Slashdot Log In
FCC Reserves the Right To Search Your Home, Any Time
Posted by
timothy
on Fri May 22, 2009 07:14 AM
from the who-are-you-to-disagree dept.
from the who-are-you-to-disagree dept.
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.'"
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
And I reserve the right... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:And I reserve the right... (Score:5, Interesting)
"The person in charge of a property has a legal duty to protect all its users from foreseeable harm, even if they are on the property illegally. If an intruder is hurt by a security measure - such as glass or barbed wire - that the householder knew to be dangerous then they could be sued for damages under the Occupier's Liability Act 1984."
Parent
Re:And I reserve the right... (Score:4, Funny)
"All users entering such premise is accepting all liability during this and subsequent visits. The homeowner is under no liability and expresses no warranty for any difficulties the vistor occurs during their visit. Beware: domicile contains lead and all visitors to this domicile accept the risk they may be injured, maimed, or even killed by lead vapor, or the actual lead bullet."
Parent
Re:And that's an important law (Score:5, Insightful)
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.)
Parent
Re:And I reserve the right... (Score:5, Funny)
That seems as though it would make livestock fences a legal nightmare.
Somehow I doubt thats why the sheep out there are so nervous.
Parent
Re:And I reserve the right... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:And I reserve the right... (Score:5, Funny)
Granted, as long as you post a warning sign in advance.
Or display a EULA after they've been trapped.
Both are valid.
Parent
They better bring along the police... (Score:4, Interesting)
...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.
Re:They better bring along the police... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:They better bring along the police... (Score:5, Interesting)
... and you would recognise a valid vs. counterfeit warrant how, exactly?
This is the right attitude to have though. NEVER talk to cops, NEVER permit them into your home without a warrant. You have nothing to gain and everything to lose.
Parent
Re:They better bring along the police... (Score:5, Informative)
... and you would recognise a valid vs. counterfeit warrant how, exactly?
Verify the number on the warrant, then call it. I've heard that cops will wait for you to do this if it's not one of those "get down on the floor" type of warrants.
Parent
Re:They better bring along the police... (Score:5, Informative)
If they have a valid warrant they dont have to ask for permission. So never, ever tell them they can come in. Always tell them they do not have your permission, even if you think they have a valid warrant. Do not surrender your rights.
True, but you don't really want to be seen as trying to prevent them from executing a valid warrant. You need to make it clear that you don't consent, but that beyond that you aren't preventing them from coming in. The phrasing I've seen suggested is "I do not consent to a search of my residence." (Or vehicle, person, bag, etc.) Keep repeating that, regardless of how they phrase the question. Just saying "No." is a bad idea -- they're likely to keep asking, and you don't want to reply "no" when they phrase it as "Do you mind if we come in?" By the tenth time they ask you might be frustrated enough not to be paying full attention to the phrasing. Add "Am I under arrest?" and "Am I free to go?" and you have almost everything you might need to say to an officer.
Parent
Re:They better bring along the police... (Score:5, Informative)
There is a self-shot video on youtube that shows some kind of land surveyor trespassing on some guy's land. He had asked her on a previous date to stay off his property unless she had a warrant. A few weeks later she comes back (sans warrant) and attempts to get on his property again. He refuses and she starts spewing pseudo-law random crap which she attempts to use to get her on his property with his consent. He refuses still and eventually a cop shows up. He, the land owners, tells the cop that he does not want her on his property. The cop ignores him and lets the woman trespass.
Warrant or not, cops are going to infringe on the law regardless. Cops really do think they know what they are doing.
I'm not sure of the outcome of this episode but I'm sure if evidence was gathered by this woman trespassing on his land without a warrant it'd be inadmissible in court. Providing, of course, kangaroos aren't in the general vicinity of said court.
The point is, just spouting, "Get the F off my lawn" wont necessarily cause 'officials' to comply. I mean, Citizen, who the fuck are you? (tongue in cheek)
Parent
Re:They better bring along the police... (Score:4, Informative)
...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.
Just hope they aren't under cover plainclothes officers doing a "no knock".
*coughs* [wikipedia.org]
Parent
I'd like to see em try it (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I'd like to see em try it (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:I'd like to see em try it (Score:4, Interesting)
The original intent of the FCC legislation was to protect the reception of TV/radio broadcasts and to prevent the safe functioning of electrical equipment. This was achieved by approving equipment that met limits in the amount of RF energy they emitted. This was extended to home computers, which seem to be built like tanks with layers and layers of metal shielding.
Tricky thing is, most simple equipment like hairdryers and vacuum cleaners probably give off more RF than a mobile phone. Even a multisync CRT monitor could jam long-wave radio broadcasts in a radius of 10 metres.
Parent
Re:I'd like to see em try it (Score:5, Funny)
The original intent of the FCC legislation was to protect the reception of TV/radio broadcasts and to prevent the safe functioning of electrical equipment.
Boy, was that a bad idea!
Parent
Re:I'd like to see em try it (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:I'd like to see em try it (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
Parent
Re:I'd like to see em try it (Score:4, Interesting)
That's a much more complex argument where things such as "national security" and the "drug war" would have to be taken into account (not that I agree with it, and i see where you're going). A private home, on the other hand, is a man's castle, and warrentless searches of a person's home are pretty clearly forbidden by the 4th amendment.
I have zero faith in politicians and government agencies to pass and enforce legislation that is constitutional, but the court system has for the most part kept them in check. Agree or not with which way they rule, the supreme court tends to make decent decisions in that regard.
Parent
As any ham can attest to... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
For kicks (Score:4, Informative)
I'll just leave this here.
http://www.fcc.gov/Reports/tcom1996.txt [fcc.gov]
Parent
Re:Inspection of licensees - but we're not licesee (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Parent
Re:As any ham can attest to... (Score:5, Informative)
What the FCC is saying is completely different than someone operating an illegal radio station (such as the one mentioned in the article). The FCC is claiming that if you have a keyless entry device for your car, they can enter your house without a warrant.
Sorry, no way Jose. If you're trying to "stick it to the man" by having an illegal radio station, are deliberately jamming a radio signal, or anything else of similar nature, then yes, the FCC does have the authority to get on your case.
But to claim that just having an electronic device to remotely open my car that that somehow gives them the authority to search my place, not a chance.
Parent
Re:As any ham can attest to... (Score:5, Funny)
Guess it's time to change the frequency on my 5 watt FM transmitter to something other than the local Christian station.
But I just KNOW they like listening to 24/7 Slayer. I just KNOW it.
Parent
Why even say this? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why even say this? (Score:5, Insightful)
A bad law is a bad law, whether it's used or not.
Parent
Only after they speak with my lawyers... (Score:5, Funny)
Only after they speak with my lawyers Smith & Wesson.
Re:Only after they speak with my lawyers... (Score:4, Funny)
I prefer Messrs. Mausers' oratory style. It projects far better.
Parent
Completely misleading article (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Completely misleading article (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Completely misleading article (Score:5, Interesting)
I posted this and got modded as troll. but its horribly TRUE, so mod me as you want but truth is truth.
firemen CAN enter you home at any time, with only 'fire safety inspection' as the legal reason.
I live in an apartment building and my landlord has been trying to do 'look sees' in tenants' places for years. its an unofficial snoop program, started back in the ashcroft days (see operation TIPS).
when I refused to let them into my place (I work at home and I believe I have the right to be left alone to do my work in peace, undisturbed for any so-called walk-thru just to check my place out) they threatened to escalate to the fire dept and force their way thru. when I called the local housing dept to check on this, they confirmed - its a known loophole that landlords can use to violate your privacy - all they have to do is say 'fire inspection' and that gives them legal right - MORE THAN POLICE - to enter and look around - all they want. legally.
people should know about this. I bet almost no one knew this legal loophole.
you can refuse a cop at your door unless there's a warrant. you cannot refuse a fireman, even if there is no sign of imminent danger.
Parent
"Reserve the right" (Score:5, Informative)
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.
FCC doesn't invade homes (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:Knowing Government "Intelligence"... (Score:4, Funny)
Uh, he's the one that gets paid legal bills.
He's a lawyer.
Parent
Re:Knowing Government "Intelligence"... (Score:4, Insightful)
- Abraham Lincoln
Parent
Re:Knowing Government "Intelligence"... (Score:5, Interesting)
Which is simply another way of saying: "You live in a lawless society".
You see, the whole idea of "law" was supposed to be for a code to bind a society together by making every member capable of some action affecting others to follow a simple set of clear rules, which, again by definition, were to be simple enough to be memorized in entirety by everyone. That is why Hammurabi had the thing carved in stone and placed at public squares, so that "ignorance of the law" was not an excuse for breaking it.
The moment however when the "law" becomes so complicated and ambiguous that it requires someone to "interpret it" (i.e. twist it to whatever whim of the moment is fanciful) the whole concept breaks. In short a society which needs lawyers, is by definition lawless, as "law" has morphed from the universal code of conduct to a byzantine, convoluted, religious scripture which requires a career priesthood to worship, massage, "interpret" and twist to the needs of whatever power caste is running the place at the time. The average denizen then simply becomes hapless prey for this caste of parasites with no recourse but to prostate himself/herself before the high-priests of "law" who hold the strings of the citizen's life or death in their hands.
Ultimately, in a country of lawyers, by lawyers and for lawyers, the laws become such a sick caricature of the original idea that no one knows the "law" to its full extent, including all of its priests. One can test this simple supposition by simply asking any one of them to recite the "law" of the land from memory. In the USA, not only no lawyer, judge or politician could do it (even though the "law" is supposedly binding everyone and its ignorance is "no excuse") but they would not be able to tell you what the current definitive law is at all, even when given the ability to use books and databases to do it, as the code has become so byzantine that its successive layers upon layers of modifications and arcane religious language are so completely unmanageable that pretty much any "legal" decision needs an arbitrary "interpretation" by a cabal of priests.
And this is why the majority of people instinctively hates lawyers, as even if most people cannot vocalize it, an average person's intrinsic moral compass is able to detect that something is profoundly wrong with the very idea of a lawyer.
Parent
Re:Well said! (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re:Well said! (Score:5, Insightful)
"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.
Parent
Re:Well said! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Knowing Government "Intelligence"... (Score:5, Funny)
". . . and I am that fool!"
- Gomez Addams
Parent
Re:Knowing Government "Intelligence"... (Score:4, Insightful)
If I were a lawyer and I were being sued for some reason, I would prefer to hire someone to represent me.
My reasoning would be that being sued is a very stressful and emotional circumstance; a circumstance that would deprive me of my best judgment and reason. Instead of making solid, fact-based statements and questions, I would probably be more liable to tell the prosecutor to piss off. Not really something that will get you far in court.
Having someone else represent you provides an amount of detachment from irrational emotion that could ruin a case.
Parent
Re:Knowing Government "Intelligence"... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Knowing Government "Intelligence"... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, if I had mod points I would have tagged it the same way. You probably got tagged for the backhand comment towards the mods which, again IMO, were perfectly correct in labeling the post as flamebait.
Even more interesting is the fact that Lincoln did not originate this quote. A quick google finds this same adage in print going back to the very early 1800's so while Lincoln may have said it at some time, it was not originally his quote, unless he made it from the cradle.
Parent
Re:Knowing Government "Intelligence"... (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't really mind being tagged "Flamebait" so long as I'm not modded "Troll". I do say things which are inflammatory. I don't say them just because they're inflammatory, but there's a fine line between that and my actual intention, which is to spark extended discussion.
Here's a more in-depth version of what I was saying: Lincoln was a lawyer. Lawyers work with laws and lies. Even if they're not actually telling lies, they're still working with creative interpretation of law. The best interpretation of the law at the moment you're interpreting it is the most favorable to your client. Now, where do the laws come from? It would be overly simplistic to say that they come from the people simply because to become an influential member of government requires a certain type of person who is connected, knowledgeable, influential. In short, part of "the system" in which we all live and which informs if not governs all our actions: the weight of momentum.
Politicians create laws. Often it is lawyers who become politicians, and then they make these laws, which then are handed down to the next generation of lawyers. And we get more laws, and more lawyers, and the laws become more and more baroque and we need more and more lawyers to interpret the laws for us. And these various interpretations become the body of case law, and inform the next generation of interpretations by the next generation of lawyers, making the whole thing fractally complicated.
Where, exactly, has this gotten us? Has it given us more freedom? The states created the federal government to produce more freedom. Has this goal been accomplished? it is the FCC's (alleged) mission [wikipedia.org] to "make available so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex, rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio communication services with adequate facilities at reasonable charges." Has this actually happened? And furthermore, has it been accomplished in concordance with the ideals of the Constitution of these United States? More and more laws have been passed which assist the corporations in getting paid; have these corporations' gains served the American people? If not, is the FCC serving the American people? I think we can (mostly) agree that preventing individual asshats from crapping all over the spectrum is in the public interest. Having the "right" to enter your property without a warrant, on the other hand, is a bunch of crap.
It seems to me that the solution ought to be that a judge can give a warrant to anybody, and the penalty for handing out a bad warrant ought to yet be fairly high; the FCC ought to have no unusual power to come onto your property, but a judge ought to hand them a warrant to come and look for a transmitter if there is good cause for it (e.g., they have triangulated the signal to your rooftop and you are being a big asshole.)
Parent
Re:I'm thankful I live in Canada (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:I'm thankful I live in Canada (Score:5, Funny)
Thankfully you seem to have a new President that has intelligence and morals
Who is this guy and how did he get Obama to vacate the presidency?
Parent
Re:And under... (Score:4, Insightful)
Umm...no you don't. There's no state law anywhere that gives you the right to shoot a federal law enforcement officer who properly identifies himself/herself as such.
It's people like you that make people like us have to fight every inch for our rights under the 2nd Amendment.
Parent
Re:And under... (Score:5, Interesting)
Why is everyone equating equating the right to inspect with no-knock raids? The FCC isn't going to kick in your door while you're trying to flush your transmitter. They're going to knock, ask to see the transmitter, and then go back to their office and issue you a fine by mail if you say no. The FCC has no interest in putting their agent's lives at risk in order to get someone to switch off their CB. All of this ranting about government goons and guns is just melodramatic bullshit. If the government wants to infringe on your rights, they'll do it through the legal system, not by kicking in doors. It's much more effective and much lower risk.
Whether or not this is infringement on your 4th Amendment rights actually depends greatly on how the law is applied. If the FCC is asserting the right to enter any house because there is a phone or a wireless device inside, it's obviously infringement. The FCC has lawyers, and knows this, so there's little chance they would adopt such a tactic. All of the cases mentioned in the article related to fairly powerful transmitters that were being used in a way such that the violation of FCC regs could be detected by someone miles from the source. That means that 1) by the time the FCC directionalizes the signal and shows up at your door, they already have probably cause and could get a warrant if they needed it, and 2) the FCC could reasonably assert in court that the device is not something that most people have in their house, and is a sophisticated enough device that the fairly uncontroversial right of administrative inspection to have a look at that particular piece of equipment.
Parent