of law enforcement and government has been set and continues to be set by private citizens (AKA individuals) with the motivation to change something they don't like. You don't want the government to be allowed to do raids, start a political action group and change the law. Just don't go crying to the police when your car stereo is in your neighbor kid's garage - and he won't give it back.
ctimes2
My cube. My friend. My solace. My prison.
It has a lot to do with gun "control". In many places in the USA, the police will seize all firearms when they execute a search warrant, whether or not it is relevant to the warrant. They will refuse to return the firearms unless forced by a court order. Guns are "bad" so they feel justified in ignoring the Constitution and Bill of Rights. This sets a pattern for ignoring the law in other situations, such as the "War on Some Drugs". Similar abuses are seen when the Feds seize computers and hold them for years as possible evidence in prosecutions that may never happen.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
Uhh, last time I checked, the government had to compensate private citizens for confiscation of property, such as land taken to build highways.
No, make that should. The grey-smoke phrase fair market value is also bandied about a LOT in those instances. The cold hard fact, however, is if you have land (or something else, for that matter) the government wants, they usually ending up getting it regardless of the owner seeing ANY return (let alone 'fair market value').
My family has gone through this twice in my father's lifetime (one because of a reservoir, one because of a freeway). We almost lost 1/3 of our farm to a third attempt (the US superconducting supercollider[1]). The only thing that really saved us was a hidden faultline somewhere along the area the ring would have passed through (in Ohio, no less). We also managed to find out we have excellent solid bedrock below some of our prime farmland.. but never ever were asked about doing a detailed survey.
There are still people in the O(hio)SU physics dept. I despise to this day.
[1] when i was young, i thought the physics world was fascinating. this whole episode, however, brought the more realistic (political) side to the whole scientific world for me, and as a result I can't help but wonder what others have (been forced to) sacrifice(d) in the holy name of Research. The scientists aren't to blame.. unless they use the government as their resource gathering arm.
-'fester
Funny... I'm thinking that the government needs regulated here. If the government is going to be conducting raids, they need to be more accountable for their actions. Specifically, if they take items, they should fully document the items taken. In an example like this, the company can be damaged if it does not know what inventory is taken. Such poor documentation does not speak well for the FBI.
As for their intimidation tactics... if they had a good case, they really wouldn't need them.
Hmm. Supercircuits also has a VR headset. VROS-1 has twin LCD displays and stereo sound. $600. Composite video or S-Video, no VGA. No mention of LCD resolution.
> The "feds" were perfectly within their right to
> act the way that they did
I happen to disagree. Just because the law says
they were right, doesn't mean that they are right
> I'm tired, DAMN tired, of people blaming the
> feds for doing their job... enforcing the law
Yes...
Its not my fault. I just did what the law said.
They stationed me at Auchwitz and I just did what
I was suposed to do.
im sorry, when the law is wrong, it is wrong
to enforce the law.
> I can't speak for customs officials, but I
> know for damn sure that every raid an FBI or DEA
> agent takes part in, no matter how "safe" it
> appears on the outside, can end in bloody
> disaster. Leave 'em alone, and let them do their
> jobs. But yeah, the laws are a bit too broad,
> and should probably be looked into...
Yes This I agree with. ANY raid can end in
disaster. Take the raide where an elderly
woman answered the door of police. They stuck
guns in her face and told her to step back.
She screamed "Don't shoot me"...and her husband,
hearing this, ran out of the bedroom with his
revolver. He died because he thought his wifes
life was in danger and came to help her.
No drugs were found at their estate. All on the
word of a paid informant.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
The following passage was buried in the interview with the U.S. Atty:
What exactly was seized? Were they phony smoke detectors with hidden microphones and transmitters or were they just kits? The article never says explicitly.
If Ramsey was selling pre-disguised transmitters, I am sympathetic with the FBI. If they were just kits, I'm more inclined to see Ramsey's point of view.
So what's the full story?
Now, back to the story. This was serious over-gunning, by the authorities. For this part, it's irrelevent as to who was guilty and who wasn't. Rule by intimidation is no rule at all. It wasn't necessary to charge in there with a small army of heavily-armed agents. As the owner of the store pointed out on his web site, a polite phone call would have been just as effective, from the Fed's perspective, been a damn sight cheaper, and kept up the good relations.
Second, there are some details in this story which are disturbing, to say the least. I am fairly sure it's illegal to seize goods without proper notification as to who is doing the seizing. If it isn't, it should be. Anyone can get a cop outfit at the local fancy-dress store, print out a believable warrant and get someone to sign it. If you can't go to the proper authorities with documentation showing EXACTLY who took what, when and how, they are entirely capable of denying all knowledge, and you would have NOTHING to confront them with.
Another disturbing aspect is that some reports show Ramsey Electronics had dealings with various branches of the Government, assisting them with classified projects to do with terrorism. Let's assume this is true. I've no means of verifying if it is or not. This would mean that terrorists and hostile countries would have plenty of incentive to make up false allegations, to dissuade companies from being too involved in such work. In fact, other companies involved in such work would also have an incentive to remove Ramsey from the picture. More of the contract for them.
Is this scenario likely? The agents acted in a manner which is unprofessional and untracable, reacting to unstated and unrevealed allegations made at an unknown time by unknown sources, covering goods which could not remotely be used for clandestine purposes.
The idea that the Government would cripple it's own contractors seems unlikely. They're paying money for work done, so they're not likely to pay yet more money to go and destroy that work. Big Government may actually be innocent, here.
On the other hand, there's a LONG list of people who have the motive, means, money and manpower to cripple anyone who could even potentially stand in their way. I think these are much more worthy of being looked at.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Why didn't these agents bust Radio Shack, which sells walkie-talkies that could also be used for surveillance? Oh right, the bully rule: only bully people much weaker so that there will be no chance of their effectively fighting back. It's good to see that the government has the keen grasp of bullying that was available to some of the seven-year-olds I remember growing up with. Gee, I hope the IRS operates at or above this level of maturity.
Besides, isn't this the same government that promotes surveillance at every possible opportunity, and erodes the privacy of private citizens whenver possible? Aren't these the same guys who read 1984 and drool? When the heck would they have decided that surveillance ought to be a crime?
WWJD for a Klondike Bar?
So what law did they break? I don't understand this.. It is illegal to make small microphones?? ??? Guess I better throw away my tape recorder!
I reiterate: this has NOTHING to do with gun control. The fact that guns are seized in other cases has NOTHING to do with this. I reiterate that too: in Europe, people aren't allowed to own guns (mostly), and very few see that as a threat to their rights.
From the headline, I thought this article was going to be about RAID disks[?] !!!!
donfede
Its not just the government, its the media and anyone else that wants to ride them.
It seems like media outlets like CNN in quests of higher ratings are going to bed with these agencies, unloading us with sensationalist "news" of dubious references. I see without proper references stories describing raids of "suspects" backed up by "sources say..." "the FBI uncovered..." "authorities disclosed..." Seems like no one individual is responsible these days for anything. Its those damn three letter agencies.
The government is being taken for a ride and we are the ultimate victims. Patents. Zoning. Taxes. Those who have money will leverage the government to favor them and control the FBI, IRS, CNN, MSNBC, etc. Very few take responsibility in these super organisations anymore and promote growth like cancer.
According to the ACLU, enforcing gun control requires search-and-seizure. Check out http://www.aclu.org/library/aaguns.html
Search-and-seizure is exactly what happened here - it's breaking the same rights. And yes, I agree, anyone who mentions WWII *should* be spanked. Search-and-seizure is bad, but it isn't the same as death camps.
'You can trust us.': Of course, no good cop would ever want to expose themselves to this sort of liability. Nothing would have been harmed by letting the business verify the gear being confiscated ; I would have refused to sign off on it. What Ramsey should have done was run home and grab a camcorder so he could prove that they tried to get away with this.
'If you don't cooperate with us, we'll shut you down': Again, federal agents acting like thugs. Not acceptible; again, if Ramsey could prove this, it would be another problem for the Feds (gee, I wonder if they bugged their own offices....) This is actually probably the worst offense -- it's a slap in the face to due process.
'[They] asked for a recommendation for a good local restaurant and were on their way': I would have sent them to the local grease-hole; none of the agents would have survived if they'd finished their meals... They'd all be dead of heart failure.
That said, blaming the Feds for raiding this place is like blaming fire for buring down your house after you fell asleep smoking. The devices made here did violate US law -- deviced to bug phones and otherwise spy on people. I'm a bit shocked that the Slashdotters are defending the very people who make the gear to strip away our privacy.
----
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
There are several reasons for this kind of thing happens and they usually stem from 2 causes:
Government
The government is sloooow to act, usually undermanned, and may have no clue what its talking about.
No big news here. The government won't act until it thinks it can make its case, or has no other choice. It doesn't have enough contacts to hear about things quickly and act swiftly. Lets face it our government was designed 200 years ago and it shows, especially during enforcement.
Why was the agent from Buffalo? Because in order to get the closest seven agents they probably had to pull in everyone in the 1.5 hour driving radius (if not a larger area). While the FBI may have enough staff many of the other enforcement branches are woefully undermanned to do their jobs and so they need help from state cops, etc.
Most feds are computer/technology illiterate. How much did the Secret Service know about the internet when it was given internet jurisdiction? Answer: Most of them couldn't tell a computer from a microwave oven. Should they know more? Yes, but frankly how well would you do if you had to become a cop tomorrow and start investigating murders? Probably not any better than they do when its the other way around.
The real problem that the government will never admit its wrong. You will have to go through a extended legal battle to get your equipment back even if they never file charges. This is wrong and it should be corrected. However it also stems from the overwork/ignorance of the enforcement agencies as mentioned above.
Business
It is a business's job to know what laws pertain to their products. It is homework that any good business should do.
If you're a construction company or civil engineer, you better do a complete geological/ecologocial survey of the site beforehand or the EPA will have every right to shut you down when you're half finished to save the habitat of Obscure Delaware Tree Rat. It is their job to do so and your fault because you didn't do your homework. Never assume anything if you can help it.
Likewise if your equipment has a possible use in surruptitious surveillance you damn well better know it and act accordingly. If its in a gray area, then get clarification from the government. If you play your cards right you will become a government asset and they will protect you. If you do not inform them, you are inviting this sort of thing due to their ignorance.
This does not mean that the government can't be just plain wrong, like in the case of Steve Jackson Games. But don't stick it with all the blame when a business may very well have an equal share.
So far I've gotten all my Karma from telling people they are wrong... :)
Ok,
"Hey badguys, we're on to you, and looking to bust you. So here's ample notice to move your operation elsewhere so that next week when we show up, you can have all the equipment out of there."
Nice thought though.
Slay a dragon... over lunch!
it is well known among most radio pirates
that ramsey makes transmitters easily
modifiable to broadast fm signals over a significant range.
likewise, i'm sure they produce many other
products that could be used as a component of
or modified to produce a device or system
that you could use to break the law
so does every gun manufacturer, knife manufacturer, power tool manufacturer, garden supply manufacturer, office supply manufacturer...
these are just useful tools; it should not be against the law to make them, it should be against the law to harm others with them.
VOS/Interreality project: www.interreality.org
why is this such a big deal? Because it was an "electronics" company? The feds have been overzealous in enforcement of certain laws in the past, especially in the months before an ELECTION YEAR.
Federal agents have done things as low as shooting a naked man in his bathtub, awakened a woman at 4 a.m. and shot her when she tried to protect herself, slammed pregnant women into walls; abdomen first, stomped kittens to death, shot a 14 year old boy in the back with a 9mm submachinegun as he ran away, shot an unarmed woman in the face as she held her baby in her arms, and I could go on for hours about this.
Why does this case warrant our interest? Because their kits sparked interest in people to become engineers? So what? These guys have to investigate every legitimate claim that they get. What are the supposed to do, walk up to the front door and say "Hey, are you guys doing anything illegal in there? Oh, ok, we'll be leaving then." No, the purpose of the warrant is so that they can examine private proterty to determine if there is something illegal going on.
If it turns out that they did nothing wrong, then they'll get their equipment back. If not, then they sue.
Feds intimidating someone and in general being dickheads is not a reason for all of this outrage. Were they smashing the joint up? Were they pushing people around?
Relax, haven't you people ever dealt with law enforcement types before?
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Yes, in emanent domain(sp?) cases, although that apparantly gets abused as well.
But, in the Ramsey Electronics case (and in the Steve Jackson Games case before), the gov't is not "confiscating" or "seizing" the property. They're "simply" (ha!) taking possession of evidence for a criminal trial.
Of course, this is quite as effective as a judicial "cease and desist" order at closing down a legitimate business. And the beauty of it all is that, when the charges never get filed and the investigation gets dropped N months or years later, the Feds owe NOTHING in compensation, as they return the now-useless items to a nearly bankrupted business. But after all, they didn't actually confiscate the property, just kept it in protective custody for a while. So the requirement to compensate for a "taking" doesn't kick in.
I remembered seeing spy cameras (including one hidden in a smoke detector, including audio) available at Walmart. The link was from this slashdot story but it looks like the walmart links don't work and I can't find the spy cameras on the walmart web pages any more. Maybe Walmart got raided as well?
-Kevin
Is it me or does it seem that Law enforcement community spends a lot of time enforcing victimless crimes .I mean going after an electronics supply house is not very high on my list of priorities to make America safe. BTW I bought Ramsey products in the past are the Feds going to kick my door in next ?
Yeah. Confiscating little electronic spy devices built to look like smoke detectors is exactly the same thing as tearing babies in half, forcing slave labor and exterminating people because of their religion. It's the same as tearing apart families, starving people to death and subjecting them to horrifying medical experiments. Taking a few phone bugs as evidence is exactly the same as treating people like roaches.
im sorry, when the law is wrong, it is wrong to enforce the law.
But the law isn't wrong in this case. Maybe you think that devices which allow people to spy on each other ought to be legal, but I know I don't want *my* employer putting a spy camera over my desk. I know I don't want *my* disgruntled roommate bugging my phone. I know I don't want someone putting a hidden camera in the locker room and selling pictures of *my* girlfriend changing. You can't tell me that a camera built to look like a wall clock is for "hobbyists".
Jesus, think before you start railing in support of the very people who would help others rob you of your rights just to make a buck.
----
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
So are they going to raid Fisher Price because they make and sell 'baby monitors' that can and have been used surreptitiously? What the people that set up a video camera to tape what the babysitter does? That's surreptitious as well.
It sounds like another case of overzealous law enforcement.
>>There is strong gun control all over EU and this kind of event as reported here would seem unacceptable here too. Thank you.
/. headlines not because it's an electronics company?
What is legal in the EU, and what is tolerable in the EU has NOTHING to do with that is legal and tolerable in the US. Whether or not you think it should be there, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is included in the US constitution.
Whether or not it should be repealed is another issue.
Besides, you missed his point. His point is that law abiding citizens here in the US have had to face this sort of thing for YEARS, why does it mae
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
That's the last time I buy tickets to the fuckin' Buffalo policeman's ball.
Ah, the hell with them all. I say fight fire with fire! If a cop/fed etc.. shows up to your door - shoot first and answer questions later! :^) That'l teach em! Just remember: "Crime wouldn't pay if the government ran it!"
The Truth is a Virus!!!
Waah. the big bad government is beating up on a little geek company. Great story here guys... groundbreaking journalism with only a link to a few paragraphs @ 2600? that can't be the whole story. How much was the interview edited to make the feds look bad? hasn't anyone else picked up the story?
can someone give me some specifics about the devices in question here? can we quit talking about gun control and search and seisure and consider what the real story is here?
I am always willing to side with the little guy being opressed by big brother, but you could at least do a little better job presenting the facts. All i have here is a poorly edited interview and an account of the raid from the "victim"
Ramsey Electronics turned up 296 matches on google. Mostly links from amateur radio enthusiasts, microbroadcasters / pirate radio advocates, and electronics heads. there are numerous personal accounts of their work / products / service and they're all glowing reviews.
Ramsey sounds like a great company, and i will consider them first when i get around to setting up my little radio station, but the fact remains that they violated some stupid law that the feds decided to selectively enforce. this is nothing new. the problem isn't necessarily with the feds. its with the law and selective enforcement.
I guess Ramsey needs to give more $ to politicians in the future and buy a little influence. maybe just sell their wares to the government?
--freq
"Tension is the great integrity" -- R. Buckminster Fuller
Do you remember the exact specs of these devices? Were they on the commercial bands or the amateur radio bands? If on the higher ham bands (440 MHz or above) TV is perfectly legal. Just because they might be modifiable to commercial bands doesn't mean they're illegal - they do have a very legitimate and legal use.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
they don't have to find devices hidden in clocks and picture frames (which is what they apparently were looking for)
Ramsey's problem is that they did sell concealed items like this; here are two from their web site catalog:
PB-1 Telephone Transmitter CLK-3000WT Disguised Clock w/audio
ME-2000 MicroEye Camera/Transmitter SMK-3000WT Disguised Smoke w/audio
These look to be clearly illegal under the cited statute.
You may not like the law, of the style of the FBI, but there it is.
Yeah, strange that, innit?
People in Europe don't HAVE a right to own guns, so how can we see that as a threat to our rights? Not everyone lives under the US constitution.
Every day I see crap like this flying across the tv and the internet one day the government is going to realize that people aren't going to take this shit and start fighting back. We're not slaves to some almighty power that tells us what we can and can't do. Fight for your freedom and liberty before it is gone.
I was just thinking about Damark! They're all about spying on people! Look here at a product sold my Damark They describe it as "Mini pinhole 1/3" camera Covert surveillance or other room accessory system using a picture frame, clock, smoke detector, exit sign" Is this not exactly what the Fed's lawyer spoke of? Surely the federal government could not have missed this widely-distributed mail-order product:)
signature smigmature
- James
I see you are the guy who wnats everyone to shut up but you. Bad luck my friend. The gun analogy is right on place and shows the larger pattern of using intimidation as way to control the little guy. You just confirm this with yor screams "shut up". It is a part of the same pattern...
>>What were you drinking when you typed this? How many Jews HAD guns to confiscate?
The jews of the Warsaw ghetto had approx. 10 pistols. Those pistols kept the Nazis at bay for nearly 2 weeks, they had to burn the Warsaw ghetto to the ground to get them out. Not too shabby huh?
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
The problem is when agencies start "re-interpreting" laws and regulations. I've seen wireless microphones on sale in magazines for decades and nobody cared. (does Radio Shack still carry its wireless microphone kit?)
Suddenly, they might be used for "surreptitious intercept", suddenly there are armed raids on honest businesses. No notice. No warning. No "these devices are illegal per Title 18 USC, Section 2512, please remove them from your catalog".
I have no objection with the Feds enforcing the law, I do object to a lack of due process and common sense.
If I were a cynic, I might point out that budget time is coming up in Washington, and it doesn't hurt to show effective your agency is with a few high-profile raids. (and it's much safer if you can be sure your targets are unarmed)
// TODO: fix sig
What do you think won WWII? Harsh language?
Look at their fsck'ing catalog -- cameras built to look like smoke detectors and wall clocks. Bugs built to hide inside a handset and power themselves from the phone line. "FM Mics" which can be "hidden behind a stamp". These people didn't even pretend that a lot of this gear had legitimate uses!
What shocks me the most is that Slashdotters are supporting the very people who would help employers spy on employees. How much sense does it make to rail against Big Brother and then leap to the defense of his supplier?
Ramsey might have made legal products with legitimate uses, but they also made illegal products to be used for violating people's basic human right to privacy. The feds might have acted like the goon squad (remember, we only have the owner's account), but that's still no excuse for what this company did!
Ask yourself: do you want your employer hiding a camera next to your workstation? Do you want your roommate bugging your phone to see what you say about them? Di you want the competition bugging your water cooler to see what your company is up to?
Do you value your privacy? Ramsey Electronics doesn't.
----
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
That said, the original poster failed to give specific details to back up the claims made -- THAT, not the 'Godwin's Law' bullshit was his failing.
As any law, Godwin's has exception. That being said, it applies 99% of the time. And 99.9999999% when it's about Gun Control.
I'm sorry you were wrongfully accused.
.gov site. In the past 48 hours we've been scanned 30+ times by NMAP in stealth mode, plus probes for SunRPC vulnerabilities and Back Orifice installations. Over the holiday break we had at least two machines compromised and used as scanners and denial-of-service generators. Indications are that this originated at a .edu site.
That being said, I work for a
Based on the amount of time and frustration that this has caused me and my colleagues, I would definitely like to see some strong words told to the owner of the IP that scanned, and then exchanged (not just sent) traffic with these hosts.
So you say my hosts should have been protected against intrusion? Well, sure. Have you ever tried to get researchers on a tight budget and absolutely hard deadlines to do anything? And to keep doing it--like keeping up with the security patch of the week? What about if the security patch requires a reboot, but this researcher is running a task that requires weeks of continuous operation?
Like I said, I'm sorry you, personally, were wrongfully accused. But I think it's reasonable for a representative of the government to sternly warn people to stop doing such things. At the very least.
"I was only following orders" didn't cut it at Nuremburg and doesn't cut it now when police and federal agents go about enforcing irrational, immoral, and unconstitutional laws. They choose their careers and their actions as much as any of us do, and bear fully moral responsibility.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Um.. funny you should bring up the gun makers. If you check up on gun news you will find that they are going after the folks that make guns and blaming them for people using the guns in crimes.
Question reality.
Nic, This has ALOT to do with Gun Control. Gun Control boils down to depriving people of THE Most basic Human Right - the right to protect oneself. Eventually Gunless Nations will get raped either by invaders who crush your centralized army or by their own Government. Without Force, any rights you think you have aren't worth whatever paper they're written on.
Just beause he made a WWII reference does not invalidate the good point that he makes.
1. Freud was a bigtime cocaine user, does that invalidate his work?
2. Many samurai in feudal Japan engaged in homosxual activity, does that mean that they were "gay"?
My point is that, he makes a very good point. Law abiding americans have had to endure abuses of law enforcement in the past. The fact that this is an electronics company shouldn't make their plight any more important.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
I found some interesting case law here, if you can stand such legal drivel, and and interesting commentary on this enforcement trend from back in '95.
Violanti: ...
I don't know how to answer that. Use is use. If you place a device in a clock
Such are the great legal minds enforcing this: blindly speculating that someone might be using for surreptitious purposes.
The only thing they left out of this violation of common sense was the usual line about how someone can use this technology to abuse children.
... have often the same kind of arguments. They get all red and sweaty when someone confronts them. They curse, they shout, they despise.
That said, I like to eat gibiers (game?), such as deer and wild pork. It's really delicious. My grand father used to live in the country, and in his village there were several hunters. They were mostly good neighbours, and would give us birds and game from time to time, that my grand mother would make delicious meals off.
It was common knowledge that those fine neighbours started their hunting session at the local pub. Usually they brought bottles of the local white wine (Âpremont) as refreshment. It was common to see them coming back with few game but walking with difficulty. And cursing and yelling.
Every once in a while, they would shoot each other. So no, deer need not have guns. The hunters take care of it themselves!
Well that would be just funny if they had'nt mistaken a dad and his son for game once. Duh. Shit happens.
So ... this might sound somewhat off-topic ... but this little personal story might explain why I'm more scared of drunk macho types with guns than by the police.
Does the government have the right to stomp on the citizens?
If they want to limit "dangerous" technology, we will soon be living back in the stone age. Guns are bad, lets remove them. Well I can still kill with a knife.. so we better take away the knives, then all the metal and hard plastic and hard wood, cuz I can make weapons with those materials as well. someone *MIGHT* use an FM transmitter to listen to a private conversation. So we better outlaw FM transmitters altogether, because I can modify even the most worthless one to do that job.
Computers can design bombs, can design weapons, can attack and steal private information. So we should outlaw computers as well.
A suspicious business should be quietly and legally entered, information requested, if the business is innocent they will most likely freely give any amount of information, if they don't, then thats what the search warrant is for.
Our government does have to be assholes in their jobs, they can do their jobs right without being jerks.
Fook
The price we pay for immortality... is death. Narnia The Great Fall
This is just too scary. I'm no fan of the NRA -- some of their stances are just too whacked -- but I can see why their membership has certain opinions after reading this.
Perhaps we should not only see the financial rewards of open source being distributed here. Does Slashdot contribute to the EFF or the ACLU (the 2 orgs. that come to mind for combating this bullshit)? If not, should it/we start, even if it means creating a new legal defense fund?
Or maybe we should just take it one step further, and create a cousin to the NRA, say, the National Computing Association..
Just some thoughts, along with this one: No sufficient opposition has ever succeeded without organization.
-----
".sig,
I would say there seems to be some truth to the Feds comments. Check the web page, there are at least two items that are clearly described as disguised. There are also pictures and yes they are disguised.
I don't think the feds are right. I feel that if something has some legal use it should be legal. Hidden cameras are a common security tool and should not be in and of themselves a violation of this law. I could also see them used in scientific research (under an exceptable protocol).
I think that the company should have put clear warnings on there web-site about what it is legal to use these devices for. They don't. A lot of a case like this is about intent and I think the company could have gone a long way with a few words in avoiding the intent problem.
Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownershipis a nonprofit organization that is decidedly not insulted by such comparisons. In fact, they publish a side-by-side comparison of the U.S. Gun Control Act of 1968 with the German gun control laws of 1928 and 1938. The similarities are striking.
The linked item sold by Damark is not illegal according to the interview with the DA. What they were looking for is an item, like a smoke detector, picture frame, etc, which has been modified to include survelience gear. Apparently selling a miniature camera is not illegal, nor should it be.
i guess you are from europe - eh? so am i.
well, the implementation of the constitution well awol somewhere, but the basic idea is good. guns are no different from other property. if you believe otherwise then you believe in arbitrary interpretation of natural law.
Tom Jeffereson would have never shouted people down...
A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms" - Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169
What about X10--were they raided? We've all seen the banners advertising their micro-mini camera with all these softcore pictures of girls. I can't imagine a device more aimed at 'surreptitious interception', and marketed that way, than that thing
Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
As for disguised video cameras, in most parts of the country these are NOT illegal! Those nanny nabber teddy bears and the like are legal in most states if they have no audio capability.
So, it seems like the issued warrant was reasonable. That doesn't make Ramsey guilty, it just means the Feds aren't crazy to be working on the case. As for coming from Buffalo, that's the closest border crossing so I'm sure that's the closest Customs office.
The real problem is how the warrant was carried out. The show of force and disrespectful treatment was totally unjustifiable as was their unprofessional handling of evidence.
On November 10th, there were approximately 13 search warrants issued in New York City and Rochester, New York and Austin, Texas against companies believed to be in the business of selling electronic surreptitious intercept devices, in violation of federal law. Ramsey Electronics was one of those companies. ["we raided so many places, somebody MUST have been doing something illegal, but notice how I'm not really SAYING anything here."]
If something's illegal, it's illegal. [Unless of course its a Federal Law Enforcement agency breaking the law, some of us remember the drug running involved with Iran-Contra]
Sometimes you can only act upon things when you're informed of them. ["we were bored and needed to keep our arrest/conviction rates high to receive funding. We've already closed down everybody selling grow lights and rousted all the DeadHeads dropping acid."] There's a task force in New York City that's been investigating this for a few years now. [A FEW YEARS(!?). How long does it take to "investigate" a clock-camera? Good job guys] They've been shutting down companies or preventing companies from selling these things, and they've been taking several criminal pleas because of this. [I've read "winning at any cost" and understand how the feds obtain convictions.] These people have been pleading guilty in Federal court. [And that's the point isn't it.. plead guilty. Haven't made our society any safer, but you have your conviction rate to worry about] San Francisco now has a task force. [and this relates to our story HOW?] Other cities are joining in, trying to stop the manufacture and distribution of this equipment. ["We've harassed the indoor gardening business into extinction and need to justify our jobs". This looks like job security for the next 10 years or so]
I don't know how to answer that. [no kidding] Use is use. [thanks for the lesson in the BLEEDING OBVIOUS] If you place a device in a clock, and you put that clock on the wall, and you monitor someone's conversation that you're not a part of, I think that surreptitious use speaks for itself. [this is bullshit, its perfectly legal to monitor my babysitter isn't it?] Clock, smoke detector, or picture frame, you're taking that device out of its primary use in order to secretly intercept someone else's conversation. [so a picture frame is no longer frames a picture? a clock isn't there to tell time anymore?, interesting take on reality there bub] We're not necessarily looking for kits or components. [but hey, if I can twist the law to mean kits, i'll prosecute and take the plea bargain] We're looking for items like clocks, smoke detectors and picture frames. [which TOTALLY fails to explain why you raided HOBBY PARTS SHOP. Braappp. Game Over. Thanks for playing!]
I had the same thought... will they go after ZDnet for advertising the Xcam next? We can only hope.
But seriously, who's seen the reports on newsmagazines about parents monitoring babysitters with hidden cameras and catching them abusing their toddlers horrendously? Shouldn't they be allowed to do this?
What about those baby monitors that let you hear if your kid is choking on his teletubby? Must be illegal, you can hide it and listen in on your baby's conversations about sex with the president!
Groucho
Exactly. Look at drug paraphernalia. Though they've been raided over and over, such shops selling bongs, razor blades, 'stamp' baggies, and gold straws are allowed to operate in almost every state in the US.
I don't know a single person who smokes tobacco out of a water pipe. But hey, it's not the shops' responsibility as to what the customer uses the paraphernalia for- something that has been supported in the courts time and time again.
So if such shops exist while this aberration called the 'War on Drugs' exists (which is filling our prisons with non-voilent offenders and wrongly seizing people's property), suddenly it's wrong to sell potentially-serruptious transmission equipment? Isn't it the same thing? Odd...
Kinda like Moe, but just a little more Kool
One of the primary reasons we (in the US) have the right to own guns is to protect ourselves from an un-just government (including our own). Because of the 2nd Amendment it is very difficult for the US governement to do anything on a very large scale that would be against the ideas and wishes of a majority of the US people.
LRJ
Someone can video tape you or record you and even though you may feel violated, they haven't taken away your freedom. Once government is able to come in to your PRIVATE place of business and harass you (without impunity) you have lost your freedom.
I agree that Ramsey's products are very bad for privacy, but privacy is not the most important issue here.
Do you think the Nazi's just up and started shipping jews to death camps? NO! First, they implemented full gun registration, and increased the power that government had over the people. The military and law enforcement (the Gestapo [sp?]) could do almost anything they wanted. It got to the point where they didn't need any approval to search and seize someone's property. This was Germany in the 1930's and 1940's. Eventually, it led to the mass murder of "undesirables" and the genocide of minorities, not only jews. Gypsies, people born deformed, people who disagreed openly, etc. Why didn't they fight back? Because they had been disarmed in the name of progress, saftey, and security.
Now, fast forward to the United State in the 1990's and 2000. Police can and routely do search vehicles, seize them as being suspected "drug assets", even in no drugs are found in the car. Have any amount of cash on you? That can be seized too as drug assets. Did you do some shopping? Maybe bought a new stereo, or some nice clothes, or anything of value? If that in your car, it's gone too since it's "suspected drug assets." *YOU* have to prove that these items are NOT.
No, the United States is not Nazi Germany. It's just a pretty good way down the same slippery slope. Death Camps are not the same things as unlimited government power over people, and gun control: they are the end result. Ask any holocaust survivor.
--
Intelligence is definitely a recessive trait.
Wouldn't baby monitors classify as one of these devices? Did I read this correctly? This guy sold kits with wireless microphones? Since when have wireless microphones been illegal?
It makes sense if he's selling spying devices, but this is ridiculous. The code clearly says the that device is illegal if its primary purpose is eavesdropping, but this is a hobby shop. What a load of crap.
There was a parish (county) in South Louisiana that regularly did this and got a national expose'. But you know what? I have a relative who lives there, and he says that they *STILL* do it -- need a pickup truck? Stop somebody driving by on the Interstate, seize their truck as "drug trafficking related", and make them prove they didn't buy it with drug money! It keeps the local police departments in unmarked cars, so the locals don't care (the sheriff's department doesn't do that to locals, unless it's somebody that they want to run out of town).
But hey, we live in a free country, here in these United States of Self Delusion. Why, my legislators even tell me so!
-E
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
The raid sounded pretty reasonable to me, in the sense that there is really no reasonable way in which to conduct one. The very nature of a raid is a rude and sudden imposition. There is a place for this, just like there is a place for private gun ownership in America and there is a place monitoring and control of private gun ownership.
Contradictions. I love 'em.
The comparison to Jews in Nazi Germany is definately lame, however. Quit whining and throw in another deer hunting video.
**>>BELCH
Call it Sphere's Law.
--
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
How not to talk.
Your post is typical of the dishonest methods of pro gun advocates.
What jurisdiction does the Customs Service have over this type of "offense"? Why would they even be bothered by it? It sounds like an FCC/FBI issue.
I think the point of contention is twofold. First, it's disputable that the devices they made were usuable for espionage. Devices that could be used for bugging purposes also can have other, less malicious, purposes. As stated in the article, the FBI (disguised as a customer) tried to get one of the employees to admit that one of their devices could be used for bugging, but the employee specifically mentioned that it would be unreliable for such a purpose.
The second point I'm less sure of but I have heard (anybody know how the law stands on this?) that it is not illegal to sell listening devices, merely to use them for illegal surveillance.
While not an argument against the raid (two wrongs don't make a right after all), it is also ironic that an agency that conducts surveillance of citizens is trying to crack down on companies that allow citizens to do the same. Don't they trust us :)
Unbreakable toys can be used to break other toys.
I don't mean to downplay the emotional impact of the 'raid' you suffered, but when the truth of the situation came out, the feds backed off and the school apologized. What more can you ask? They HAVE to investigate, and for all intents and purposes, YOU appeared the most likely perpetrator.
Besides, think of the geek chic status you've attained!
; )
**>>BELCH
Has anyone here read The Transparent Society by David Brin? He argues that privacy is dead, and we have two choices: 1) Information is available to everyone, or 2) Information is available only to the government. Only the first choice, he says, can preserve our freedom. It can allow us to make the government accountable to us, just as we are accountable to them. Clearly, that's not what the government wants.
If you're responsible for admin of such crucial systems and you didn't make the effort to get them secure in the *first* place.... plus you had the stupidity to place them *directly* on the Internet, then you are an absolute freaking MORON, lazy and incompetant and should be fired immediately. I'm a govt systems admin (posting A/C for good reason) and it was not too hard at all to secure my critical machines. I run AIX, HP-UX, Solaris and FreeBSD boxes and survive about 200 crack, scan and dos attempts every month... all unsuccessful, mostly due to a *properly* configured multi-firewalling system based on FreeBSD boxes. Gawd, I love FreeBSD, it's great if you know how to use it. I suggest you learn.
The SUPREME COURT said, "Selling a staple article of commerce - e. g., a typewriter, a recorder, a camera, a photocopying machine - technically contributes to any infringing use subsequently made thereof, but this kind of `contribution,' if deemed sufficient as a basis for liability, would expand the theory beyond precedent and arguably beyond judicial management."
SONY CORP. v. UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS, INC., 464 U.S. 417 (1984)
Granted, this is a copyright case, but if the items in the electronics store can be used for a perfectly valid use, then they are allowed to be sold. Stores commonly use these items to cut down on shoplifting and it was recently determined that a person may do surveilance in their own home on others, (kids, spouses, baby-sitters...).
Mike
peele1@yahoo.com
After the fall of the Confederacy during the U.S. Civil War, U.S. military officials were terrified that there would be guerilla warfare in the occupied territories. For the most part there wasn't -- people went home, went back to work, went about the task of trying to make a living in a world that had turned upside down for them.
But eventually, guerilla warfare DID arise. Not against federal troops -- nobody was that stupid. But, rather, against the instruments of government installed by those troops. Mayors of cities who were seen as pro-Federal were tarred and feathered and shipped out of town. Anti-Federal politicians were installed in their place in rigged "elections" that saw blacks and known pro-Federal whites turned away from polling places by armed partisans. In areas where pro-Federal politicians amassed a power structure, such as in New Orleans, armed partisans had to first defeat the local police forces in pitched battle before they could tar and feather the pro-Federal politicians. They did so with ease in most cases (amazing, how possession of large amounts of military weapons make it easy to defeat policemen armed with batons and handguns!). These "riots" are commemorated on plaques and statues all over the South.
In many of these "riots", the local postings of the federal troops were paralyzed by the fact that they were outnumbered. The partisans had gathered forces and concentrated them (this prior to the ability of forces to move rapidly via motorized convoy and airlift, of course), while the federal troops had to be spread out throughout the state in order to maintain federal control. In addition, there was the fear that if they opened fire on the "rioters" there WOULD be widespread guerilla warfare against federal troops, and they could see the casualty figures mounting if that ever happened. So an uneasy truce arose between the commanders of the federal troops and the partisans -- if the federal troops did not open fire upon the partisans, then the partisans would not open fire upon the federal troops.
Eventually, the North gave up. They withdrew the federal troops (which didn't seem to be doing much good anyhow). Armed partisans installed anti-Federal governments, the South installed a system of apartheid which lasted for almost a hundred years, and the U.S. military has ever since had a blinding fear of ever being put into that situation again (that is, the situation of enforcing a military government over large areas containing armed civilians). These lessons are still taught in the military academies today, and form a major cornerstone of military philosophy in this country.
-E
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
Here's what, pretty much verbatim, I submitted to Ramsey Electronics; I've been looking for a compact wireless A/V link for R/C flight:
--snip--
I've just started getting involved in electric R/C aircraft and was looking for something light enough to fit in the cockpit, to let me "fly the plane from the inside." I wanted something with the audio channel (low bandwidth) so I could easily transmit raw accelerometer data and other telemetry back to ground, you know, like a modem over telephone lines?
How else am I supposed to do this? Strap a camcorder and a cellphone to the wings and hope that gravity will magically turn itself off when I'm flying?
Looks like I'll have to wait for your government to get it's head out of the sand before I can buy the kit.
Thoughts on the other items. If I want to have a security system that won't be disabled the moment a burglar breaks into my home, wouldn't I want something that doesn't look like a camera and doesn't have obvious wires that can be traced and/or cut? If people can already see onto my porch or into my back-yard, then transmitting that same picture will have little if any impact on my privacy; the primary purpose of a hidden camera is to not be easily disabled in the event of a burglary or similar such event. That's why stores and other commercial establishments use them; to witness shoplifting.
--snip--
If stores can hide cameras on their premises, why can't we hide them in our own homes?
...that's my two cents.
--The more you know, the less you know.
1. Hasn't most of Freud's work already been discounted?
2. If not, then at least bisexual. So what?
</offtopic rebuttal>
--
--
It's not the rambling I object to, so much as the mumbled incoherancies...
Don't go throwing "natural law" around. Too much bad, evil shit has gone down and been "justified" as being "natural" or in accordance with "natural law". It's a bad concept.
What if Ramsey had a hidden camera recording the feds... then it could be played at trial or on the news to show the feds stormtrooper tactics to the world. That's a legit use of these things!
Become a FSF associate member before the low #s are used
Gosh, you mean you believe the law should protect small business owners and individuals too? How naive could you be!
-E
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
Radioshack does still sells the FM Wireless Microphone kits for $11.99...
I just called.
Radioshack (n)(ripoff)
"One of the largest retailers of consumer electronic products and services in America, Tandy's RadioShack retail operation includes more than 7,000 stores and dealer/franchise outlets nationwide. "
And why aren't we raiding them?
I can't help but feel that you're being irrationally paranoid here. You don't need guns to protect yourself in a civilised society, and in fact the widespread presence of guns is more of a threat to your personal safety than 'invaders'. I live in a country that has not been invaded successfully for 934 years, and feel no threat there. I feel some threat from street crime, yes, as I am currently living in a poor inner-city area, but I would not feel any safer if there were more guns about and least of all if I were carrying one. And as for the government coming down on you, well, maybe, but I don't see that happening soon either in the USA or in any EU country.
"What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist." Salman Rushdie
Of course, IANAL, but as rediculous as it sounds, if you read the statute, it clearly states that it is illegal to manufacture and distribute devices who's main purpose is to eavesdrop on conversations.
So. Here we go. Perhaps they *ARE* in violation of the law, though certainly not intentionally.
Did this require armed officers and intimidating tactics? Probably not. Is this kind of tactic good for the country? Probably not. A simple letter from a lawyer/government agency explaining the particular aspects of the law and why they are in violation would have done the trick. Why was a search warrant needed.. was it not clear that the company *was* making these things and *was* selling them? Would the company have denied this? No.. they would have said 'of COURSE we do that, that's what we DO! What's the big deal?'
But hey.. if you make laws.. you gotta deal with the reprecussions.
Remember that next time you want congress to 'protect' you by law.
-E
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
The equipment is not criminal in any way; it is the use of that equipment which may (repeat, may) be a crime. And until you find that equipment in use, you have no business declaring that a crime has been committed.
Maybe you want to bug your own phone to record a conversation to give as evidence to the police (someone harassing or threatening you, for example) or you want a hidden camera aimed at the driveway to catch pictures of thieves and vandals. It's not the device, it's the use to which the device is put.--
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
Nicolas MONNET says:
.22 revolver. It's a backup firearm to dispatch game. The other 6 guns are all various shotguns and rifles. People in my area simply have guns. Period. Few people carry them for protection, but they may have them in their house for that purpose. We have one of the highest per capita gun possesion rates in the country, and (AFAIK) the lowest accident rate per gun in the country. Hunting is a large part of the identity of my area, and many homes (such as mine) have multiple non-handgun guns. Hell, I even keep one at college with me in case I have the need to go out and hunt during the school year. Would I use one of my guns to protect my home and house? Most certainly. Is that why I have them? Most certainly not...
"Few people (except the fascistic conservative minorities) here want guns. It's just not part of the culture"
I sincerely hope you're not talking about the US in this statement. Born and raised in a fairly rural State (Maine), and by almost all definitions a Geek to the core, I believe the Right to Bear Arms is one of the most prized possesions that we can have as citizens. Don't confuse me with a gun-toting self-protection zealot...There is one handgun in my house...A Ruger 8-shot
"A crust of bread is better than nothing. Nothing is better than love. Therefore, by the transitive property, a crust
The discussion here is not pissed off enough! Is it because of that bit by the lawyer in the article? Who cares if they have made this search legal.. it should be illegal. Shure, the feds have been doing related things to all sorts of non-electronics type people for a while now, but we should still be pissed off!
If this was an article about a company messing with someone there would have been 50 posts talking about was to help get them to stop. I have not seen ONE such post about this article. We should be fucking slashdoting the agency that did this with complaints!
Here is a list of contact related information from The RAMSEY Discussion board: Send an e-mail to your newspaper from mrsmithmedia.com. Send an e-mail to your representatives from mrsmith.com. http://www.conservativeusa.org has phones, faxes,addresses.
What else can we do? What is the most effective way to slashdot these people. It seems we first need to know who they are, but I have not seen any information posted about exactly which parts of the Dept. of Justic / FBI were involved in this. We should start a web site to collect the names of the agents and officials involved in this.. to make shure that their crimes are not forgoten.. and that they are remembered as the tyrants which they are. I would love to hear from people about the preacticality / legality of such a site.
Thomas Jefferson said "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of tyrants" and I think it is time to spill the blood of these specific tyrants the slashdot style.
Jeff
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
What exactly constitutes spying equipment? For example, I just bought a wireless A/V system from X10. They also market a package that includes a small camera. I suppose you could use it as a security camera, but their ads (with women) imply you'd use it for other purposes.
- -------
-----------------------------------------------
It is not Ramsey's responsibility to make sure every customer uses their products in a legal way. Of course, looking at America today you'd think it is. A perfect example is the many citys currently suing gun makers because of high murder rates. Are they also going to sue automobile manufacturers because cars are able to speed, be driven by drunks, used in drive-bys, used a getaway vehicles or be freely driven through open air drug markets?
There are perfectly acceptable uses for hidden cameras in the home. I'm sure many of you have seen the videotapes of nanny's/babysitters beating the children they are supposed to be caring for. A law-abiding citizen has every right to have access to that equipment. They should only lose that right when it has been proven that they have broken the law.
Remember, innocent until proven guilty.
If you take a look at thier catalog, They offer clocks and smoke detectors with hidden cameras in them.
And I would use these for.....what exactly? I agree, most of thier other stuff is basic electronic kits, but a clock with a hidden camera?
That's like a hunting store stocking armor piercing bullets.
So you are not a slashdotter? You just posted a comment on /., got modertated up (to 5 at this point) on /., and obviously you read /.
The point is, with the number of people that read slashdot every day, you will ALWAYS find people that will support anything. Don't bash slashdot because of this. /. didn't do ANYTHING. They just posted the story.
Next time you (and those of your ilk) think in terms of "slashdotters", just remember there are thousands or very intelligent people all posting from their own unique viewpoints. When you say "slashdotters do this" or "slashdotters do that", you are making no useful statement at all.
--
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
Is I wonder if Ramsey Electronics used any of their own clocks and smoke alarms with hidden cameras in them inside their establishment. I'd like to see the footage they got, and I wonder if the federal agents ever thought of this.
I have mixed feelings on affirmitive action, or 'positive' discimination as it is generally known this side of the Atlantic. I think it can be useful in pulling people out of an underclass but can also be taken to destructive extremes, as it has threatened to do in South Africa lately (but which I hasten to add are inestimably better to apartheid).
"What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist." Salman Rushdie
Complex systems cannot be optimal in every respect: designers get to make choices of what kind of problems will exist.
The US Constitution, as intended, was a deliberate choice of social problems rather than government tyranny. That is, the gov had nothing to do with poverty, education,
Socialism chooses to 'solve' social problems. The implicit choice is tyranny. The laws which are intended to work 'for the good of society' are easily mis-directed for political ends.
No socialist society has remained dynamic and functional. All have degenerated socially and economically.
We in the US aren't ready to give up our socialist ways, and so we will continue to have Wacos and these small scale tyrannies. People in electronics are just the latest targets. Gun dealers have been subject to this kind of stupidity for a long time. Murders have occured with the last couple of years on raids like this.
Lew
"The Constitution, the WHOLE Constitution, and nothing but the CONSTITUTION."
Man, cutlery manufacturers better watch out now that there is a precedent. I mean, Ginsu, by making it's wedge devices, is causing people to stab each other.
/committing/ the crime that is in the wrong. If I bash someone over the head with a pan, /I'm/ in the wrong, not the pan manufacturer. If I illegally hack into systems and destroy stuff, /I'm/ in the wrong, not the computer manufacturer.
----
Seriously, though, there are MANY objects that can be used in an illegal fashion. Blaming the object manufacturer is sort of stupid. It is the person
Am I the only one who thinks this is incredibly stupid?
Jazilla.org - the Java Mozilla
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
What you've said would be valid, were it not that Nicolas MONNET was talking about Europe. BTW, do you like what some voices in your country, such as Southpark, have found to say about hunters or is that a sore topic? Don't get me wrong, I've personally nothing against well-managed hunting, although I don't take part myself.
"What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist." Salman Rushdie
I find some of the comments about, to paraphrase, "procedural issues" during the raid to be a tad naive.
There was a time when I carried a commission and conducted numerous CIVIL seizures of property for a large federal agency. Those are different in many ways from what is being described here, but some of the experience carries over. The objects of my seizures usually knew I was coming and often would have their property stacked and inventoried, waiting for my arrival. When I had my way, things were far more casual.
Be that as it may, there were often cases where I knew, going in, that things were going to be contentious. Maybe I'd take armed escorts. Maybe I'd just take more unarmed officers. In a number of cases I found myself wishing we'd come into a situation with more force because the control I was able to maintain over the premises was a bit too tenuous for comfort.
With that as background, I'd like to make a few specific points.
The number of people taking part in the raid was not, from the description, excessive. Just controlling all the entrances and exits and having enough eyes to watch everybody could easily take a half-dozen folks.
The intimidation factor present was not unusual or uncalled for. When a raid happens, the safety of everyone depends on the ability of the officers to lock down the premises and control the actions of everyone inside. That means moving quickly and with sufficient force that no one even contemplates active resistance. That also means that, in the overwhelming majority of raids, the subject of the raid feels terribly picked on because of the excessive government resources directed at them and how the whole situation makes them feel. I'm sorry about that but it's necessary. The alternative (trying to more-precisely balance the forces brought to bear with the perceived level of potential resistance) would mean that when the government makes a mistake and underestimates the resistance to be encountered, bullets start flying and people start dying. Saving most people in most raids from feeling intimidated by using less force and manpower isn't worth the cost of occasionally getting into a shootout.
The failure to get everything right on the inventory isn't surprising. I've seized inventories consisting of hundreds of items and I know that mistakes happen. What surprises me is that the agents were able to easily dig out the wrong items and correct the inventory on the spot.
One final point - the raid description is coming from someone who wasn't there when it started. That means this article starts out with bunches of second-hand info that is, basically by definition, less reliable than eyewitness testimony. Take it all with a grain of salt for now. After all, as we saw in 1998 and 1999 with the Senate hearings investigating the IRS, just because people tell a sad story doesn't mean it's true. (FYI for those of you who didn't already know - In the months since the IRS hearings, the star witnesses have basically been shown to have been lying their asses off.)
Just my $.02. I agree that government raids have been done badly, for political or evil reasons, and that people have been needlessly hurt in the past. I just want to stress that we have no idea who's wearing the white, black, and gray hats in this one and we probably won't know for a long, long time.
Whose statistics? I read an article in the Economist some time back which quoted statistics saying the reverse.
Also you might like to consider that here in the EU we not only have more gun control we also have much less fatal violent crime. A lot of people think these are connected.
"What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist." Salman Rushdie
You now have a guarantee against direct host attacks. Any attacker -has- to go through the proxy server, and -has- to correctly identify the concealed network, rather than the fake one, first-time. One slip, and you're booted from that segment.
Sure, this is a bit of effort, but it's something that you won't have to continuously update, with every patch that comes out. The structure means that it'll be adequately secure against even unknown attacks. Further, if you ever do need to upgrade, the chances are it'll be the proxy, not the main computers, so your users won't experience unwholesome downtime, just a brief pause in extranet or internet access.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
It would be nice to see what things are illegal in the US for us Canadians to avoid bringing down there.
ttyl
Farrell
CAN-CON 2019 - Ottawa's only book oriented Science Fiction Convention! October 18-20, Sheraton Hotel, Ottawa, Canada h
--
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
... Buffalo policemen don't have balls.
--
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
--
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
I can see that many US /. members are rightly appalled by the powers available to their police, and the potential these have for abuse. All I can say is, it's one more things for us Europeans to be snooty about. (Although I'm not saying I like my country either - particularly with regard to some anti-terrorist legislation passed a couple of years ago. Are you listening Mr Blair, you unutterable shit-head?)
One thing I do like though is that our basic policemen - those patrolling the streets, or traffic cops - don't carry guns. As seen in the Stephen Lawrence incident, they do enough harm without them.
"What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist." Salman Rushdie
The "feds" were perfectly within their right to act the way that they did, and (except for the erronious inventory sheet) appear to have done nothing wrong according to the above account. I'm tired, DAMN tired, of people blaming the feds for doing their job...
How about these guys ("The Feds") sending a cease and desist order?? I mean come one, this type of grandstanding does nothing more than piss people "in the know" off. Why would they take such drastic actions without telling Ramsey they were doing something wrong, I will tell you why. Joe Luser out there wants to feel safe. If these guys can go in there and create some good PR. about "protecting Mr. Luser from the Bad Guys", Mr. Luser dosent mind sending half his paycheck to the Government. Imagine the same situation in say, um Waco,Tx. It could of been handled better, but no. They need good spin, go get those guys that have the power to do harm. The mindset today is if you have the power to do harm, someday you will do harm. Bottom line, Yet Another PR Stunt Gone Wrong. We need to get better pay for the Agents in Charge of such things. Maybe we can attract better talent than what we have.
--fatboy
Not to mention that alienating .edu people is bad karma cuz after being falsely accused, they're most likely NEVER going to want to work for you.
In the late 80's, early 90's, when I was studying EE at the University of Illinois, nearly all of the decent EE jobs were for contractors or subcontractors of the defense industry. Not all, mind you, but the majority of them. Fortunately for me, my interests took me to Computer Hardware Engineering, then on to Computer Science, where opportunities abounded in numerous, shall we say, less ethically suspect areas of endeavor. Though I made the decision to never work for the government or a company beholden to them in such a way at a time when I thought it would carry with it a significant cost to my carrier, I was fortunate enough not to have had to pay the price I thought I would. Still, I doubt I would have regretted the decision for a moment had it had the negative impact on my carrier I expected at the time -- some things (like personal ethics and being able to sleep at night) are more important than the bottom line financially.
This decision was made long before such Brazil-esque (the movie, not the country) visits from the Feds had become so commonplace. One doesn't have to be directly affected by jack-booted (or black-suited) thugs to decide never to put their talents to work for the government. Reading about such events from a safe distance suffices. For me, seeing Reagan and Busch's foreign policies of the 1980's was a sufficient motivation. Alas though, for every technically savvy person who does chose not to serve such entities there is generally at least one misguided soul who mistakes love of government for love of countryt. And even when there aren't enough misguided people to fill all the job slots, there's always at least one cynical sellout who will do the job (however unsavory) with full knowledge of what they are doing and absolutely no compunction about it.
It is sometimes discouraging to think our hesitation or unwillingness to work for such entities doesn't translate into hiring difficulties for such organizations, but it is important to remember that we make these decisions, or should be making them, for our own peace of mind, and that while we can influence what others do, we cannot force anyone else to necessarilly make the same decisions we have, no matter how strongly we may feel about it. We can, however, at least look at ourselves in the mirror without self loathing and sleep soundly at night -- at least until the jack-booted thugs show up. I suspect if more of us took that approach to our careers, entities like the Feds might actually find themselves with a few recruiting challenges, without our even having given it a second thought, much less organized anything so formal as a "boycott."
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
You know, people with the proper know how can make transmitters from scratch out of parts. Next thing you know the government is going to be raiding Radio Shack just because they carry parts that *might* be used to create listening devices. Before you know it you'll have to get a permit just to buy some friggin transistors and breadboards.
Mechanik
It makes me physically ill to read stories such as this. It makes me want to rant. But, sadly enough, ranting will soon fall in line with guns, drugs, terrorists and any other thing they can use to polarize communities and companies and individuals who are otherwise minding their own business. Please, someone explain to me how sacarificing our constitutional freedoms will ultimately improve our quality of life. It won't. We all know that (or at least a group of us know that) and yet we still entrust governmental power to a bunch of mediocre metalities whose primary interest is the linings of their billfolds being padded with other people's property. All this in the name of Democracy? I think not.
I don't have a problem with guns used for defense. I have a concealed weapons permit and it's not because I may be suddenly struck with the urge to go out hunting. It's because I have little faith in the ability of the police to protect my personal safety and that of my family.
As it's been said so many times before the second amendment isn't about hunting. I have more guns than I have fingers (btw, I do have all 10 of my fingers) and only two of them are suitable for hunting.
I don't think I'm Rambo, John Wayne, or Elliot Ness, I'm just a simple man who enjoys target shooting and has a desire to remain safe.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
I hate to be pedantic in the face of your pedantry, but "schizophrenic" is a word that does not mean "having schizophrenia." The word came from the mental illness of the same name, and does represent a misunderstanding of the nature of schizophrenia, but the word has moved beyond its medical meaning. It is not an error to describe something that logically contradictory as "schizophrenic."
As someone whose family contains a victim of schizophrenia (and, while we are at it, manic depression) I am well aware of what schizophrenia is not. When no more mean when we say something is "schizophrenic" that it has schizophrenia than we mean when we say someone is "quixotic" that that person is mentioned in Cervantes' book.
Fascinating. Somebody mark this guy up.
"What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist." Salman Rushdie
This isn't about your privacy or mine. The Feds, the Spy agencies for our own and foreign governments, even many industrial "security" arms (I suspect) will not have their access to such tools hampered in the least by closing down hobby shops like this. Nor, I suspect, will so-called terrorists have much trouble locating such equipment on the black market, perhaps at a price less competive than one pays on the web.
This is about keeping the individual from violating the "privacy" of the government. Imagine their horror if individuals or reporters were to listen in on private city council meetings, committee meetings in congress, or congressmen in their offices obtaining campaign contributions. This is about covering up the dirty laundry of those who purport to be serving us in public office, not about stopping crime, terrorism, or protecting our civil liberties in the least.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
I hate to be pedantic in the face of your pedantry, but "schizophrenic" is a word that does not mean "having schizophrenia." The word came from the mental illness of the same name, and does represent a misunderstanding of the nature of schizophrenia, but the word has moved beyond its medical meaning. It is not an error to describe something that logically contradictory as "schizophrenic."
As someone whose family contains a victim of schizophrenia (and, while we are at it, manic depression) I am well aware of what schizophrenia is not. We no more mean when we say something is "schizophrenic" that it has schizophrenia than we mean when we say someone is "quixotic" that that person is mentioned in Cervantes' book.
But check out some of these links:
Disguised Wall Clock Video Camera System
Disguised Smoke Detector Video Camera System
Now I'm not going to poke fun at their "hide it under a stamp" microphone. It's an item that has some legit as well as non legit uses, like most tools. The way they advertise it is questionable, but the item itself is useful.
However, they way they advertise their products strikes me as a deliberate attempt to attract people with less than honorable motives.
Unfortunately, a some point in time, a decision is made that a tool is dangerous enough that it's risks outweight it's benefits. What side of the line these tools are on is up to you to judge, and to lobby your lawmakers with. However, the way Ramsey electronics portrays some of their inventory no longer leaves a doubt in my mind on what side they take.
No Zen is good zen
The feds can do what they want when they want. we've known this for decades...
Anyone who thinks that the USA is a democracy and not a dictatorship is either stupid or likes to suck up the propaganda that the Fed's generate every day.
What's next? I bought my sons paintball equipment... maybe I should be arrested for training them to be assasins..
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
I have a hand held scanner not modified. I use it mostly to listen to hams on the 20m band. But at times i pick up interest conversations from who knows where, that should probably be private. Now, I am in risk of being arrested?!?! :-D).
If the government can arrest people who make devices to bug people, why don't they arrest the people who make gun. (hi ESR, just giving an example.
------ Curiosity killed the cat. {satisfaction brought it back | it didn't die ignorant | lack of it is killing mankind
It is NOT a framework for all our other laws. It is the description of the Federal Government and it's powers. It has nothing to do with laws against murder (except as perpetrated by the Federal Government). Murder is covered by the laws of your State (if you live in the U.S.)
Privacy is not protected by a federal law. If you believe it is, please provide (what you think is) the relevant statute.
Devices do not break laws. PEOPLE break laws.
"Those who would give up essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin,
So in actual fact the guns did them no good at all. It just got their town burned to the ground. Useful....
Had all of them been armed to the teeth, the Nazi's would have just aerial bombed the area. Look for instance at Chechnya...a good portion of the population are heavily armed, and so the russian army have just flattened the whole country. The guns haven't actually done anything except buy them time. I'm not advocating they should lay down their arms and give up, but to say that guns would have saved the Jews is rubbish.
---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"
Someone here mentioned the cities involved in the gun manufacturer lawsuits, and related that issue to the automobile. Perhaps there's another group of companies at risk who are a little more near and dear to our hearts?!?
What about Linux distro outfits? For example, Red Hat sells it's distro to China, and China in turn makes a big ol' beowolf cluster to design long-range warheads or something. (China isn't really a likely example, but India and Pakistan are two other countries the US really would rather didn't conduct this kind of work) What about PGP? This is rather similar to the electronics kits sold by Ramsey is it not? In and of itself, it's not a malicious device. In the hands of an evildoer, it very well could be!
My point is that in America, we love to regulate things which we feel are too dangerous for "the Public" to have access. Alcohol, guns, drugs, electronics, the list goes on. But what of these products (except maybe Alcohol and Drugs) are dangerous in and of themselves? Do we in this country wish to see our judicial system punishing the act? or the potential act? I feel that the framers of the constitution MUST have known better than that! And until the day this country wakes up from it's collective psychotic episode and sees that we don't need a big brother or a caring government to make these kinds of decisions for us, our rights will be stripped away slowly, almost imperceptibly. Until the day you're woken up by the Feds breaking down your door and saying "You're under arrest, for knowledge of how to compromise computer security systems."
If I sound like a flaming libertarian, it's 'cause I am!
RANT MODE: Off
-Beware gun-toting vegetarians!
The tactics of a criminal monopoly masquerading as your benefactor, aka protection racket aka government:
"Electronic Surreptitious Intercept Devices"
I'm assuming that these are bugs. Of course we can't have them, the racketeers are jealous of their monopoly.
"The two of them proceeded to rattle off a lot of mumble jumble like Title 18 USC Section 2512 and other numbers"
Of course they only gave out paragraph and subsection numbers. It's intimidation. If you knew what they were really after you could cooperate. But by not knowing, you are unable to help these friendly racketeers, who will then be able to later claim you were uncooperative.
"The one [agent] gave me his card, and I noticed that he was from Buffalo, an hour and a half away"
Well, of course. Some of these thugs actually attempt to have a conscience. If local agents did this raid, you might recognize them. You might even meet them again on your way in to church next Sunday. Think of the embarassment.
"We'll lock the doors, send all the employees home, we'll go through all of your inventory, records, customer lists and computers."
If they're looking for particular pieces of electronic equipment, why do they need to search customer lists and computers?
"obviously, they would want me to confirm their counts and amounts"
Hah! Apparently this was his first run-in with the racketeers.
"Special Agent Craig Healy turned to me and said 'You can trust us.'"
Okay, when I said earlier that some of these criminals attempt to have a conscience, I wasn't referring to Special Asshole Craig Healy.
"One of them said words to the effect of, 'gee, we must have picked up the wrong box from your shelf.'"
Gee, an accident. Does anyone out there really believe that this was an honest mistake? If you do, check you brain for soap residue.
"This show of force, while maybe necessary for raiding an underground drug lab, was hardly necessary."
Yes, this show of force is necessary. Without it you might just form the subversive opinion that the racketeers are ordinary people like you or me. Although this is objectively correct, they believe themselves to be superior beings. They even claim that they hold special rights above and beyond those of everyone else, and that they are not subject to the same laws they impose on others.
"We're not necessarily looking for kits or components. We're looking for items like clocks, smoke detectors and picture frames."
Then why in God's good name didn't you take any clocks, smoke detectors or picture frames? Why did you take kits and components instead? This guy sounds a mouthpiece for the mob, oh wait...
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Please, grow up, get a good grasp of the facts, and quit whining.
- A.P.
--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
Can you give me some examples?
Nascantur in Admiratione. (Let them be born in Wonder)
It's a bad concept.
Who's concept is it? It's just the way things are. We only try to change it where we can by trying to get people to agree to act a certain way, and usually punishing them if they don't. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn't. Either way, there are always exceptions. Some people don't want to be told what to do. Some people want to live by their own rules rather than the rules that somebody else made up. "Natural law" will always be with us because it's part of what we are. Ignoring it won't make it go away, it'll just help you to make bad decisions.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Those of you who believe you've suffered from unjust searches and seizures of property should check out the web site http://www.fear.org.
This is a very good resource for fighting to get your property back, and is frequented by a number of lawyers who volunteer their time to the cause.
I can personally relate to this issue, because several years ago, my parents' home was raided by the FBI and my multi-line bulletin board system was seized. To this date, I have still never been charged with a crime but none of my equipment was ever returned.
(By now, of course, all of the PC hardware is close to worthless, even if I was to get it back.)
One of the things I found most appalling about the incident was the lack of detail on the search warrant. It was basically a "cookie cutter" form, probably mass generated from a template document on a word processor, where they filled in a few blanks. In the "specific" list of items they were to seize, it listed just about anything remotely resembling magnetic or computer media, and it appeared they never even knew what my name was. They just had the house address on the warrant. It struck me that they can crank out copies of these babies pretty much at will, get any willing judge to sign off on them - and voila, instant legal rights to search anybody/anything.
Our "rights" have become little more than illusions created by paperwork.
I can't help but feel that you're being irrationally paranoid here. You don't need guns to protect yourself in a civilised society, and in fact the widespread presence of guns is more of a threat to your personal safety than 'invaders'. I live in a country that has not been invaded successfully for 934 years, and feel no threat there. I feel some threat from street crime, yes, as I am currently living in a poor inner-city area, but I would not feel any safer if there were more guns about and least of all if I were carrying one. And as for the government coming down on you, well, maybe, but I don't see that happening soon either in the USA or in any EU country.
AHA! This is the key mistake, nowhere on this floating mud ball does there exist a 'Civilized' society. As to the proximity in time of the next government sponsored citizen slaughter it is irrelevant when it will happen, only that it will and I would prefer to at least take down a couple of the bastards before they kick in my door, rape my wife, and put a bullet in me. If it doesn't happen to me then I want to make sure my children and my friend's children have the same capability to defend their freedom. If you choose not to defend your own freedom do not look to me to defend it for you when the shit hits the fan, I'll be busy reloading.
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
While I am probably responding to flamebait, you
do bring up something I found interesting. A few
years back there was some national murrmers
because a radio talk show host was advocating that
if the ATF/FBI or such raid your house, you should
shoot for the face, because that is where they
are least armored.
That made me think. Certainly, if you happen to
be holding a gun when they break the door
down, your best bet probably is to use it, since
they will defend themselves by opening fire
as soon as they see it (in that situation there
is no time to think and discuss...just act)
In truth...even if you don't have it already
in your hands...there have been several people
shot by police and killed over reaching for a
phone or some other silliness, so perhaps
fighting back might at least give you a
"fighting chance".
Personally, I see no problem with it morally.
If a person breaks into someone elses house, the
people living there have every right in my eyes
to defend their home. (note: this isn't a legal
or constitutional argument...just my personal
moral beliefs)
On the other hand...the police usually send
more then enough people. Those who fire back
tend to have a VERY LOW survival rate. So from
a practical standpoint, its about the stupidest
thing you can do (unless you have enough guns
and ammo to take out a whole shitload in less
time then they can call in for more backup)
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
were accused of portscanning? It would be absolutely hilarious to forgesend a couple of rouge packets from 38.228.47.6 to it. For those who don't know: 38.228.47.6 is Weil, Gotshal & Manges, of DVD CCA fame.
Say no to software patents.
If gun manufactures aren't liable for the deaths caused by shootings, why would a electronics company be liable for what it's customers use their devices for?
(Sounds like they need a better lobbyist...)
Hey, all you socialist liberals, this is the doing of YOUR President! You were foolish enough to vote for him and now look what it's got you. Al Gore is cut from the same cloth. THINK HARD ABOUT HOW YOU WILL VOTE IN NOVEMBER!
In the end, the Nazis did destroy the ghetto, however it did buy it's inhabitants nearly 2 weeks.
Well in Chechnya the Russians are getting a little help from their Uncle Sam. Some of their bombing exhibits accuracy and timing that they are not capable of on their own.
10 guns here or 20 guns there won't save any decisive number of people, but 10 thousand guns could have saved 12 million people from dying in Nazi death camps. Just a reminder, nearly half of the people killed by the nazis, in their camps, were NOT jewish.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
'Fraid not. If you look around on the web you'll find all sorts of instructions for modifying the scanners you can buy today so they'll no longer specifically *block* various telephony frequencies (specifically 800 MHz, 900 MHz, and 1900 MHz, IIRC). The FCC definitely doesn't want you listening to analog cellular, and a variety of other things, too.
Somebody feel free to correct me if I'm way off base
10Brett-T
Oh, bother.
I know places like Wal-mart have or still do sell surveillance cameras hidden in smoke detectors from their website. I think that if a large company such as Wal-mart or even Bust Buy sold these items, there would be no raids and definately not the way it was done to Ramsey.
Sometimes I feel like a nut... Ok so it's most of the time
This falls under the clause of "unreasonable search and siezure". Doesn't matter if it's a civil action. Doesn't matter if it's a criminal action.
It is still Un-Constitutional.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
We always hear about some or other law enforcement agency doing ridiculously wrong things like confiscating someone's car because he drove past a drug lab, or crap like that. My question is, how often does this kind of nonsense happen in relation to the number of times when, say, a company is making illegal eavesdropping devices and the gov't sends them a letter saying, "Cease and desist now or we're going to boot you in the head." Of course you'd never hear about those instances because, let's face it, how exciting is a letter?
Now I'm not saying that one or the other is more common, but it certainly would be a good thing to know before we condem our entire government as nothing but a group of nogoodniks.
--- Dirtside | "Spirituality" is the irrational belief in the supernatural
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
Gun owners in the US haven't had to face persecution anywhere near the level of the Jews in WWII. Also, enough gun owners in the US know about the Warsaw Ghetto uprising that I suspect similar attempts of government persecution would have rather disastrous results. I do see similarities between the raid at Ramsey (and the other companies) and the government attacks on firearm manufacturers in the US. The corporations are all being held responsible for the illegal acts perpetrated by individuals who use their products. Heck, let's sue Ford and GM for the carnage caused by drunk drivers while we're at it. Geeks and gun owners (I proudly wear both titles) share several characteristics, including a better education than average, and a desire simply to be left alone to pursue our hobbies. Gun owners, however, have seen their activities restricted more and more since the mid-1930's so I find they're a bit more cynical.
An armed society is a polite society - Heinlein
They have everything to do with each other. The ability of law enforcement to enter a home and sieze property is what was used in this raid, and that same law would be used to find a stolen car stereo in someones garage. And if you read the original report, companies from several states were complaining about the devices (or types of devices) being sold. As far as over the line, using semi-automatic weapons in a raid is standard operating proceedure and NOT at the discression of the officers wether or not to use. They have to have them and use them in the manner they did for the raid. (I know, I am/was certified as an urban warfare instructor for the Marine Corps. We teach the LAPD how to do raids - useing your weapon is not an option, it's a requirement. This is due to 30 years of research done by the FBI on how to prevent anyone from getting killed or hurt during a raid, which includes the people your raiding - it's best not to kill your suspects. Regaurdless of what kind of raid your doing, you do it the safest way, even if it might hurt someones feelings.)
In any case, it was still done unproffessionally, and they need to be retrained. Scuse my spelling... Like I said, I'm a Marine:)
ctimes2
My cube. My friend. My solace. My prison.
Yeah, that's pretty much what I was getting at. As for the emperor thing, I could almost agree. The current system is obviously very very broken. It's a huge burden on the country to have to have so many people doing nothing but charging other people for their knowledge of the law. If the law is that damn hard to grasp, then it is unworkable and we should do something to remedy that situation. Hell, you can't do much of anything anymore without consulting a lawyer to make sure you don't accidentally break the law, or open yourself up to being screwed by someone else.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
I've been a customer of Ramsey for many years. My first electronics kit was an FM wireless mike, which costs about 6 bucks. It does work, but to say it is either designed for or even suited for espionage would be rather silly. COnsider this - it is a hand tuned oscilator, rather than being crystal controlled. It's great if you want to learn about how they work, but if you really wanted to monitor somebody, they would have problems. They drift off frequency with slight changes in temperature, proximity to people, metal, etc. They are inherently rather unstable. To top it off, I never got one to transmit more than about 100 feet or so, outdoors. In a house, they will cross a room, but rarely transmit through a wall. They are excellent learning tools, but would make lousy bugs. Also, as an amateur radio operator, I take issue with some of the devices that were seized and prevented from being sold. In particular,the amateur televison (ATV) gear on the ham bands (440 mhz) and the associated downconverter is a perfectly legal device to sell to hams. Sure, they are small and stable, with long range, but they have a myriad of other uses, and WE ARE ALLOWED TO USE THEM as long as we obey the rules of the amatuer licensing system.
The law needs to be changed then...
What you are saying, is that Ramsey (or any other company) can legally sell small cameras and other such devices (like small microphone kits), but they can't sell pre-made clocks or other common objects with these same devices in them (according to the law). It would be up to the buyer of the device to do so (and then he could not resell completed device).
Today, who would expect your average person wanting to protect their house or children (from bad babysitters), to put together thier own hidden camera security system? Really! Most of the people who would do this can't even set the fucking clock on their VCR, let alone put together a hidden camera system! Sure, you or I could do it - break out a Dremel, some duct tape and go. However, an ordinary individual will not know how, nor will they want to learn.
Plus, maybe it would be cheaper to put all of the components into one package (cheaper than buying each device seperately and building it yourself)? This kind of law stops that. The law would also stop a toy manufacturer from putting a camera in a doll (so Teddy Ruxpin 2000 can do AI facial recognition on the child playing with it and say "Hello, Bobby!"), because such a camera would be hidden in an ordinary toy. What if it were an advanced AIBO? No camera there - it is disguised like a dog? Will Nintendo be raided next for disguising a camera like a game (Gameboy Camera) - up the res on the thing and it could be used in other ways, right? What about a teleconferencing camera in a TV (now that is pretty Orwellian - maybe it should be struck)? Under the current law, these devices all sound like they couldn't be manufactured (unless so fucked up they didn't allow connection to ANY recording or storage device).
The law is the problem - and it should be changed.
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
I wish that they had made us use actual descrite transistors for the amp instead of using an OpAmp chip, but I forgive them.
I'm not sure how many people have watched A&E's Investigative Reports (great show!). I remember an episode a few months back (recently reaired I believe) that talked about the civil confiscation of goods by law enforcement agencies.
One of the more egregious confiscations were by some yahoo Florida police officers. They would stop only BLACK drivers (they showed them giving white drivers off with only a warning) who they suspected of anything (stop sign, drunk, lane change). Any money that they found in the car they would confiscate. They just blanketly claimed that they believed the money was drug-related, so therefore under Florida's confiscation laws, they could legally take the money. Of course, they pissed off enough people that it appeared on the ACLU's radar. Well, IIRC, the ACLU was actually powerless since the law gives the discretion to the officers. They do not NEED ANY PROOF whatsoever to claim the money.
Kurtis then went on to talk about the DEA and how they have the federal auction. I believe that our wonderful US govt. is the proud owner of a casino and a multi-million dollar house. They do not seem that interested in selling those items. They like it.
Fourth amendment is but a distant memory. The sad fact is that the government can seize property whenever they want. Good luck getting it back.
Just as a quick quip about Ramsey, I belive it is the same issue as the gun manufacturers being sued by victims of crime committed with their guns (I know others have brought this up). The US has forgotten that people are ultimately responsible for their own actions. They ARE. No one else can make me believe otherwise. Any person who thinks that society is entirely responsible for the actions (good or bad) has been smoking the wacky weed a bit too much.
Later,
Justin
Mu. P.S. The address you see is real. =)
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
One way of looking at this is that some rights are not natural rights at all until the means of violating them exist. The framers considered all the obnoxious ways that governments medddle in people's personal affairs that they were familiar with, and were wise enough to anticipate that some had not been dreamt up yet.
I think an interesting and debatable point is the attitude that people have these days that the rights protected by the Constitution are human rights, not mere citizenship rights. Thus many people feel they have a right against unreaonable searching and indeed privacy whether the infringer is the government or a private agency. Again this is probably a situation that the framers could not have anticipated, that private, non-governmental and non-class aligned entities could become the most powerful and pervasive influence in people's lives.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
As I brought up in a previous message, there are ligitimate uses for a hidden camera. There have been many documented cases where a babysitter/nanny has been caught seriously abusing a child they were supposed to be caring for.
What if I want to make sure my child is not being abused? What if I have a neighbor who threatens me constantly? What if I have someone who comes into my office going through my desk or deleting/changing files on my computer?
These are all true life cases which a hidden camera was used by a law abiding citizen to stop/capture/convict a criminal.
Just because there are drunk drivers out there doesn't mean I shouldn't be allowed to by a six pack. Just because someone may use these devices in an illegal manner doesn't mean an honest citizen shouldn't have access to them.
The people who are 'robbing you of your rights' are the criminals, not the manufacturer.
Sure, I agree with you about the flaws in mob decisions. But maybe these two syllogisms will serve as justification for this one:
Gun control makes it harder to get hold of guns.
Guns make it easier to kill people.
Therefore gun control makes it harder to kill people.
When it's harder to kill people, less people get killed.
Therefore gun control results in less people getting killed, which loosely translates as saying that it saves lives. Therefore is it such a bad thing to, say, have background checks at gun fairs?
"What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist." Salman Rushdie
Once Ramsey caught the eye of the feds what chance did they have?
What chance do I have?
As a friend of mine keeps reminding me - What is not grown is mined!!
Si vis pacem, para bellum! For evil to succeed good men need only do nothing!
There was a case of "Dad" putting a hidden camera in his "nannys" bathroom so he could check her out in the shower.
Course, when she found it, "Dad" found himself on the 10 pm news..
Hidden Win2K Menu
Did I miss something? Why didn't Ramsey Electronics have their attorney(s) on-site while this was happening? If I found federal agents in my work place, the first thing I would do is to demand to speak to my attorney before saying *anything* else to the agents.
This just doesn't make sense. What about the companies such as SmartHome.com which sell hidden video cameras ? (http://www.smarthome.com/7569.html is a good example.) There is a number of companies which sell these. Are they going to be shut down too ??
Drug Prohibition makes it harder to get Drugs
In otherwords, no it doesn't, it just makes it harder to get legally.
Here is what happens when you take guns OUT of the hands of law abiding citizens:
There was another graphic on the web somewhere that I cannot seem to find that shows a rise in violent crime in England over time. It is interesting when you compare that graph against the increase in anti-gun laws. The more draconian the restrictions, the higher the violent crime rates.
I never quite understood the argument for gun ownership because of living in a police state. I agree that we do indeed live in a police state, but having a gun isn't going to help much. If you get in a shootout with the police, you ARE going to die. Even a whole city of gun owners can't stop much, with our military on the other end. This is a really interesting topic of debate, though.
This argument is based on the premise that the error of using excessive force doesn't precipitate fights that would otherwise have been avoided. One need only compare the results of the local sherrif's visits to Koresh & Co (courteous and professional resolution of the issue at hand) and those of the BATF's visit (eighty-six bodies on the deck) to refute this notion. Given that an error in either direction can produce tragic results, the only responsible policy is to calibrate the application of force to the threat level.
No. Available force should be sufficient to control the situation. While the Andy Taylor school of law enforcement works fine most of the time, I wouldn't want to bet my life on it. IOW, an excess of available force is never a bad thing except that it's a slight waste of money. Of course, when that force is not just available but *used* injudiciously, you wind up with serious heartache, bloodshed, and violations of constitutional rights. But that's not what we're talking about here.
The Waco raid, though, is a whole 'nother kettle of fish. The BATF did not err in the level of resources thrown at the problem. They erred in pursuing their plan after the element of surprise had been compromised. Outside of a war, that's guaranteed to cause grief. Whoever made the decision to proceed after the element of surprise was lost should be hung. Two of the LEOs who died that day were known to me, one as more than an acquaintance though less than a friend. Their senseless deaths still enrage me, as does the senseless destruction of innocent life that eventually resulted from the pantheon of errors committed by law enforcement over the next weeks. But, again, that's not what we're talking about here, is it?
>
Your evidence for this rather irresponsible assertion (you are accusing people of perjury and slander, which is itself slanderous if untrue) disappeared somewhere between your keyboard and my screen
Yes, I am accusing people of perjury and slander.
The star witnesses were Colaprete and Long.
For information showing how Colaprete lied his ass off, see the December 9, 1999 edition of The Wall Street Journal. The story, by staff reporter John D. McKinnon, is entitled Highly Publicized Horror Story That Led to Curbs On IRS Quietly Unravels in Virginia Civil Court. In it, you'll find lengthy descriptions of how Colaprete testified to Congress with factual descriptions of things that happened when he was not even present. And more.
For information showing how Long lied her ass off, contact the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration and ask for a copy of their report on her allegations. It goes on for pages, point by point, showing that nearly everything she said was unsubstantiated or could not be confirmed, even though they had her cooperation and assistance. (In fairness, she did manage to make a couple of partly-correct minor points about internal workings at the IRS. Her allegations about bad treatment of the public, though, were entirely horseshit.)
Heck, for some good insight into what Long was up to, just review the filings in her suit against the U.S. Government in the US District Court for the Southern District of Texas, JENNIFER J. LONG, Plaintiff vs. ROBERT E. RUBIN, Secretary of the Treasury, Defendant, CIVIL ACTION NO. H 97-3239. Just her video deposition of August 24, 1998, is enough to make you laugh out loud at her tortured prevarications, cry for all the people she's slandered, and rage at Congress for believing her idiocy.
But politics marches on. For information showing how the Government Accounting Office report that Colaprete and Long lied was suppressed by Senator Roth, see the Tax Analysts story at their document number Doc 1999-19180. Roth, heading up the Senate Finance Committee that conducted the hearings, kept the final report secret for reasons he has failed to adequately explain. Perhaps because the report would show that he and his committee were played like a violin by Colaprete and Long?
When you've read those documents, you'll see that no evidence disappeared between my keyboard and your screen. I just failed to cite it right off the bat because I was under the mistaken impression that nearly everyone already knew these things.
Bah. You might read the law before making such a statement. 18 USC 2512 does not even hint at any philosophy, for or against anything. It is simply a prohibition of the transfer (or advertising) of specific surveillance devices through the mail or through interstate and foreign commerce. (Look it up for yourself.)
The philosophy stated may or may not be behind the law (i.e., it may or may not have played a part in the passage of the law), but the law itself states nothing other than what you cannot do without facing criminal penalty.
No Laughing Allowed!
Maybe more people need to join the ACLU. Anyway, the ACLU web site indicates that there is a bill working its way through the system that addresses forfeiture of property based solely on government suspicion of wrong doing. The url is: http://www.aclu.org/action/assets106.html
HR 1658 is the bill. Apparently it has gone through the House but not the Senate. I'm neither o lawyer nor a politician, but it seems to me the mere existence of this bill could be used by Mr. Ramsey's lawyer to try to get his stuff back and at least keep his business going. Don't flame me if I'm off tartget here just let me know where I'm off target.
PS: I'm interested in this stuff mostly because I see a trend with the government becoming increasingly heavy handed in issues that don't really warrant it.
For instance I'm currently involved in a situation in Pennsylvania revolving around a simple dog license. Back in September my then roommate received a citation for not having a current dog license. The only problem was that the dog he got the citation over wasn't his, it was mine. He told the officer he didn't own or provide care for the dog and even went as far as calling me at work and putting me on the phone with this guy. The officer didn't care and wrote him the citation anyway. Well along with the citation he left a mail in card and some pamphlets about rabies (he told me dogs are supposed to have rabies shots every year. I checked with the vet and it's more like every three or four). Any way, I left work early, bought a license, and sent in the card. My roommate and I figured that the case was closed or that at least we'd get a letter saying it wasn't. Months passed by and my roommate moved out. Now just a week ago, a constable shows up at my door with an arrest warrant for my roommate for failure to respond to a citation. I told the guy it was my dog and that since the citation didn't have a monetary amount on it we weren't sure how to respond to it (I told him about the card I mailed in and how I thought that tied to the citation). He seemed sympathetic and told me to go to the magistrate and explain this mix up. Well when I went down they were as beligerent and as nasty as they could be about this. I was told I couldn't ask for a hearing because I wasn't named on the citation. I asked the clerk for a copy of the letter was sent out. She asked what letter. I replied that the constable said that certified letters are usually sent if someone doesn't respond to a citation. She replied, "we don't send letters." I told here I wasn't contesting any guilt that I was willing to pay the fine. She said I had to pay the fine and the constable costs. I refused stating that a simple letter could have prevented this. She replied then the only way to solve this if for my roommate to show up. At this point I have lost contact with him and have no idea how to reach him to let him know he's got a warrant on his head for my dog.
What pisses me off is that at any time,
1) The dog officer could have given some instruction on how the card and the citation were or were not connected and what to do. I called his office to ask him what I need to do with the citation the day after I mailed the card. He never returned the call.
2) for thirty-two cents and five minutes of time the magistrate's office could have sent a letter. (I have received letters before about failure to respond issues) I would have even accepted an addition five bucks for time and resources to type the stupid letter.
From talking to the constable, I found out he has a bunch of warrants for people in my area for the same thing. Apparantly I wasn't the only one confused by the citation and the card.
This was all the result of a dog enforcement sweep that went through the area. I really wish I was here that day because I strongly suspect it was a door to door search. My roommate told me they showed up with four of five trucks to take dogs. Talk about overkill.
BTW - I live in a very quiet part of a college town. Just so you know the mentality around here. Our township adopted an ordinance that requires cats to be kept on leashes when they are outdoors. Cats for god's sake.
Sorry for being long winded, I just wanted to give background.
Homosexuality is against natural law.
Racial integration is against natural law. (Remember? We're naturally the "better race.")
Too many people try to argue "natural" law who have absolutely no clue as what actually is "natural." That is, what actually happens in nature.
I'd say that if you really think you need handguns in the US, to protect you against the government, then your government is fundamentally flawed already.
This is one of the undercurrents of the government intrusion arguments here. Many people feel that the federal government of these united States is fundamentally flawed. Unfortunately, those who call themselves "government agents" tend to use force when they don't get their way. If you attempt to resist their force, they call more of their friends to beat you down. That's because people who thrive on control gravitate toward government jobs, and use their power in a concerted manner to get more power. There is your fundamental flaw.
Why is a camera or a microphone any different from a hammer? I can buy a hammer at many local stores and put it in my toolbox. I can build a house for a homeless person with it. I could also bash somebody's head in with it. Does the government raid the local hardware store and seize all its hammers because they could be used in a murder? No. If I bash somebody's head in with a hammer, I am the one who gets prosecuted, as the individual who misused the tool.
This is why I support Ramsey. Though I am all for preserving what little privacy we have left, I know that no tool uses itself. Ramsey is not responsible for the camera pointing at me in the shower; the person who put the camera in my shower is. And that's who should bear the brunt of law enforcement's onslaught, not Ramsey.
How much sense does it make to rail against Big Brother and then leap to the defense of his supplier?
It makes perfect sense. Big Brother will always have suppliers. Everyday people will not. Taking down a supplier of tools that Big Brother wants to misuse and then assuming that means the end of that tool is just sticking your head in the sand like an ostrich. You can't see the tool anymore so you assume no one can get it, and you're safe. Utter bull. Big Brother can get any tool it wants. If we keep the tool available to all, we keep its potential for misuse in the public mind, so we learn of instances in which it is misused more readily. This makes it easier to speak out against misuses.
Eternal vigilence is the price of freedom. And privacy.
-----Chaz
I find it rather sad that someone would moderate this as "funny" or as "flamebait", as this correctly identifies the emotions alot of people have about the USA, which the moderators somehow find "funny". This is completely serious, and we have a phrase alot like it in Denmark. A moderation of "interesting" or "informative" would be alot more appropiate, I think. In Denmark, it's called "amerikanske tilstande", which directly translates to "American conditions". It's used primarily to refer to these things: 1) Not caring about/helping the poor or otherwise disadvantaged people (basically, in Denmark, we have none to very few homeless people (it's hard to do something about the homelesness of people being on drugs and the like...), and all people without jobs are given enough money that they should be able to live reasonably comfortably (actually, people get enough money of off this that taking some very low-paying jobs will result in the jobless person getting *less* money). They may be forced by the state to take a job after a certain period of inactivity, though) 2) The state not providing free healtcare for everyone (you are entitled to treatment in Denmark payed by the state, nomatter the cost). 3) People going amok and shooting alot of people, terrorism, high crime rates and generally any very brutal crime (we haven't had terrorism in denmark for, hmm, as long as I've lived, I believe. I actually don't know how the crime rates compare USA/Denmark, so I don't know if there's any basis there) 4) Things being extremely big, as in big corporations, big cars, big hotels etc. etc. + any physical thing taken completely out of proportion (Denmark is alot smaller than the USA, so naturally, we will also tend to have smaller corporations etc.) If you think after reading this that Denmark must be a very good country, well... I can't say I disagree, but you should know that it's really easy to get to pay 50+% of your income in taxes, and our cars, gasoline (anything polluting) is ALOT more expensive here (like double/triple the cost).
Bjarke Roune
I find it rather sad that someone would moderate this as "funny" or as "flamebait", as this correctly identifies the emotions alot of people have about the USA, which the moderators somehow find "funny".
This is completely serious, and we have a phrase alot like it in Denmark.
A moderation of "interesting" or "informative" would be alot more appropiate, I think.
In Denmark, it's called "amerikanske tilstande", which directly translates to "American conditions".
It's used primarily to refer to these things:
1) Not caring about/helping the poor or otherwise disadvantaged people (basically, in Denmark, we have none to very few homeless people (it's hard to do something about the homelesness of people being on drugs and the like...), and all people without jobs are given enough money that they should be able to live reasonably comfortably (actually, people get enough money of off this that taking some very low-paying jobs will result in the jobless person getting *less* money). They may be forced by the state to take a job after a certain period of inactivity, though)
2) The state not providing free healtcare for everyone (you are entitled to treatment in Denmark payed by the state, nomatter who you are and nomatter the cost (you sometimes have to wait a while to get this treatment, though)).
3) People going amok and shooting alot of people, terrorism, high crime rates and generally any very brutal crime (we haven't had terrorism in denmark for, hmm, as long as I've lived, I believe. I actually don't know how the crime rates compare USA/Denmark, so I don't know if there's any basis there)
4) Things being extremely big, as in big corporations, big cars, big hotels etc. etc. + any physical thing taken completely out of proportion (Denmark is alot smaller than the USA, so naturally, we will also tend to have smaller corporations etc.)
If you think after reading this that Denmark must be a very good country, well... I can't say I disagree, but you should know that it's really easy to get to pay 50+% of your income in taxes, and our cars, gasoline (anything polluting) is ALOT more expensive here (like double/triple the cost).
Bjarke Roune
When I submitted itit was rejected. How did it all of a sudden become "slashfashionable" to cover stuff like this in just a few weeks?
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
And you stereotype him, because you say that he is a troll for mentioning the Holocaust. Tell me, did you ever consider why he did, in the context of his statement? No, obviously you didn't, because it fits perfectly. Hitler became as powerful as he was because he was successful in convincing the people of Germany to voluntarily give up their arms. He convinced them that their government could and would protect them. And why is it an insult to compare how the Holocaust started to something that looks nearly identical? (I'm not saying that's what will happen here, but the issues are remarkably similar.) It's used to stir people up, to get them to think about what's going on, for the sole purpose of making sure that the events do not turn out the way they did in the Holocaust. Just because you think it can't happen again doesn't mean jack. You are probably not one of the people who would work for it to happen actively, but your non-committal attitude is more than a blessing for those who wish to consolidate their power, as you're one less person to oppose tyranny. Tyrants love people who don't care. They're the last to be sold as slaves, but they're the easiest, because they damn themselves with their own attitudes.
Now, I'm pretty scared of people who might accidentally or without thinking, shoot other people.
Drunk macho types with guns? Yes, that could obviously develop into a dangerous situation.
You and/or your dad got shot at by a hunter? Clearly a mistake, perhaps caused by criminal negligence on the part of the shooter (if it happened because he was too drunk to be hunting). The hunter was probably horrified if he actually hit someone, which admittedly wouldn't undo the damage. If someone were to get killed in a situation like this, it would be a tragic reminder of the results of irresponsible gun use, and hopefully one which would lead the hunters of the area to rethink drinking and hunting, perhaps even pass a law against it (though it might not be necessary).
But government agents with guns, sober or not, representing controversial viewpoints such as "you can't possess this type of low power FM transmitter" and backing those viewpoints up by pointing a gun in my face?
That is quite a lot more scary than a handful of drunk hicks on a deer hunting excursion.
Here's the flaw in your logic: Gun control makes it harder for for people to legally get guns. Big difference.
Most gun owners aren't super macho gungho survivalist. Most are your average person, which is to say, anyone you might meet on the street. There are a couple common strains that link gun owners, but the above is by no means one of them. I don't own any firearms either, but I completely support the right to do so, as well as any other arms (I do carry a combat folder, which, ironically, is illegal many places). I live in a town where 90% of the populace has some sort of firearm or other, mostly due to hunting. Incidently, this area has a nearly zero incidence of burglary in occupied houses. The rate of gun deaths is almost nearly zero. This is evidence enough for me that a heavily armed populace is not automatically a bad thing.
I can't help but laugh at your argument. You think we live in a polite, civilized society? What rock have you been living under? If there's gun control, do you really think that someone who wants to use a gun to commit crime will care one little bit about the law? No, but the people who follow the law won't, so the criminals have it really easy. Anyway, the government comes down on gun-owners routinely in the US. It's just not routinely publicized.
Your point is totally bogus, because cameras built to look like other objects can be used for many purposes that are quite unrelated to invading other people's personal privacy: eg. very usefully and practically, to catch burglars and other nasty people in the act.
Don't put the blame on objects but on the people that use them, otherwise all knives and most other tools would have to be banned as potential murder weapons.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
Actually, now I come to think of it, there are three more possible meanings (number five actually being the most common use):
;) But in Denmark, the Danish state actively being against the populace at large is simply too far out for any Dane to believe.
5) The complete stupidity by which the American "justice" system seems to work. If a lady in Denmark got money of off suing someone for her putting her own pet in the microwave (or spilling hot coffe all over herself at McDonalds), well, there'd be a massive protest, and if something wasn't done about suchs things being possible very quickly (as it would, believe me), whatever government we had would swiftly get a vote of no trust (translates badly into english, basically means that the opposition can force an election if they all agree) and we'd have another one in tops a month or two.
6) The notion that putting as many guns as possible into the hands of just about anyone who wants one will somehow magically result in less people getting shot.
You'd be hard pressed to find someone in Denmark who does not find the logic behind that obviously fallacious.
In Denmark, it's illegal to own a gun without you passing an exam on it, and you having some good excuse for wanting to own a gun (like, say, you hunt alot or some suchs).
7) People thinking that the government is somehow out to hurt them as much as possible.
Actually, seeing some of the laws that get passed over there, these people might be right...
Bjarke Roune
Sorry! It'd be nice if someone could moderate it down. I really only remember pressing the submit button once. Hmm... Guess my memory is wrong...
Bjarke Roune
Here is a site that quotes a study on the relationship between per capita possession of guns and both homicides via guns and suicides via guns. http://www.cybersurf.co.uk/johnny/dunblane/homemai n.html
As far is this issue goes, I will say that the products offered are questionable, but holding the company responsible seems ridiculous. Guess who bred this generation that may misuse such educationally focused products? The people who don't like it. So deal with it. I feel very strongly about the government, in a very negative way. They invade our privacy on a daily basis. They do not take these products away from us because they want to protect us, they take them away so citizens can remain clueless. The government wants us all to be clueless cows, just drifting around, not concerned with their daily happenings and ways of business. In the end, keep your sense of humor or do me a favor and shoot yourself.
I guess a 1/3 of my history classes were about WWII. I've read a reasonable amount of books about it (my grandfather fought it). I don't EVER remember anywhere a mention of this gun control story. That might be true, I've just never heard of it. That's why it smells funny to me. I don't buy it. Refer to some reknowned historian (no, a NRA-supported website does NOT qualify) and I might change my mind. In the mean time ... that's all bollocks.
Hey, AC! I don't live in the US, and I know about the Declaration of Indepedence, the Constitution and The Bill of Rights. The Consitution does not give you any right, it merely sets the legal framework for the US (to put it simply). The Bill of Rights, however, written in amendments, gives you those rights. Do you feel stupid now?
The goal of the second ammendment is simple. The government as a whole should be outgunned by the people as a whole.
Then if the government is no longer for and by the people, and starts to opress them, the people will be able to overthrow them.
If the people are not armed, and the government is truely totalitarian and opressive, no ammount of peaceful dissent will work. The only workable option, violence, will be gone.
"Reality is less than television."-Brian Oblivion
You may not believe it, but the statistics say you would be safer [with more guns]
According to this article, you are wrong. And I quote their tables (see article for references):
------------| Rater per millions of .... | Country
......48.00 |...75.9|...44.6|..124.0|...72.8| USA ......32.00 |...12.1|....3.6|..142.7|...38.7| Norway ......29.10 |...26.0|....8.4|..139.4|...44.4| Canada ......27.20 |...11.7|....4.6|..244.5|...57.4| Switzerland ......22.60 |...12.5|....5.5|..223.0|...49.3| France .......4.70 |....6.7|....0.8|...86.1|....3.8| England and Whales
%Households | Homicides.... | Suicides
owning guns |overall|withGun|overall|withGun|
Now I edited fro brievety. First of all I did'nt know there was so many arms in my country. Just half of the US. Then it's a joke to claim that there are countries with more gun owning than the US: it's just not true. Then, if by reading this table or this graphing, you still believe that the crime rate has nothing to do with gun control ... well ...
------------| Rater per millions of .... | Country
......48.00 |...75.9|...44.6|..124.0|...72.8| USA
......32.00 |...12.1|....3.6|..142.7|...38.7| Norway
......29.10 |...26.0|....8.4|..139.4|...44.4| Canada
......27.20 |...11.7|....4.6|..244.5|...57.4| Switzerland
......22.60 |...12.5|....5.5|..223.0|...49.3| France
.......4.70 |....6.7|....0.8|...86.1|....3.8| England and Whales
%Households | Homicides.... | Suicides
owning guns |overall|withGun|overall|withGun|
The 'Preview' button has munged it. Duh.
I didn't see this in the threads already, but apologies if it's already been posted. Email them by going to http://slashdot.org/features/00/01/04/2316228.shtm l and let them feel the full /. effect. The actual address is newyork@fbi.gov on the New York FBI site.
/. folk, remember what our good friend TJ said:
This cloak and dagger crap is so unecessary. Bullying is not professionalism. Someday Janet Reno won't be around to cover their asses when they screw up and the hammer will come down on these guys. Say, FBI guys, hear that?!
Say
Those who give up a little freedom for security
don't deserve freedom or security. -Thomas Jefferson
-Greaper.
What tools / firewall do you use to detect these scans?
---
Silence is consent.
Why oh why can't they just run a camera on each of the agents as they are executing the search? A personal camera would catch what was going on in full technicolor glory to catch both suspect behavior and any possible police abuse.
They do this for drunk driving stops and it both helps in the conviction rate (juries won't be fooled by defense rhetoric when they can see the drunk stagger around) and catches any police abuse that does occur (while cutting down on its occurance)
This also solves the inventory problem since a video inventory can help the problem of lost items. Just run two sets of tapes and leave one behind. That and the current written record will stop light fingered agents from making off with property.
The technical solution is easy on notification. The reasoning why they don't do it is what makes me sick.
DB
My house is wired to the teeth to protect
thousands of $$$ of computers,guns,music equip.
and my family.If I can get cameras, mics and radio
equipment that look like something else,I can conseal the fact that the bad guy has tripped an
audio trigger and is being remotely videotaped to
help deal him later retribution.Then he wont be as
likely to search for and find the offending video
trap.Kinda neat in light of the fact that it could
catch crooked pigs at play as well.
Remember boys and girls,when those representing
justice are in fact practicing injustice,no-one is
gonna be able to help you,except you.So take head
shots,those porkers got armor.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
How would you like children's toys that come with sharp blades as accessories?
Or how secure would you feel if the United States government suddenly dropped all restrictions on owning firearms?
If the company makes a product, they are liable for the intended uses of it. And just because that M60 machine gun sure is EFFICIENT at bagging DEER doesn't mean the government should allow them to be sold as a "perfectly acceptable hunting tool".
People kill people, and people violate other people's privacy, but the least the government can do is make it harder for the next idiot by taking away the most obvious tools.
Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a day. Light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
Follow the link, and find enlightenment:
http://www.Reason.com/bi/bi-forf.html.
--------------------
Earth first? Oooh, and I was thinking of paying the rent.
Do note that your business insurance would probably cover the loss of your property due to theft but not if the police steal it^W^Whelp protect the children, significantly increasing the cost of the theft. Also, those drug test are annoying, expensive and time consuming - can anyone envision this conversation:
Small Business Owner: Hey Fred - we're out of 2x4s - can you take the truck and get some from Home Despot real fast?
Fred: Okay
SBO: Oh wait I forgot. Here, take a whiz in this tube and we'll wait a couple days for the results so I can give you the keys.
It's not even vehicles - would you consider it right for the police to confiscate your house if you had a party at which (entirely unknown to you and against your instructions) one of the partygoers (or even a party-crasher) had a small quantity of a controlled substance?
Of course, if we really wanted to illustrate how insane the laws are, this could even have been a small amount of pot belonging to someone who is taking it medicinally, which has been legalized in some states (although the feds are pretending they've never heard of that whole "powers reserved to the states" clause). Remember too that all of your assets and possibly those of friends, family or your employer (depending on how nasty they want to be) could be seized until you proved yourself innocent over the course of many [expensive] years in court...
No kidding; I mean, all they did was surround his business with federal agents, pushed him and his employees around in said place of business, and basically threatened to ruin his business if he didn't just bend over and take what they were doing to him. The nerve of this guy to get so worked up!
OK, the cops were armed. That means they wrote me a ticket "at gunpoint" or gave me directions to the bathroom "at gunpoint"
Out of curiosity, why are you claiming that Mr. Ramsey says they raided his store "at gunpoint"? There's a reference to it at 2600.com, but the first-person account above from Mr. Ramsey says nothing about them using guns on him.
If we look at this as any other crime (ignoring for the moment the asinine drug laws
Wait, wait wait! Why do we get to ignore the "asinine drug laws"? You yourself assert later that:
"I agree these laws are stupid, but the police have to enforce them all, reguardless[sic]."
So why do the drug laws get written off as "asinine" yet similar legislation which gets used to harass otherwise law-abiding citizens get taken so seriously? What if they were "asinine gun-control laws"?
the cops walked in, seized a bunch of stuff they thought applied to the case
And tried to leave with at least two items that were not that Mr. Ramsey caught. I wonder how many more are in those boxes? I wonder how likely the USCS is to return those items?
(I'll bet the one's issueing the warrent didn't have too much technical knowledge)
Hey, Mr. Ramsey! Quit complaining about irrelevant stuff being seized! Turns out the people issuing the warrants have no clue what they're doing! Don't you feel better now?
Personal liberties are crucial, but if Mr. Ramsey was breaking the law (he was selling concealed listening devices) than he is asking for trouble.
But how are you so sure that he was? The two agents who came in earlier who apparently tried baiting one of the techs at the store into saying something to justify such a raid, and failed.
try selling kits instead of the finished product. Seems to work for the assault rifle crowd!
But apparently not for Ramsey Electronics, since many of the items seized were apparently parts and kits. Which is odd, considering Mr. Violanti's comment that "we're not necessarily looking for kits or components". So is it a case of "right hand not knowing what the left is doing", or some creative reinterpretation of existing law? (Especially given the quote at 2600 about a DOJ official supposedly telling one of the business owners that the raids were politically motivated; gosh, what a great feeling to find out that one's life and livelihood exist at the sufferance of someone's political agenda or approval ratings.)
Jay (=
Besides, all the yahoos who might have bought M60s now make fertilizer bombs. This has not improved my sense of security...
And possessing a joint and $20,000 simultaneously has such an effect on everyone that it's worth a $20K fine, right? Can you explain why possessing a joint and $1,000 doesn't get you dinged for $19,000 more? Or is this just a case of simple greed?
If a restauranteur is going to put nearly $20,000 and his car in the hands of an employee, he should take certain precautions, such as drug tests and what not.
Therefore, if he doesn't go far above and beyond what he is legally required to do, he should forfeit his money? To prevent this, he'd have had to:
1) Acertain that his employee had nothing illegal on his person. How? Perhaps a strip and body cavity search witnessed by a lawyer would do.
2) Acertain that his employee would do nothing illegal, or indeed anything that would draw attention to him, while he was going to the bank. How? Clairvoyance, maybe?
If the employee ran away with the money, the restauranteur would nonetheless be out $20k. You could probably sue the individual for the property/money, but chances are it would take many decades for them to repay it.
And the employee would do some time, hopefully ensuring that he'd be less likely to do it again. Theft insurance would probably reimburse the business owner. However, when the government is the thief...
If you want to smoke weed, get a whore, make meth, do it on your own time and property. That way the police will seize YOUR car, and YOUR house, and YOUR cash.
Because your car, cash, and house are all violating the law, right?
--------------------
Earth first? Oooh, and I was thinking of paying the rent.
Later, in college, I got a chance to take a class from the foremost scholar of Louisiana history (the guy who, literally, wrote the book). The contrast was... interesting. There were things he could not put in the books (which were intended as high school texts). Anyhow, you are correct that the South was put under martial law immediately after the Civil War. In most of the South, the parts that had a black majority, elections were held shortly afterwards with the black majority electing primarily white Republicans and a few free Blacks to the legislatures. This was at least true in Louisiana. This is what started the partisan sniping... those who had been in power were shut out. The resulting governments could be held in place only by force of Federal troops, and even so, the "riots" often drove local Republican politicians out of office outside of the major cities. For example, in the town of Coushatta, a cotton trading town on the Red River, there were no federal troops and thus the Republican administration did not last long. They were driven out of office by the "riots" and then "elections" were held (elections where armed partisans prevented Blacks and known federal sympathisers from voting). The "Coushatta Riots" are commemorated by a historical plaque near the Coushatta waterfront to this very day.
In New Orleans, the pro-Federal forces stayed in power longer, but once the countryside had been taken over by the partisans, they moved in on the government of New Orleans. A pitched battle was fought near Jackson Square between the police forces and armed partisans. The armed partisans won. The Federal troops stayed in their barracks (which were on one side of Jackson Square) during this time, mostly due to being seriously outnumbered, but also due to fears that the situation would escalate into all-out guerilla warfare again if they intervened. The government of New Orleans was run out of town on a rail, and new elections were held shortly afterward, with partisan forces making sure that black voters were turned away at the polls.
In 1877, a fiercely contested presidential election was held. At the same time, a governor's election was being held in Louisiana. Actually, two parallel elections were being held -- the "official" election, and an election held by the partisan government-in-hiding so to speak. There was quite a bit of overlap between the two. In the end, nobody knew who won the governor's race. Each side said that their candidate had won and that the other side had cheated, basically by counting "their" polling places as the official ones and discarding "fraudulent votes". By coincidence, Rutherford P. Hayes needed Louisiana's vote in the electoral college in order to become President (as well as the vote in Florida and South Carolina, which were in similar straits). The Hayes Compromise was struck: Rutherford P. Hayes would recognize the Democratic governor as the winner of the election (and remove the troops), and in exchange the Democratic governor would cast the state's electoral ballots for Rutherford P. Hayes. Rutherford P. Hayes became president, winning by one (1) single electoral vote. The troops were withdrawn from Louisiana (and from South Carolina too). The partisans had won the Civil War, after 12 years of federal troops propping up Republican governments. They promptly disenfranchised the majority of voters, and passed apartheid laws which forced blacks into virtual slavery. The resulting social climate and artificial agricultural labor surplus caused the Southern economy to be a basket case for the next 70 years.
It was only World War II which revived the Southern economy, due to the need for the South's docks and shipyards to build the Liberty Ships that saved England, and the mass exodus of the majority of the black population to places like Detroit and Los Angeles where they worked in the war industries (thus removing the near-slave-labor that held up the plantation system, thus opening the door for other industries and thus genuine economic growth). Government-enforced apartheid itself was not finally and totally dismantled until 1964, when LBJ got the Civil Rights Act passed by virtue of JFK's dead body (JFK had tried to pass similar legislation and failed, but with JFK dead, LBJ basically stood on JFK's grave and dared the Congress to not pass the Civil Rights Act -- Congress, afraid of being accused of desecrating the memory of JFK, caved). Today a socially-enforced version of apartheid exists in many areas of the United States -- housing segregation, for example, is more rampant today than it was prior to the passing of the Civil Rights Act -- but this is far less evil than having formal government sanctioning of the practice.
In any event -- Reconstruction is still taught in the war colleges as an example of how NOT to use troops. Trying to hold entire states against armed resistance was basically futile due to the fact that they had to post every major town in the state while the resistance could pick off governments one at a time, and without governments, the only resort is pure martial law -- something that the military really isn't well equipped to do. The military heirarchy is a huge supporter of the Posse Cometatis laws that prohibit federal troops from being used for internal policing. This also is why the military has in recent years been quite reluctant to send troops into places like Bosnia and why the military stopped rather than continue on into Iraq -- being in a situation where the military is responsible for law enforcement and propping up governments is NOT a situation that they want to be in again, especially after Vietnam proved yet again just how difficult that was. (Although South Vietnam, in the end, was conquered by North Vietnamese troops rather than by partisans... Jerry Pournelle complains to this day that people forget the fact that South Vietnam fell because the AVN ran out of ammunition, rather than because the Viet Cong overthrew it).
Anyhow, I've wasted enough time wandering through history. Time to get back to work on my latest hack (grin).
-E
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
You are totally off base. You are talking about product liability while I am talking about responsible use.
If a hunter shoots a shotgun and it blows up in his face, the manufacturer is responsible of producing a faulty product. If a person uses that shotgun to kill someone, the manufacturer is simply not at fault.
Drug dealers use pagers, cell phones and pay phones to complete hundreds of thousands of transactions a day in the US alone. So, following your logic the government should get right in there and confiscate every pager, cell phone and pay phone. Can't have those around because, my god!, they MAY be used for crime. Please save us Washington!
As for your question about the government removing all firearms restrictions? It wouldn't make a bit of difference. Thats the real pain in the ass with these damn criminals... they just don't follow the law no matter how nice we are to them.
As a law professor, I'm not terribly surprised by this one. Here are the problems: (1) Federal law is only supposed to apply in limited areas, but courts have -- until very recently -- given up even the pretense of enforcing those limits; (2) law enforcement officials have virtually unlimited discretion as to who they can prosecute and for what; (3) the doctrine of sovereign immunity makes them and their agencies very difficult to sue when that discretion is abused. So we get vague statutes, unbridled discretion, and limited consequences for the abuse of that discretion. Not surprisingly, the result is often bad. Read Bruce Sterling's "The Hacker Crackdown" -- especially his account of how Steve Jackson Games was similarly raided because some agent didn't know the difference between computer games and reality -- for an account of this happening ten years ago. The remedy: lots of political pressure on the prosecutors (they do respond) and demands for legislation to make such incidents less likely. This is happening with civil forfeiture (discussed in this thread) right now, where legislation to limit it has passed the House and is before the Senate.
InstaPundit! Ahead of the Curve Since 30 Minutes Ago
"An it harm none, do what thou wilt."
I personally don't care if you're making moonshine in your basement, or meth for that matter. Nor do I care whom you sleep with, or even if you're married to him/her/them. All I want is to be left alone.
The problem is that most people seem to have an innate need to dick with other people's lives, all with good intentions. And we know what road those pave, don't we? To truly be secure in your freedoms, you have to be willing and able to defend them.
Non Violence
Non-violent resistance, you say? Non-violence only works when it holds the threat of violence -- when was the last time you saw a law enforced by an unarmed government?. I challenge anyone who thinks that guns are not necessary to freedom to show me an armed culture that has been subjugated. I can show you many countries that have been disarmed, then enslaved.
I Can Vote, So My Rights Are Safe.
As I recall, Germany voted in Hitler. That was the last election for a while. (Note that one of Hitler's actions was to register, and then later confiscate, all privately owned guns in Germany.)
But We Have A Constitution To Protect Us.
In the past, the Blacks in the south and the Chinese on the west coast were protected by the same constitution that we are today. Strange how Judge Lynch, Jim Crow, and the Chinese Exclusion Act never heard of it. Nothing will protect you (with no guns) like the laws of the land, except when the government (with guns) ignores it.
I Don't Believe In Violence.
Great. I'm sure that the person who origionally meant you harm will suddenly change his mind.
--------------------
Earth first? Oooh, and I was thinking of paying the rent.
It seems that I should remind people what's Legal and what's not (IANAL) as I understand it.
Nothing seized/banned was Video-only. Hidden video cameras in clocks, smoke detectors, stuffed toys are totally legal.
It's the audio stuff that was seized, or the combination audio/video stuff.
Why? wiretap laws going back to the 1930's.
every bank and donut shop hereabouts runs video surveillance, but the donut chain started to record audio in a few of its stores and got into big trouble (surprisingly, the FBI didn't execute a search warrant).
Now If I were the judge and applied the law very conservatively (whether or not I agreed with it) I'd have to say that just 2 of ramsey's items crossed the line here and those would be
CLK-3000WT Disguised Clock w/audio
SMK-3000WT Disguised Smoke w/audio
"A Little Song, A Little Dance, A Little Seltzer Down your Pants" -Chuckles The Clown
You know, I used to be amazed at this kind of thing from our "beloved" goverment officials that were elected to our goverment by the people. Now, it seems like when the feds have a hair up their *ss, they just act..., and violate anyones rights on the basis of we're the government, so *uck off!
.., opps! "We didn't do that" .. the FEDS.
Maybe we should just embrase the "We the people for the people" as our founders thought. But then again, god forbid if we actually forced our born rights, or even acted upon them. (yep, this type of thing bugs me to NO end!)
Waco
Life was hell, then I discovered Linux...
The US was created by guns, in our Revolutionary War. In that war we used guns to fight off a government that we felt was unfair. We then created a new government, one that we thought was better. The men responsible for creating that new government were very smart and said to themselves:
"you know, maybe, just maybe, this new government we're setting up won't be considered fair by some people. Yeah, we SAY that it's 'of the people, for the people, by the people,' but what if it just doesn't work out? We better have some kind of escape route so that other people can fix it. We'll make it so they can do what we did. We better make sure they can fight their oppressors. We better make sure they have some guns."
The 2nd Ammendment is the emergeny valve: there's a reason it's number 2: the only thing we consider more important than having the tools to fight off the next oppressor is the principle that we can say what we want and worship what we want. (As that predates the revolution: Europeans came to this continent in order to escape religous persecution.)
Many people seriously miss-understand the meaning of the 2nd because they miss-understand the reason for it. (Some even say there is no reason.) Now you know the reason. I make no claim as to the correctness of that reasoning, I make no statement as to my views on the subject, I mearly state the reasons.
But when laws are passed to limit the ownership of guns, to make government list of who owns what guns, I tend to wonder... considering the reason it's in the constitiution, what's their reason for that law?
Is a 'surreptitous listening device' like a gun in this sense? Ahh, a topic for another post... I need sleep.
"God does not play dice with the universe." -Albert Einstein
Those who fail to understand communication protocols, are doomed to repeat them over port 80.
Do you honestly believe that any country would nuke it's own territory? Sure, a couple hydrogen bombs would nicely do away with any rebel forces, but it would also leave vast expanses of toxic wasteland. Plus all those neat, unstable heavy elements would blow around, spreading poison to more areas.
"Reality is less than television."-Brian Oblivion
OK, I don't know about in the US, but it's customary both here in Australia and in the UK (I have lived in both places) to use boiling water to make coffee, and tea for that matter.
Now call me stupid if you will, but I'm pretty sure that no matter HOW much energy you apply to water, it doesn't get any hotter (in liquid form) than 100 degrees celcius.
So to expect a beverage made from boiling water to be 100 degrees celsius or lower.
To spill such a beverage in your lap, whether sitting in the driver or passenger seat of a car, or anywhere else for that matter, is NOT McDonald's fault.
In fact, to make the coffee (at least here in Austrlalia, a perculator is used - which *requires* the water to be boiling to actually work.
Do they make the coffee differently in the USA?
You know, this debate, as well as the article itself, points out a major deficiency at /. more than anything else: complete lack of journalistic objectivity.
/. was better than that (and hope one day it will be).
I find this "article" laughable for 3 reasons:
A) the only eyewitness account given is John Ramsey's, a blatantly biased source,
B) the only opposition viewpoint is given in the form of a hostile interview of John Violanti, and
C) the amazing ability of the author to cast the opposing sides as "heroes" and "villains".
The first two are self-explanatory, but maybe the last needs a little explaining. Look how the author tags on descriptions for the two sides. The hero(es), Ramsey Electronics, is described: "In addition to building radio testing equipment, Ramsey Electronics is also a well-known vendor of electronic hobby kits used by organizations like the Boy Scouts of America." Major Cheese Alert! I don't know if the author could shine a more sympathetic light on this corporation short of labeling them "All-American Dream material" or mentioning "...as well as a major contributor to inner-city charities." Moreover, law enforcement officials don't just carry out the search and seizure warrant, they do it in a manner "Like an action movie drug-bust...". Pass the vomit bag, please. Why not quote the "Turner Diaries" while we're putting jack boots and armbands on the cops?
Look, I know this isn't the New York Times (obviously), but is it too much to ask to make even a modicum of effort in making articles like these a bit less inflammatory, and a bit more informative? Communications classes across the country label the internet as the least reliable source of knowledge, and writing like this only perpetuate that conception. I thought that
Regardless of the right or wrong of either Ramsey Electronics or law enforcement officials, please, PRETTY please with sugar on top get someone with some journalistic integrity to write the news.
Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a day. Light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
First, a disclaimer: I sm no lawyer, and I only say the things that I _think_ makes sense in this case.
If it is the US Feds who are at fault, then, it should be clear that the number one thing we must have in mind is HOW TO AVOID THE FEDS.
If operating your business in the U. S. of A. means the Feds can come knocking you down, whenever they want, on whatever reason (concocted or otherwise) they can come up with, then, the OBVIOUS thing to do is to RE-LOCATE your business OUTSIDE the U. S. of A.
Supposingly, if you have an operation in Canada, or any other country that has no similar STUPID LAW as the United States, making and selling EXACTLY the same thing, and you sell your hobbyist kits via the mail service, can the US authority still prosecute you?
As far as I know, if you do not use the service of USMail, then, the US attorney office will have NO CASE on you. Of course, they can seek the help from the country you operate in, trying to convince them that what you are doing is illegal. But, if the country of your operation does NOT has any law prohibiting you selling whatever you sell (as long as they are not kiddie-porn, or narcotics, which is almost universally banned anywhere in this world), through the mail or through storefront, I do not think ANYONE can leggally touch you.
I mean, of course, if the US authority wants to play dirty, they can always _plant_ something in your premise, like a bag of cocaine or something, but that's another question.
The moral thing is, if you think what you are doing INSIDE the United States can get yourself into trouble, get OUTSIDE of the US and continue whatever you do.
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Unfortunate, but true. Generally when you don't issue the disclaimer, you're assumed to be a bigot. It really has nothing to do with the issue, but with the amount of misinformation and missing information, most people don't even know what the real issues are.
thanks
Bjarke Roune
Or how secure would you feel if the United States government suddenly dropped all restrictions on owning firearms?
Quite a bit more secure, thank you very much. Perhaps you should ask yourself, "What would have happened if every law-abiding, responsible citizen at Columbine had been armed with a gun? Would there be as many defenseless, innocent people dead?"
Perhaps the politicians who disarmed those teachers and students to further their own power should be taken to court for aiding and abetting the murders at Columbine.
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
I did click through to the legal citation and read it. After I recovered from the headache, the upshot seems to be that *any* sale of miniature radio transmitters could trigger a raid like this.
The emphasis in the wording of the law is on design, not intent -- if I design and sell small battery powered radio transmitters for ham use (yes, my nickname is my callsign) and the Feds decide it would be a good thing to use as a bug, they can legally come knock my door down and confiscate all my stock and whatever I used to make them, hold them until my business dries up, and publicly castigate me as a common criminal, all without due process. All perfectly kosher according to the law as cited above.
Scary, isn't it? Doesn't matter if you have any ethics or not -- that's the really nasty part.
73 de N5VB (ex-KD5BIV) AR SK
*sigh* Oh, this again. The "pet-in-the-microwave" and the "McDonald's coffee" story. Maybe, instead of relying on urban legends to give you your view of another country, you should check out some facts about one of the cases you've cited. (the one that has some factual basis.)
For those who don't have time to follow the links (or are afraid it might chip away at their smug knowledge that "we're smarter than those Americans") let me offer some of the salient points:
Perhaps you should be a little more careful next time before you go assuming that you've heard the whole story, and that the big corporation is in the right so that the so-silly American legal system will be in the wrong. ... And for God's sake, when you go backing up your assertions with such utterly disproven urban legends as the pet-in-the-microwave, you're practically asking for the phrase "Danish credulity" to come into parlance.
If people are to respect the law, perhaps the law should begin by respecting the people.
For those who don't have time to follow the links (or are afraid it might chip away at their smug knowledge that "we're smarter than those Americans") let me offer some of the salient points:
... And for God's sake, when you go backing up your assertions with such utterly disproven urban legends as the pet-in-the-microwave, you're practically asking for the phrase "Danish credulity" to come into parlance.
I was trying to tell you and anyone else who found the comment title interesting enough to read exactly what "american conditions" means in Danish, which I believe I've succeded in doing rather well.
It's a not a matter of me thinking that I'm smarten than you or Americans in general, it's just that this is what Danes think of when they use the phrase in that meaning.
If that offends you, sorry, but I am not responsible for how words or phrases get defined.
Perhaps you should be a little more careful next time before you go assuming that you've heard the whole story, and that the big corporation is in the right so that the so-silly American legal system will be in the wrong.
Do you by this mean that there is no precident on people getting ridicilus amounts of money in American law? That ridicilus lawsuits are not made, and when they are subsequently lost, that the people who filed the sort, which they must've known was ridicilus, are always made to pay the legal expenses?
If you do, well... That is certainly not the impression I have, but then I don't live in America, and you probably know better than me.
If you don't mean that, then I don't say how it can offend you that I use a few examples to illustrate the point. It really doesn't matter wheter the examples are true or not, as long as there are other examples that have the same general characteristics that I'm trying to illustrate.
And really, don't you think that it is just a wee bit weird to be made pay alot of more for serving the coffee hot?
Putting warnings on the cups really won't help; people already know coffee is hot. The steam coming out of it should be more than enough indication. Anyone trying to drink coffee that is steaming without checking the temperature first is crasy.
That being said, ok, perhaps the coffee was hotter than it should've been, but 2 million dollars? To me that is completely ridicilus, but then we live in different parts of the world and probably have a different view of things...
Covering some of the medical bills would be IMHO ok, since the coffee was to hot. But the woman spilling the coffee had some of the responsibility too, or should they have had a warning saying "don't spill all over yourself" next to the warning saying "Check temperature before drinking" ?
Bjarke Roune
Well, I'll ignore your personal attacks, and focus on the main point. It was debated quite heavily during ratification whether individual rights even had a place being protected in the Constitution by the addition of a Bill of Rights; there were some who didn't see a need for one, as the rights to be protected couldn't *be* abridged by the feds, because there was (then) no way for them to do it! They also felt that a listing of individual rights would necessarily hamper other rights held by individuals, because they were not listed, and therefore not seemed as important. But let's not cloud your argument with the facts, eh?
... maybe they raided on the interstate commerce clause quoted in the USC code from the article. Talk about loophole!) Article III, judicial branch; Atricle 4, states rights. Section II gives all citizens the same rights, nothing new there. Article V, amendments. Here is the only place your argument may hold up, but I can't find any privacy amendments here. (hmmmm funny)
Hmmm, lets see (browsing my copy of the constitution) Article I, legislative branch, nothing there. Article II, executive branch, nothing there (DOJ lol
So lets see here, three of five sections devoted ENTIRELY to the creation of the federal government, and you say that it's primary goal was not to create it?
The constitution has little to do with individual rights. It had everything to do with state's rights.
And, if any law is deemed to be unconstitutional, it was NEVER legal to begin with. Like this one.
Next time you want to have a discussion, get your facts straight first. Some suggestions:
'The Federalist Papers', Hamilton, Madison, Jay
'Origin of the Bill of Rights', Levy
"Those who would give up essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin,