FCC’s Warrantless Household Searches Alarm Experts

[Kuciwalker]

but does that also allow them to seize your wireless router because you pirate music using it?

I can't imagine why, assuming your router is broadcasting at low enough intensity in the unlicensed band.

[Kuciwalker]

Also, it's not clear to me whether the current rules let them investigate if they detect any transmissions, or only if they detect illegal transmissions (i.e. too powerful ones, or ones in reserved frequencies). I'd assume it's the latter.

[-Jrabbit]

Yes, insidious. Because the FCC's potential power has gradually and subtly increased. That's the freaking definition. Jeez.

There are no complaints against FCC enforcement -- becasue it's virtually nonexistent. When "harmful interference" (i.e., complaints) occurs, the agency can scan freqs, triangulate locations, and determine the source. That's their role (in terms of enforcement at least). Absent any complaints, there's virtually no chance the FCC will come knocking.

The point, Kuci, is that the FCC is the very agency responsible for approving all the RF devices for sale -- and the standard for approval is NOT CREATING INTERFERENCE with licensed users.

So why should the use of approved devices be something for which the FCC can then turn around and demand inspection privileges? The agency has already certified them as non-interfering. So if they're doing their job, these devices are safe and present no probable cause for inspection.

(And Kitsch -- no, pirate radio is not a big problem in the U.S. It certainly happens, but it's very spotty. Traditionally, pirate stations would broadcast from offshore or across the border. These days, most people just launch a streaming station on the Intertubes.)

[Kuciwalker]

The point, Kuci, is that the FCC is the very agency responsible for approving all the RF devices for sale -- and the standard for approval is NOT CREATING INTERFERENCE with licensed users.

So why should the use of approved devices be something for which the FCC can then turn around and demand inspection privileges? The agency has already certified them as non-interfering. So if they're doing their job, these devices are safe and present no probable cause for inspection.

Not true. Approved devices can often be modified to become nonconforming; look up software radios for an extreme example.

[Kuciwalker]

A more specific example: this article explains how to hack a wireless router's firmware to increase its transmission power. The new firmware allows you to boost the power above 100mW, the FCC limit.

[-Jrabbit]

It's possible to take common household chemicals and turn them into bombs, too. Does that give the government the right to come inspect your cupboards?

[Sava]

It's possible to take common household chemicals and turn them into bombs, too. Does that give the government the right to come inspect your cupboards?

The government already knows what is in your cupboards!

[Kuciwalker]

It's possible to take common household chemicals and turn them into bombs, too. Does that give the government the right to come inspect your cupboards?

If you build the bomb in your house the only person you're going to hurt is yourself.

Your analogy sucks. The basic nature of the radio spectrum is why the FCC needs to regulate it.

Also, if you were setting off bombs in your backyard and the neighbors called the police, the police probably would be justified in looking for illegal explosives.

[-Jrabbit]

I have nothing against regulation; it's absolutely essential. There's a big difference between regulation and enforcement. Stay on topic.