Slashdot Mirror
FCC Reserves the Right To Search Your Home, Any Time
mikesd81 writes "Wired.com reports that you may not know it, but if you have a wireless router, a cordless phone, remote car-door opener, baby monitor or cellphone in your house, the FCC claims the right to enter your home without a warrant at any time of the day or night in order to inspect it. FCC spokesman David Fiske says 'Anything using RF energy — we have the right to inspect it to make sure it is not causing interference.' The FCC claims it derives its warrantless search power from the Communications Act of 1934, though the constitutionality of the claim has gone untested in the courts. 'It is a major stretch beyond case law to assert that authority with respect to a private home, which is at the heart of the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable search and seizure,' says Electronic Frontier Foundation lawyer Lee Tien. 'When it is a private home and when you are talking about an over-powered Wi-Fi antenna — the idea they could just go in is honestly quite bizarre.'"
The first place they'll try this will be at NewYorkCountryLawyer's house.
Are they actually planning on home invasions? Unless they have inspectors lining up to look at my wireless setup then saying this which will clearly get a lot of people "us" all worked up, why say it at all?
The musings of just another geek and his junk.
I know the Castle Docterine exists for some states (Or used to), I wonder if (Assuming one is in that state) could use that as a valid defense for shooting an FCC goon on your property...
This is the same Canada where freedom of speech is restricted based on vague "hate speech" grounds, right?
Fortunately the US hasn't quite picked up on that idea yet, though I don't doubt they'd like to try it. "Criticizing Obama? Sounds like hate speech to me. Lock 'em up!"
... Florida's "Castle" doctrine, I reserve the right to shoot them as they walk thru the door.
There is a war going on for your mind.
it doesn't matter if they are in a uniform or show up with badges you can get all that crap from some online surplus store if they don't have a warrant they need to get the F off my land
Hey, this is slashdot...there has to be misleading/misquoted summaries to drum up fake outrage!
as if there isn't enough outrage from the genuine stuff!
What does that have to do with the fact that, in Canada, at least, you are guilty until proven innocent in 'hate speech' cases? Sure, some things may be better up in the Great White North, but defending against one accusation by bringing up completely unrelated points isn't very effective debating.
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
Nope. Because it will not be used against anyone unless the Feds need a reason to enter and search that home and dont want to get a warrant.
Example? sure.. Psyborgue is a known anti goverment leader. They've been watching him for years now and just know that he is going to do something bad very soon. They cant get a warrant from the damned Liberal judges that hate america so they use the FCC ruling to bust in legally and search the home. BTW, if an officer spots something other than they are looking for, They can use that against you because of the changes they had put into the patriot act.
They can now go on legal fishing expeditions on anyone they really need to. It's a tool in the arsenal against T E R R O R I S M and that is what it was specifically created for. I dont care what bullshit they feed the public. It has a specific purpose.
This is it's use. the FCC has not done anything to fight interference for years. Hell most Pirate FM stations don't get taken down until they become big and obvious. They dont raid homes over Wifi violations. They do however make a good tool for other departments.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
You mean you prefer the way the court ruled before they were on it? You know the Kelo ruling (the government can seize your property under eminent domain to give it to someone else who will pay more taxes--or at least is better connected politically).
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Sure, they shouldn't do it but nailing sharp nails so that the unsuspecting children would hurt themselves is just evil.
I'm pretty sure the blind children aren't hopping the fence to take a shortcut through your yard.
When a society makes other people responsible for your safety when you're doing something you're not supposed to do, it has failed... by which standard most of our societies are on the way out. Without personal responsibility you end up being a nation of useless bitches. (There are always exceptions. But most people are lame.)
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Ok, so you let the FCC inspector in, he sees your pot plant, and goes to the cops. They get a warrant, search and arrest you. Considering that the warrant was only obtained because of evidence from an unwarranted search, how is this any different than simply allowing evidence from unwarranted searches to be used against you?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
There's a pretty good-sized gap between 'responsible for your safety' and actively trying to injure someone.
Losing all sense of proportionality and responsibility is another sign of a failing society (pot - meet kettle).
"Do not kill, unless your life is in danger"
Fixed that for you. The laws surrounding self-defense generally don't say that you can only use deadly force when facing an armed assailant. They typically say that before you can use deadly force you must have a reasonable belief that your life is in mortal danger. A 90 pound 4'11" female facing a 300 pound 6'11" male attacker is under no obligation not to shoot him just because he isn't armed. If she reasonably believes that her life is in danger she is allowed to use deadly force to defend herself.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Lay it to rest?
You proclaim yourself to be a person that has "disdain for government overstepping it's bounds...". Do you have some misguided hope that your government will stop overstepping its bounds when people stop threatening to stand up for their rights?
This "knuckle-dragger boast" is precisely the type of response we should have a bit more of. The people of the US need to start actually threatening to protect their rights, and protesting the intrusion of the government where it is not lawfully extended, and take some responsibilty for standing up and holding their government accountable for its actions. Maybe their government will realize they are not all sheep willing to buy off on the rhetoric and backroom bill edits to sneak in another law that removes their freedoms.
This system of government is meant to represent YOU. Do you feel its appropriate for your government to use obtuse interpretations of overly complicated and obscure laws to walk into your home at any time? Or do you think maybe you have the right to stand them up in your doorway and say NO.
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
Getting a HAM license requires taking some tests, and knowing what the policies are before you put your radio gear up. You know, should know, and can know what you're responsible for. If you're transmitting against the rules, and the FCC calls you on it - you stop doing it and/or get fined.
You know it's going to happen.
Now if some $80 POS Linksys goes haywire and the FCC tells me about it, I'll shut it off and get a new one. But no way, no how, am I going to let those fucks in to 'inspect' - if they want to come in, then go swear out a warrant describing the particulars of what they're looking for and bring a cop with you. If the warrant's valid, I'll let you in FOR THAT and nothing else. If you don't want to swear out a warrant, then fuck off - I'm not letting you in. And if you shove your way in, you WILL be put down on the ground as a trespasser - I don't want to shoot you, but I will if I have to - so long as you sit there quitely and wait for the Police to show up to arrest you, the trespasser, you'll have no problems.
Now bring a warrant, and we're good. But unless and until you do that - you're a trespasser. US Sup Ct. rulings back that up. I've been involved in a few court cases in IL where that's been backed up - no warrant, no entry. No probable cause? No warrant, no entry.
The gas company tried this bullshit under the guise of complying with some half-assed regulation promulgated by the Federal DOT, and which the IL ICC adopted. They allegedly had to inspect meters INSIDE houses for atmospheric corrosion, etc every 5 years (when they first adopted the policy), then every 3 years (a year after they adopted the policy), who knows how often next year... I told them to fuck off after ignoring 15 of their notices. Finally had my lawyer call them up and threaten to sue them. That got them to move the meter outside for free - yeah, I had to let them in to do the work, but that was a one-off thing, and the entry/area they could go to was highly restricted... Now I'll never worry about it again...
I don't care if it's "Administrative" or "Criminal" - a search is a search, no matter who does it. No warrant, no entry. WE, THE PEOPLE, granted certain privileges to the Government, and WE reserve the rest - not the other way around. The price of Freedom and Liberty is eternal vigilance - it's worth fighting for, so do it and stop being pussies.
That both parties can understand without paying 200 per hour for an "interpretation", yes I would. By the way there is no guarantee that the interpretation is correct and you don't have any recourse against the interpreter if the interpretation is wrong.
The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
Agreed. Its a strange world when you think killing someone for trying to rob you is acceptable.
The same country that touts due process and a fair legal system believes in offing someone for walking onto the wrong property by accident.
Note the children who've been shot while trick or treating. Or this documentary camera man, who died while leaving the property. Situations like this do not exactly inspire confidence in the kind of logic home defence proponents use.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
You're mostly right. As long as visits comply with the 24 hour notice rule or are for the purpose of completing necessary repairs that I have requested or the landlord has notified me about previously I don't really mind. Almost all states have a provision where you can disallow access if it's inconvenient for you until a mutually agreeable time.
I'd kick up a crap storm if someone was asking to do a monthly walkthrough and get a court injunction against them.
Note, in many states, they can't come onto any of the property you control without 24 hour notice or for emergencies (e.g. burst water pipe). Yes that's right, if you rent and have your own yard attached to the place, they can't even step foot on it. They can stand on the street and stare at it, however.
I don't think an annual walkthrough to check for items in need of repair is out of the question, or to send people in if they're planning to do something like change the carpet or paint (even if you'd rather they didn't, they still have the right to make upgrades to their property that they see as necessary or that may increase the value).
I'm back to owning again, so this is moot for me at the moment. I've had obnoxious landlords, I just start quoting state law by section to them and they normally back down.
Messrs. Smith and Wesson should be prepared to hear counter arguments from the partners Heckler and Koch.
In plain english: If the FCC's search ability is used as leverage by another agency, chances are they will have armed people there. If you go attacking (or threatening) them with your weapons, you have some good chances of ending up dead. In principle, you (usually? in most states?) have the right to defend youself from home invasion ... but what good is that if you are dead, and your vindication is posthumous? I think your family would prefer a father to a martyr.
Go ahead, let them try. If they don't "knock and announce," I am going to treat them as invaders. In Arizona, there are laws allowing you to defend your home. I believe they call them, "Home as Castle" laws and they should be prepared to meet whatever force I deem necessary to protect my domicile. Ain't a prosecutor in the shady side of the desert that won't side with me as long as I don't shoot them in the back and give them a reasonable chance to retreat.
Err, no. Juries must decide if a law was broken or not. To do so they must not only find facts, but also compare them to the template of the law, which is where the process falls apart as the laws are so fucked up that juries have next to an impossible task of figuring out if the "law" was broken or not.
No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, NO! You couldn't be more wrong about this, and it shows you have a fundamental lack of understanding about how the legal system works. Your aversion to it is not surprising, as people have a tendency to deride things they cannot or will not understand.
The process works like this. The two sides present the case in front of the jury. The judge and jury hear the case. The JUDGE makes determinations of law, and for the purposes of the case, that is the law as far as the jury is concerned. When the parties are finished, the judge explains to the jury the possible verdicts they can come back with in simple, straightforward terms much like you are proposing. This is why jury instructions are so critical, and why quite a few appeals turn on whether juries are given proper instructions or not.
A typical instruction will be go basically like this: "If you find that the defendant killed the victim with his car intentionally and with malice, then you must return a verdict of guilty of homicide. If you find that the defendant killed the victim with his car because he was not paying adequate attention to the road, you must return a verdict of guilty of manslaughter. And if you find that the defendant was paying sufficient attention and this was simply an unavoidable accident, you must return a verdict of not guilty." It should NEVER be up to the jury to make determinations of what the law is; only whether the set of facts conform to that law, as it is explained by the judge. If they have questions, they are obligated to ask the judge for clarification rather than attempting to make that determination on their own. In truth, it's about as close to your proposed system as one could hope for. If that is unsuitable to you, then you are contradicting yourself.
But in many states, the petite female has to at least retreat
If you can safely retreat then your life isn't in danger, now is it?
while they use center of mass body shots to kill suspects
They use center of mass shots because that's the best way to ensure a hit under a stressful situation. Given that they wouldn't (or rather shouldn't) be shooting unless their lives are threatened I really don't have a problem with this concept. If a criminal threatens the life of a police officer (or anyone else for that matter) then he forfeits his right to complain about deadly force being used in response.
In such a scenario it was not the policemen who made the decision that someone was going to die that day. It was the criminal. The policemen just made the decision that it wasn't going to be him who died.
or shoot fleeing suspects in the back because they are merely have a gun.
How do you know they are fleeing and aren't just running to a more advantageous location (i.e: cover) before they resume shooting at the officer? I'm sorry but if you draw a firearm on a police officer then all bets are off.
This is one of the reason's I don't like many southern states, because they have a stupid castle law--if someone reach's for a gun, that's consideration to kill them, even though they may be reaching for it because THEY feel endangered.
WTF does the castle law have to do with this? The castle law says that you don't have an obligation to retreat from your own residence or (less common) public areas where you have a lawful right to be. It has nothing to do with "if they reach for a gun you can kill them". If someone reaches for a gun and you have a reasonable belief that they intend to use it against you then you can respond with deadly force in every state in the country, regardless of whether or not they have a castle law.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
I don't think either of us said we don't need any lawyers. The main thing that I object to is the fact that lawyers are basically running this country. What percentage of Congress is made up of lawyers? What was our current President's background before he got into politics?
A more balanced system would see people from all occupations serving in Congress if for no other reason than to provide perspective.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.