FCC Reserves the Right To Search Your Home, Any Time 589
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.'"
Knowing Government "Intelligence"... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:Knowing Government "Intelligence"... (Score:4, Funny)
Uh, he's the one that gets paid legal bills.
He's a lawyer.
Re:Knowing Government "Intelligence"... (Score:4, Insightful)
- Abraham Lincoln
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Knowing Government "Intelligence"... (Score:5, Funny)
CONSPIRACY! Boogety boogety boogety... (Score:4, Interesting)
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...
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.
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.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I dunno. For some reason, starting shortly after Lincoln was assasinated, he was given almost god like status.
I'm torn in my feelings towards him. While I'm glad that the union was preserved for the present day, I do feel a lot of our problems and erosion of states rights, and the SERIOUS errors of that apparent today...are also to be attributed to Lincoln.
And he 'was' a lawyer...so, I do have
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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
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.
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 no
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Knowing Government "Intelligence"... (Score:4, Interesting)
You should ponder upon why Judeo-Christian religions (of which Islam is an off-shoot) are so vastly popular. And if you do, you will find that it is an average person's deep-seated desire for a concise, clear set of rules to govern society that is at the very heart of it. Mock that desire it at your own peril.
You always need an arbitration process to prevent abuse.
And that is different from, say, the US constitution, how exactly?
The difference between law and religion is that laws are man-made, and subject to alteration by men, religions are supposedly handed down from a deity and as such unalterable by men. They do not differ however when it comes to the method of application: both operate based on a set of rules, all of which are final (but in the case of laws of men, subject to change in the course of history).
Bullshit. Well designed laws, even though they can be changed, require less and less modifications as more refined they become. Bullshit, byzantine, intellectual diarrhoea "laws" are in a state of constant chaotic flux and become more and more confused and voluminous as the time passes, because confusion and chaos are their very purpose.
Again, bullshit. Religions do that because they have no mechanism to correct their "commandments". Human laws do. But that does not mean that a correction must always be uniformly in the direction of more complexity. In fact the whole art of law-making is to go in the precisely the opposite direction, to formulate simple laws in such a way as to cover all cases.
Total nonsense, as I already pointed out.
This has nothing to do with "subtlety" and "nuance". It has to do with byzantine, arcane, sets of incomprehensible to an average citizen rules, purposefully formulated so in a special religious language so that he or she has no chance ever being able to deal with them without assistance of a special priest.
The true "subtlety" and "nuance" are part of law making, whereby the law has to be formulated in such a clever way as to maintain total clarity and to prevent the need for any arcane "interpretations" at the time of its application.
Re:Knowing Government "Intelligence"... (Score:4, Insightful)
You should ponder upon why Judeo-Christian religions (of which Islam is an off-shoot) are so vastly popular. And if you do, you will find that it is an average person's deep-seated desire for a concise, clear set of rules to govern society that is at the very heart of it. Mock that desire it at your own peril.
I disagree. They are popular for the same reason all religion is popular--they give meaning to the meaningless. It has nothing to do with wanting a set of laws that cover every situation. In point of fact, Jewish tradition does not prescribe a set of laws that must be meticulously followed. Rather, there are a few such laws--the commandments--and a set of guidelines for moral behavior. Much of Jewish Talmudic tradition, for example, focuses on interpreting, challenging, and clarifying laws set out in the Torah. And even the experts in the Talmud will be the first to admit that it is impossible for them to conceive of every possible situation in advance.
You always need an arbitration process to prevent abuse.
Why? What is the job of the courts, if not to interpret the law? Under your proposal, there would be no need for judges, because laws would be clear and concise in every set of circumstances. The possibility of one particular enforcement agent misapplying (not "abusing", because under what you propose no such abuse would be possible) the law could be resolved by a simple appeals process whereby the direct supervisor of, say, the police officer makes a determination whether the law was appropriately enforced. Under your system, that would be all that the courts do anyway, because it would not be up to them to determine if the law is fair or not--only whether it applies in this circumstance. Anybody could do that, right?
And that is different from, say, the US constitution, how exactly?
Tell me the precise settled meaning of the Second Amendment, for example, and you will have answered your own question. The Constitution is a guideline establishing how the government should be run and what rights and responsibilities are held by the federal government, the states, and the people. It is not a precise code of laws that is not open to interpretation.
Bullshit. Well designed laws, even though they can be changed, require less and less modifications as more refined they become. Bullshit, byzantine, intellectual diarrhoea "laws" are in a state of constant chaotic flux and become more and more confused and voluminous as the time passes, because confusion and chaos are their very purpose.
Your argument falls apart when you realize that, no matter how carefully crafted and precise you think your laws are, somebody will always find an exception, a "but what if", a border case, or some other situation that is not directly covered by the law. In order to cover this particular case, the law would need to be modified to add an exception, or you risk the ambiguity of not knowing how that same situation should be resolved the next time it comes up. The law therefore becomes more and more complex with time. You simply can't make a law cover more situations adequately by making it simpler, because the simpler you make the law the more likely you are to find exceptions to it.
Again, bullshit. Religions do that because they have no mechanism to correct their "commandments". Human laws do. But that does not mean that a correction must always be uniformly in the direction of more complexity. In fact the whole art of law-making is to go in the precisely the opposite direction, to formulate simple laws in such a way as to cover all cases.
Again, this is logically inconsistent. Simpler means more general, and it's the specifics that are always the thorny issue in a legal system.
This has nothing to do with "subtlety" and "nuance". It has to do with byzantine, arcane, sets of incomprehensible to an
Re:Knowing Government "Intelligence"... (Score:5, Funny)
". . . and I am that fool!"
- Gomez Addams
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Mostly the same reasons doctors don't treat themselves. Main ones that comes to mind are:
1) You tend to be more emotionally involved in a case that will affect you personally. Like anything else, you're more likely to make a mistake when your emotions are involved. Having an attorney besides yourself gives you someone with less of a stake in the matter to check your actions.
2) Most lawyers are specialists. If you've spent your life prosecuting murders, your knowledge of, say, civil court cases involving
And I reserve the right... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
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."
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."
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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."
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.)
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.
Re:And I reserve the right... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The direct equivalent of the FCC in the UK is Ofcom.
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/ [ofcom.org.uk]
That securedhome.co.uk article has nothing to do with the scope of Ofcom or FCC as both are about enforcing adherence to legal broadcasting. (I seem to remember there is something in the broadcasting act to allow entry into homes to check equipment, (e.g. to stop pirate radio stations), but even if they cannot there are many other organisations in the UK that can enter the home for many re
Re:And I reserve the right... (Score:4, Funny)
I'm not even going to check to see if you're still breathing till I'm changing to my 3rd clip.
I'm only saying that because I care, cayenne8: there's a lot of decaffeinated brands on the market that are just as tasty as the real thing.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
One tidbit criminals in prison often share with each other is that, if you have a knife on you and the police catch you going in through a window, you are going to be charged with armed robbery. On the other hand, if you enter unarmed, and grab a knife in the kitchen or a gun from the homeowner's own cabinet, you can make it look like you were not prepared to commit a violent assault if you are caught early. Since the chances are if the cops catch you, it will be either entering or leaving, this minimizes y
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
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)
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.
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
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.
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)
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]
I'd like to see em try it (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I'd like to see em try it (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
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!
Declaratory judgment? (Score:3, Interesting)
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)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re:I'd like to see em try it (Score:4, Interesting)
Unfortunately there are too many lawyers in Washington, in fact, if I remember correctly, there was an ammendment to the constitution that was meant to cover this (prevent lawyers from holding office). It was ratified by 12 states, the paperwork from the 13th state(Virginia) was lost in a battle, so it got swept under the rug. I believe thats why they started numbering the ammendments. Its been awhile since I read about this, so I may be unintentionally ommiting something.
Here is a link on it:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/7/10/155241/107 [dailykos.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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
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?
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]
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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).
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.
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.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They have exercised this power in the sense of fining people for not letting them inspect equipment. The reason that they do it, most likely, is because it would be too easy to dodge inspections otherwise. If they have to 1) knock and ask first and then 2) get a warrant if you say no, it's too easy to relocate the transmitter and then fire it up again when you think the heat is off. They would rather not add the time and expense of applying for a warrant each time they have to do an inspection, the way t
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.
Re:Only after they speak with my lawyers... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
I'm thankful I live in Canada (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I'm thankful I live in Canada (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Are you kidding me? Have you been paying attention at all? Obama is continuing all of the bad policies of George W. Bush and adding a few new ones for good measure.
Don't believe me? Check out this little tidbit:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/us/politics/21obama.html?_r=2&emc=eta1 [nytimes.com]
Obama is consider locking up "potential" terrorists without trial. Remember that recently potential terrorists have been broadened to include anyone who has voted third party, been pro-life or pro-guns, or disagrees with gove
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?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
We generally call it, "Don't be a douchebag law," up here in Canada. It works fairly we, for the most part Canadian society is fairly well mannered society. This also runs from common law, and the rest of our government. Seems to have been working well for the last little bit.
bizzare indeed (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Hmmm... Castle Docterine (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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)
... Florida's "Castle" doctrine, I reserve the right to shoot them as they walk thru the door.
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.
Re: (Score:3, 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.
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)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Nope. The FCC has the right to inspect your equipment. No one else gets to 'come for the ride'. If the FCC shows up with a cop and asks to see your wireless router, you can have them wait on the porch while you bring the router out. You can let Mr. FCC in and tell the cop to go get a cup of coffee. They can't 'poke around'. They can inspect equipment- you s
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)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
as if there isn't enough outrage from the genuine stuff!
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.
Good workaround... stick and move (Score:3, Interesting)
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)
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.
"If you aren't doing anything wrong..." (Score:3, Interesting)
Does anyone still say this?
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.
Huh? (Score:3, Funny)
ridiculous (Score:3, Informative)
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...
Ham license v. WiFi (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
I Think G.Gordon Liddy Said It Best, (Score:3, Informative)
"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...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
They can have my quasar when they pry it from my gravitationally warped, isotopically transmuted fingers.