Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Privacy Government United States Wireless Networking Hardware News Your Rights Online

FCC Reserves the Right To Search Your Home, Any Time 589

Posted by timothy
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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FCC Reserves the Right To Search Your Home, Any Time

Comments Filter:
  • by Akido37 (1473009) on Friday May 22, 2009 @07:15AM (#28051785)
    The first place they'll try this will be at NewYorkCountryLawyer's house.
    • If it was, I'd donate to a fund to pay his legal bills.

      Taking on the FCC, he'd probably need it.

      Disclaimer: I'm not from the US, I'm English, so I wouldn't directly benefit from this course of action. I just agree with the work the guy does, and hope he continues.
      • by FluffyWithTeeth (890188) on Friday May 22, 2009 @07:34AM (#28051935)

        Uh, he's the one that gets paid legal bills.

        He's a lawyer.

        • by L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) on Friday May 22, 2009 @07:39AM (#28051991)
          "He who represents himself has a fool for a client."
          - Abraham Lincoln
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by drinkypoo (153816)

            Of course Lincoln said this. He was a fucking lawyer and his mindset including producing more revenue for lawyers who don't get paid if you represent yourself.

            Stop acting like the "great men" of our nation didn't have personal agendas. For fuck's sake, they were men, not some kind of ideal that never existed.

            • by cthulu_mt (1124113) on Friday May 22, 2009 @08:48AM (#28053001)
              Yeah, cause Lincoln was part of the military-industrial complex in collusion with the Illuminati to guarantee lawyer revenues until the year 2012 when everything goes boom!
              • by neomunk (913773) on Friday May 22, 2009 @10:50AM (#28054787)

                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...

          • by IgnoramusMaximus (692000) on Friday May 22, 2009 @08:48AM (#28053009)

            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.

            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              That's exactly right. Try calling your state government and asking them which laws you have the follow. In some instances you'd have pay for copyrighted material to get what the law is.

              I've stated this before, and people usually dismiss it saying, "Well, most of the law is specialized, I know all the law that actually applies to me", yet most people don't have a clue about copyright and what fair use is. Most people think that just about any non-commercial use is fair use.

              The average citizen has ab
          • by Phreakiture (547094) on Friday May 22, 2009 @08:57AM (#28053147) Homepage

            ". . . and I am that fool!"

            - Gomez Addams

  • by dreemernj (859414) on Friday May 22, 2009 @07:17AM (#28051801) Homepage Journal
    ...to place bear traps around my router.
    • by srussia (884021)
      Osmium? Is that you?
    • by L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) on Friday May 22, 2009 @07:27AM (#28051883)
      Not in the UK. [securedhome.co.uk]

      "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."
      • That is why I have a EULA on all my doors and windows.

        "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."
        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by Chris Burke (6130)

          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.

          "Domicile contains substances known by the state of California to kill your sorry ass with extreme prejudice."

    • by Altreus (1492723) on Friday May 22, 2009 @07:34AM (#28051939)

      Granted, as long as you post a warning sign in advance.

      Or display a EULA after they've been trapped.

      Both are valid.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by sukotto (122876)

      No. I'm pretty sure booby trapping your home in a way that injures a government agent would put you in a world of shit.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 22, 2009 @07:18AM (#28051815)

    ...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.

    • by OrangeMonkey11 (1553753) on Friday May 22, 2009 @07:40AM (#28052011)
      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
      • by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 22, 2009 @08:00AM (#28052213)

        ... 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.

        • ... 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.

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by karmatic (776420)

            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.
            That is not always the case.

            I was served with search warrant - they did not even let me read it first. They, quite literally, told me - here is the warrant, let us in now, or we break in the door. You can read it while we search.

      • by Like2Byte (542992) <Like2Byte@@@yahoo...com> on Friday May 22, 2009 @10:01AM (#28054021) Homepage

        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)

    • by vertinox (846076) on Friday May 22, 2009 @08:46AM (#28052971)

      ...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]

  • by Psyborgue (699890) on Friday May 22, 2009 @07:18AM (#28051817) Homepage Journal
    And the resulting court case. I'm pretty sure the 4th amendment would triumph over the FCC's bullshit rule they presumably wrote themselves.
    • by Psyborgue (699890) on Friday May 22, 2009 @07:21AM (#28051839) Homepage Journal
      In a time where every single home emits some sort of RF, the FCC's claim is outdated. Holding the 1934 law as constitutional would give the FCC the authority to inspect pretty much any house in the country, completely defeating the point of the 4th amendment. There is no way in hell they would win in court.
      • by mikael (484) on Friday May 22, 2009 @08:04AM (#28052251)

        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.

      • 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?

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Hatta (162192)

        Holding the 1934 law as constitutional would give the FCC the authority to inspect pretty much any house in the country, completely defeating the point of the 4th amendment. There is no way in hell they would win in court.

        Holding that wheat [wikipedia.org] grown and consumed on one's own property constitutes interstate commerce would give the Federal government authority to regulate everything and anything, completely defeating the point of the interstate commerce clause. They won that case in court, I see no reason to be

    • Just like it does at the US border, huh?
      • by Psyborgue (699890) on Friday May 22, 2009 @07:34AM (#28051941) Homepage Journal

        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.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by jonaskoelker (922170)

          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.

          I don't know about how it works in the US, but in Denmark the members of parliament are not all lawyers. Some are (educated as) teachers, plumbers, farmers, electricians, liberal arts and other assorted trades.

          Sure, there's a lot of politics, economy and law majors, and the politicians have staff that might read over the laws for potential constitutionality problems; but they might perform at less than perfect competence, or not be available.

          I'd expect the judiciary to set a higher bar (pun not intended) t

    • by Lumpy (12016) on Friday May 22, 2009 @08:03AM (#28052245) Homepage

      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.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Comboman (895500)

        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 probably wont do anything unless they receive a complaint, but they certainly do investigate interference. Check out this article from GPS World [gpsworld.com]. Several malfunctioning amplified TV antennas were jamming GPS signals in a California harbor. The FCC investigated and rectified the problem. No mention of whether the

  • by morgan_greywolf (835522) on Friday May 22, 2009 @07:19AM (#28051825) Homepage Journal

    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.

  • Why even say this? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mc1138 (718275) on Friday May 22, 2009 @07:21AM (#28051843) Homepage
    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?
    • by drinkypoo (153816) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Friday May 22, 2009 @07:53AM (#28052135) Homepage Journal

      A bad law is a bad law, whether it's used or not.

  • by MasterOfMagic (151058) on Friday May 22, 2009 @07:25AM (#28051869) Journal

    Only after they speak with my lawyers Smith & Wesson.

  • by Raver32 (978821) on Friday May 22, 2009 @07:27AM (#28051885)
    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? ;)
  • bizzare indeed (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Capt James McCarthy (860294) on Friday May 22, 2009 @07:30AM (#28051901) Journal

    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.

  • by joelmax (1445613) on Friday May 22, 2009 @07:30AM (#28051903) Journal
    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...
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Spasemunki (63473)

      No, because the FCC is always going to 1) identify themselves, 2) knock on the door and ask to see specific equipment or a specific transmission source, and 3) walk away and issue you a fine by mail if you say no. These Castle scenarios where 'FCC goons' bust into your house, RF detectors blazing, is pure fantasy. Furthermore, the Castle doctrine applies to a situation where you could reasonably believe you are in danger of physical harm in your own home. When is the FCC ever going to make you think you

  • And under... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Jaysyn (203771) <jaysyn+slashdot&gmail,com> on Friday May 22, 2009 @07:32AM (#28051913) Homepage Journal

    ... Florida's "Castle" doctrine, I reserve the right to shoot them as they walk thru the door.

    • Re:And under... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by pongo000 (97357) on Friday May 22, 2009 @07:53AM (#28052139)

      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.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by DoofusOfDeath (636671)

        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.

        What if their entry is contrary to the Constitution, even if apparently permitted by legislation?

        Are you saying that we have to accept the Congress' disregard for the Constitution?

        [Note: I'm talking about what's legally correct, not about what would get you convicted or not convicted.]

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Spasemunki (63473)

          We have an organization that decides if legislation is contrary to the Constitution. They're called the Supreme Court. You don't get to decide the constitutionality of legislation for yourself. You have to obey all laws properly passed by a legislative body, until the law is struck down. That's why the ACLU and other organizations create test cases to get bad laws struck down. If you violate a law because you think it isn't constitutional, you will go to jail until the SC rules. If you kill someone ba

    • Re:And under... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Spasemunki (63473) on Friday May 22, 2009 @07:55AM (#28052169) Homepage

      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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 22, 2009 @07:37AM (#28051969)

    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.

    • by stewbacca (1033764) on Friday May 22, 2009 @07:44AM (#28052045)
      Hey, this is slashdot...there has to be misleading/misquoted summaries to drum up fake outrage!
    • by TheGratefulNet (143330) on Friday May 22, 2009 @08:23AM (#28052587)

      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.

  • by Larryish (1215510) <larryish@NOsPAm.gmail.com> on Friday May 22, 2009 @07:42AM (#28052025)

    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.

  • "Reserve the right" (Score:5, Informative)

    by scorp1us (235526) on Friday May 22, 2009 @07:49AM (#28052107) Journal

    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.

  • by erroneus (253617) on Friday May 22, 2009 @07:54AM (#28052145) Homepage

    Does anyone still say this?

  • by stevew (4845) on Friday May 22, 2009 @08:11AM (#28052379) Journal

    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.

  • Huh? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Locke2005 (849178) on Friday May 22, 2009 @08:28AM (#28052647)
    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.
  • ridiculous (Score:3, Informative)

    by lophophore (4087) on Friday May 22, 2009 @09:52AM (#28053907) Homepage

    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...

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 22, 2009 @10:13AM (#28054217)

    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.

  • Let them try (Score:3, Insightful)

    by DaMattster (977781) on Friday May 22, 2009 @11:55AM (#28055763)
    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.
  • by LifesABeach (234436) on Friday May 22, 2009 @11:55AM (#28055765)

    "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...

God doesn't play dice. -- Albert Einstein

Working...