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?
...the government hates competition.
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
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.
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
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
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....
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.
The idea that government exists to protect people from other people has become a total laugh. Government's job today is to protect big business at the expense of small business or individuals. And government is one of the big businesses that government protects.
_E
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
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!
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"
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.
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.
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
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.
> 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?
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.
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.
Sorry; you're wrong. It is legal - and this has been upheld by the Supreme Court - for law enforcement to seize property which has been used in the commission of a crime, regardless of the involvement of the property owner. This has been used most frequently in connection with drug laws. So you're driving down the street with a friend, you're pulled over for speeding, and a joint falls out of your friends pocket. Your car can be seized; you lose it and are not compensated. You host a party, a guy crashes the party and sells crack to a couple of party-goers. He's busted by a plain-clothes cop who also crashed the party. Law enforcement authorities can seize the house - you lose it with no compensation.
The Supreme Court ruled that this is a civil action against property, not a criminal action against property-owners, and is therefore not subject to a whole boatload of civil-rights protections. I know of one case where a 70-year-old woman lost her home because her son was making crystal meth in the basement. "How could she not know about it?" you ask. She had no sense of smell, she couldn't use stairs, she was half deaf, and half blind. Her son moved in (as far as she knew) to take care of her. A more cognizant question might be "How COULD she know about it?" This was a neighbor of my grandfather, and I have no idea how the story ended - she lost the house and we never heard from her (or her son) again.
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.
>>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
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.
>>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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I'm going to shoot myself later for refering to a tv show here but f' it.
There was an episode of law and order last season where a gun manufacturer was brought to court because the gun they manufactured made it easy to file down a blot and make it an automatic weapon. Thus the guns were in high demand by criminals. The case against the company was weather they had a resposibility to make sure it was as difficult as possible to modify the gun for that purpose. Is there any REAL legal reality to this type of corporate responsibility?
"Fighting the underpants gnomes since 1998!" "Bruce Schneier knows the state of schroedinger's cat"
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
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
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.
Thanks for the link, it describes perfectly what you did earlier in this thread...
See below...
To the feebleminded, if there is a NAME used as a label for IT, then it must be wrong, even if it isn't. The NAME, now a "proof" of sorts, can be used as a "sledgehammer" if IT comes up again.
"The case you just made was first made by Edgar Sullivan in the late 1800s and was quickly disproved. The 'Sullivan Error' inevitably occurs to people when they first start studying the subject."
"Your line of reasoning is called the MacGregor Phenomenon."
"Why, that's Calvinism!"
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
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.
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.
They will get their stuff back.
Yes, but when? History shows that computers and electronics seized as evidence stick to the government's fingers for several years at least.
"Mr.Ramsey? You remember that stuff we seized from you six years ago? We have some crates in a federal warehouse in Montana that seem to be yours. You can pick them up at your convenience".
Kaa
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
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
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.
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?
They will get their stuff back.
They shouldn't have to get their stuff back. Ramsey isn't some sort of back alley black market operation, they are a legitimate business. If something they were selling was illegal, an official notification would have put an end to it. It would also have saved the taxpayer a good bit of money.
The courts, DAs and law enforcement claim that ignorance of the law is no excuse, but there are now so many laws that even judges and lawyers have to research on a case by case basis. That means that anyone else is necessarily ignorant of the law.
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)
--
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
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.
That would make sense if Ramsey was dealing out of back alleys and anonymous mail drops. Legitimate businesses can't afford to pull up stakes and run (and will simply cease the activity in question to stay in business). A little investigation is all that's needed to differentiate.
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
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.
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.
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. A mistake in judgment can get people killed, but that's life -- the Universe is going to continue handing out death sentences for poor judgment no matter what you or I think.
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.)
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
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
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
Actually the courts have upheld that privacy is an implicit right on a consitutional basis. I seem to recall that they felt that the illegal search and seizure was close enough.
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)
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
Try this.... https://www.rewebber.de/
This make me think of two old principles of Roman Jurisprudence that I wish were part of our legal system.
First, there was a principle that said the fact a thing could be misued did not mean that all uses were illegitimate.
Second there was a principle that somebody who accused somebody else of a crime and could not prove it had to suffer the punishment for that crime. This is why the Christian persecutions were so ineffective. If you accused somebody who recanted, you would be fed to the lions.
I think grandstanding prosecuters should face the same threat. Prosecutors have great powers -- and they need them. But if they fail to use these powers responsibly, they should bear equally great personal responsibility. If, upon examination, a court of law finds that no person who excercised reasonable diligence would have beleived a crime had been committed, they should personally compensate the defendants for economic losses.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
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.
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.
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
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
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?
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.
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...
Nice. Just as much propeganda as I've ever seen from a left wing point of view. It's too bad that a common ground between any cutural ideology/religion and relativism can't be reached. Try to force your moral view on other culture's moral views with your gun, and we can have a world war. Try to force relativism, and we can fade into oblivion under laws that take away our humanity. Pick your poison. Either end of the spectrum will lead to the same result.
How does the old argument go....guns don't kill people, people kill people. So what is that gun for again when my enemy shows up at my door?
Besides, all the yahoos who might have bought M60s now make fertilizer bombs. This has not improved my sense of security...
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.
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
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?
If they choose that route, investigation will show it, and this time when they're busted and taken to trial, there can be no question of wether they knew it was illegal or not (which will make a difference to the jury and the severity of the sentence).