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.
...to place bear traps around my router.
1 (short ton / firkin) = 89.1432354 slugs / keg
...because if someone not in a uniform bursts into my home unannounced they're going to be leaving with a few more bullet holes in their body than they walked in with.
And the resulting court case. I'm pretty sure the 4th amendment would triumph over the FCC's bullshit rule they presumably wrote themselves.
They've had this power for decades. This is nothing new. Fire up a transmitter and start broadcasting overtop an FM radio station, and just see how fast the FCC sends out their goons.
My blog
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.
Only after they speak with my lawyers Smith & Wesson.
The way Britain and the US are going, the only true bastion of freedom and human rights will be Canada soon . . . Time to close the borders? ;)
I'll just leave this here.
http://www.fcc.gov/Reports/tcom1996.txt
How would they get in? Do they have badges of some kind? Is there an FCC trained police force to execute these entries?
To really revisit the Communications Act of 1934 to will take someone getting hurt or killed during one of these entries.
Or due to the Supreme Court ruling in '67, FCC spokesman David Fiske will have to be educated on Federal Law the hard way.
There are no loopholes. It's either legal or it's not.
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...
... 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.
Note that AT NO TIME, does the FCC guy interviewed actually say they can search your home without a warrant.
He says the FCC has total authority to inspect RF devices. Which they do, the article even cites the specific law that gives the FCC that authority. They can ask to see your router at home but they still don't have the authority to just bust into your house without a warrant.
At a glance, the relevant laws regarding inspection seem to apply only to licensees and licensed (and presumably non-illegal) equipment. Thing is, routers etc. are unlicensed - ergo there is no legal basis for an inspection thereof (unless the equipment is operating in an illegal manner). Even if a law is being violated, a warrant is required.
Oh, BTW: anyone here notice that ammo sales are WAY up? probably not a good time to do an unannounced inspection of a lawfully unlicensed radio transmitter.
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
In the meantime, pirate radio stations are adapting to the FCC's warrantless search power by dividing up a station's operations. For instance, Boulder Free Radio consists of an online radio station operated by DJs from a remote studio. Miles away, a small computer streams the online station and feeds it to the transmitter. Once the FCC comes and leaves a notice on the door, the transmitter is moved to another location before the agent returns.
Fscking awesome. Absolutely fscking awesome.
In the US, our government has no rights. It only has powers delegated to it by We the People. It has no rights, not prerogative to reserve them.
There are some special constructs like "sovereign immunity" but those are not right, they are juris prudence constructs. The FCC can't just say "we're reserving the right to rape your children". Congress has to vote to give them that power. And with congress voting, due process is upheld.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
Does anyone still say this?
Nope. Every device that emits a radio signal is licensed. Your wireless router has an FCC ID, does it not? Then it is a licensed piece of equipment.
My blog
I have a little bit of real-life experience dealing with an FCC engineer while he was hunting a suspected illegal transmitter. I was helping him locate it.
Basic story - someone had set up a cross-band repeater with it's output on 2m running about 100W. The main purpose of this thing was to act as a remote phone. The output was right in the middle of the 2m Satellite downlink band. The system would turn on intermittently, and he would talk to his girlfriend about Olive oil parties and such.
We found his input frequency and figured out how he turned the thing on and off.
FCC came down to track it - they asked us to turn it on for 30 seconds at a time. They took three readings to find the guy! The last reading was "which antenna!" They are VERY good at what they do. Turns out the guy DID have a license, and he was sited for no ID (which was pretty minimal..) He was later confronted about his activities personally and embarrassed into ceasing same. The fact that he was screwing up satellite operations AND a near by repeater he didn't know existed helped in that cause.
Anyway - to make this relevant. The FCC never went into his house. However, they DID confront him at his place of work to site him. (not sure how this occurred..)
As a Ham - they DO have the right to demand to enter my premises to inspect the radio gear. If I deny them access - they can take away the license. So it's a balancing act. If I want to keep the license I let them in. They won't be bringing cops to the door.
Have you compiled your kernel today??
I know that sometimes in civil matters, people can bring a law suit to get a declaratory judgment saying that, for example, that they're not violating some particular trademark.
Can citizens preemptively sue the FCC to get a declaratory judgment regarding the constitutionality of their rule?
Or would we just get slapped down with that "no standing" bullshit, that means we have to take it in the a$$ at least once before the courts will protect us?
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.'"
The FCC doesn't need to physically inspect your gear. All they need to do is park their white van in your driveway, turn on the spectrum analyzer, and make sure the emissions are coming from your house. Then they issue you a $10,000 fine. You can use whatever kind of unauthorized transmitters you want, as long as you keep everything inside a well-constructed Faraday cage with no detectable emissions.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Oh no, the jackbooted thugs are coming for you!
We had a 100W Motorola base station malfunction (it was keyed up 100%) and take out a police department frequency 50+ miles away.
One FCC guy came out in a pickup truck with an RF scanner. We located and fixed the problem, apologized, shook hands and he left. End of story.
Relax people...
This is incorrect. The FCC will ask you to allow them to inspect the RF device. You don't have to allow the inspection. There may be additional consequences as a result of your refusal however, most people who are not doing anything wrong will willingly allow the FCC agents to find a source of radio frequency interference.
For the truly paranoid you'll worry about the NSA or the FBI piggy-backing with the FCC to get around such happy things as the Constitution and Due Process. It's just one more tool for them to use to justify the fact they are doing things out of due process and breaking the laws of the land. If they do all this to protect the land, is it really worth saving? *sad sigh*
Please see the thread on Usenet group ba.broadcast.
A former FCC field office chief has stated that while someone may try to convince a resident to let him in, he can't legally use force to gain entry without a U.S. Marshal and a warrant.
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).
This is patently ridiculous, and it is a troll.
To my knowledge, the FCC has never gone door kicking without other federal law enforcement agencies present, and there was always a warrant, and it was always for egregious violations.
The FCC might come around your home or business, and politely ask to see some of your gear if there is a reported interference or regulatory compliance issue. They do have the right to do this, and it is certainly reasonable. If you do not cooperate and let them finish their interference or compliance investigation, they may take legal action against you, and in severe cases, could result in the SWAT team at your door. But that would not be without warning and due process, including registered letters, attempted service of legal notices, etc.
I've read about FCC enforcement actions, and they definitely prefer the carrot to the stick...
there are 3 kinds of people:
* those who can count
* those who can't
That is what con-men would like you to think, but its not the truth. The truth is that most of our actions can be distilled to a simple set of universal rules, irrespective of what alterations in cosmetic appearances the technological and societal changes have brought on. "Do not kill, unless when under armed assault" for example does not change if the method of killing involved a rock, a baseball bat, or an orbital laser gun. Statements like "The Reichstag fire has changed everything", "9/11 has changed everything", "Internet has changed everything" etc are the very hallmarks of such con-artistry designed to fool the populace into eye-glazed stupor.
The false notion that you have to create ever more byzantine laws to "keep up" is the very basis for the parasitic relationship the lawyers have with society. The correct method is the exact opposite: to refine and clarify laws by artfully phrasing them that they are at their most clear, concise while at the same time covering all possible cases. It is of course a very difficult task but which determines the difference between a just society and one merely pretending to be so.
Naturally it comes as no surprise that the greatest enemy of such clarification and distillation of laws are lawyers. Clarity, simplicity and conciseness are the three great mortal foes of lawyers as that priesthood requirs not4sathe muck of confusion and complexity to swim in, where they can bottom feed in safety from scrutiny by those whose lives they control.
Of course there is a solution. The problem has been in fact studied by mathematicians and algorithmic code theorists extensively, because the very same issues are present in issuing instructions to a computer. Instructions for building a society have great resemblance and operate on principally the same rules as computer software. And so not only whole sets of tools exist to achieve it, but there are whole volumes of scientific research already conducted to light the way.
The sense of helplessness that you were sold is not only based upon a lie, it is the result of one of the oldest con games in history: making you artificially dependant on a "service" that only the con-man can "provide". Do not wear these blinders willingly.
"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.
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!
Not true. There are unlicensed portions of radio spectrum. 2.4Ghz is one of those bands. The manufacturer is required to make the device compliant with the regulations so that buyers of the equipment can use it that way.
The device has a sticker on it that certifies the compliance with FCC rules for unlicensed use.
If you change the equipment so it does not meet the specification, you may need a license (like amateur radio operators using higher power in the 2.4 band).
Ah yes, another person who thinks that someone saying any public figure not having the best intentions of God, the universe and puppies in mind is somehow the very same type of person to grab the hem of your coat as you pass, begging you to look up and see the lizards coming out of the giant eye of the pyramid or something.
People who blow off any thought of a public figure with power abusing that power are fools, not serious. History is chock full of small groups of people doing things against public interest for their own benefit. Now that we're in an age of instantaneous secure communication, all of the sudden nothing like that is going on and thinking that it might is grounds to have you mental health examined, or at least derision?
No wonder middle class is dying, it's too easily led away from noticing the people who are killing it, and all it takes is some mindless drivel and a snide remark, usually about tinfoil clothing...
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.
"If an ATF officer enters your home without a valid Search Warrant, aim between the eyes, or between the legs". Naturally, Mr. Liddy was not loved by many ATF Career Staffers after that...
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.
They can have my quasar when they pry it from my gravitationally warped, isotopically transmuted fingers.
Who is John Cabal?
But there is law that specifies when you must obey the commands of a police officer, and those laws are constitutional. For example, there exist constitutionally valid laws that prohibit you from using lethal force to resist an arrest by a police officer who's identified himself to you. Those laws remain applicable even if the police are arresting you for violating an unconstitutional law.
The principle stated earlier in this thread very much applies here: it's the courts decide whether a law is constitutional, not you, period.
Are you adequate?