Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

FCC’s Warrantless Household Searches Alarm Experts

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • FCC’s Warrantless Household Searches Alarm Experts

    Wow, I didn't know this.

    Threat Level Privacy, Crime and Security Online
    FCC’s Warrantless Household Searches Alarm Experts

    * By Ryan Singel Email Author
    * May 21, 2009

    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.

    That’s the upshot of the rules the agency has followed for years to monitor licensed television and radio stations, and to crack down on pirate radio broadcasters. And the commission maintains the same policy applies to any licensed or unlicensed radio-frequency device.

    “Anything using RF energy — we have the right to inspect it to make sure it is not causing interference,” says FCC spokesman David Fiske. That includes devices like Wi-Fi routers that use unlicensed spectrum, Fiske says.

    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. That’s largely because the FCC had little to do with average citizens for most of the last 75 years, when home transmitters were largely reserved to ham-radio operators and CB-radio aficionados. But in 2009, nearly every household in the United States has multiple devices that use radio waves and fall under the FCC’s purview, making the commission’s claimed authority ripe for a court challenge.

    “It is a major stretch beyond case law to assert that authority with respect to a private home, which is at the heart of the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable search and seizure,” says Electronic Frontier Foundation lawyer Lee Tien. “When it is a private home and when you are talking about an over-powered Wi-Fi antenna — the idea they could just go in is honestly quite bizarre.”

    The rules came to attention this month when an FCC agent investigating a pirate radio station in Boulder, Colorado, left a copy of a 2005 FCC inspection policy on the door of a residence hosting the unlicensed 100-watt transmitter. “Whether you operate an amateur station or any other radio device, your authorization from the Commission comes with the obligation to allow inspection,” the statement says.

    The notice spooked those running “Boulder Free Radio,” who thought it was just tough talk intended to scare them into shutting down, according to one of the station’s leaders, who spoke to Wired.com on condition of anonymity. “This is an intimidation thing,” he said. “Most people aren’t that dedicated to the cause. I’m not going to let them into my house.”

    But refusing the FCC admittance can carry a harsh financial penalty. In a 2007 case, a Corpus Christi, Texas, man got a visit from the FCC’s direction-finders after rebroadcasting an AM radio station through a CB radio in his home. An FCC agent tracked the signal to his house and asked to see the equipment; Donald Winton refused to let him in, but did turn off the radio. Winton was later fined $7,000 for refusing entry to the officer. The fine was reduced to $225 after he proved he had little income.

    Administrative search powers are not rare, at least as directed against businesses — fire-safety, food and workplace-safety regulators generally don’t need warrants to enter a business. And despite the broad power, the FCC agents aren’t cops, says Fiske. “The only right they have is to inspect the equipment,” Fiske says. “If they want to seize, they have to work with the U.S. Attorney’s office.”

    But if inspectors should notice evidence of unrelated criminal behavior — say, a marijuana plant or an unregistered gun — a Supreme Court decision suggests the search can be used against the resident. In the 1987 case New York v. Burger, two police officers performed a warrantless, administrative search of one Joseph Burger’s automobile junkyard. When he couldn’t produce the proper paperwork, the officers searched the grounds and found stolen vehicles, which they used to prosecute him. The Supreme Court held the search to be legal.

    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.
    Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.

  • #2
    I doubt it'll get struck down. They probably don't do it unless they detect an interfering transmission, at which point they are essentially going in to stop a crime in progress.

    Comment


    • #3
      Does this really surprise you? The government has been quietly nibbling away at individual rights for a century now.
      No, I did not steal that from somebody on Something Awful.

      Comment


      • #4
        But the "ONE" is now president. Freedom and justice for all
        Keep on Civin'
        RIP rah, Tony Bogey & Baron O

        Comment


        • #5
          hack
          You just wasted six ... no, seven ... seconds of your life reading this sentence.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by The Mad Monk View Post
            Does this really surprise you? The government has been quietly nibbling away at individual rights for a century now.
            What? You have the same rights to broadcast (and associated responsibilities) that you have nearly since the radio was invented. The only difference is that it's now easier for you to broadcast.
            Last edited by Kuciwalker; May 21, 2009, 14:05.

            Comment


            • #7
              We're talking about unreasonable search and seizure here. Keep up.
              No, I did not steal that from somebody on Something Awful.

              Comment


              • #8
                And yet the rules haven't changed.

                Comment


                • #9
                  (NOTE: Haven't read up on this fully yet but...)

                  Yeah, but our use of devices has changed. A lot. Virtually anything with a chip in it produces RF radiation. (Purchase any piece of personal electronics and it has its FCC approval somewhere in the user's guide.) Most are not transmitters, but they do radiate, albeit in a generally minute and fairly benign manner. These are (generally) unlicensed devices that are fully approved BY THE FCC.

                  What makes this insidious is that, technically, the FCC can demand entry and inspection of your premises for items as innocuous as an iPod or your cable box. The TV and microwave, too. (Obviously, things like Wi-Fi and cellphones are real RF transmitters.)

                  The intent of the law is to protect licensed operations from interference. But the current interpretation leverages that into unwarranted entry into virtually any home, at any time. And given the warrantless search and wiretaps of recent years, it's fair to say there is cause for concern that these outdated rules might be applied, um, conveniently, rather than as intended -- which is to protect licensed users (broadcasters, public safety, medical telemetry, etc) from harmful interference. Period.
                  Apolyton's Grim Reaper 2008, 2010 & 2011
                  RIP lest we forget... SG (2) and LaFayette -- Civ2 Succession Games Brothers-in-Arms

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Kuciwalker View Post
                    I doubt it'll get struck down. They probably don't do it unless they detect an interfering transmission, at which point they are essentially going in to stop a crime in progress.
                    hmm...if thats the case I think you're right - they have or can claim probable cause.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      As far as I have known how these things work, the FCC tends to move swiftly against interfering transmissions.

                      Imagine, for instance, a broken piece of equipment that is inadvertently transmitting on an airport's licensed frequency. Does it seem reasonable that the FCC would need to get a warrant to seize the equipment? I'm open-minded about it, but this is an imposition that has been in place almost forever.
                      I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by DanS View Post
                        As far as I have known how these things work, the FCC tends to move swiftly against interfering transmissions.

                        Imagine, for instance, a broken piece of equipment that is inadvertently transmitting on an airport's licensed frequency. Does it seem reasonable that the FCC would need to get a warrant to seize the equipment? I'm open-minded about it, but this is an imposition that has been in place almost forever.
                        but does that also allow them to seize your wireless router because you pirate music using it?
                        I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.
                        [Brandon Roderick? You mean Brock's Toadie?][Hanged from Yggdrasil]

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I've never heard of anybody suggesting that the FCC would do such a thing. At a minimum, they would need a whole hell of a lot more agents. Further, there's no paperwork that you need for a wifi device, so they couldn't use that pretext to catch you for doing something illegal otherwise.
                          I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Is pirate radio a big problem?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by -Jrabbit View Post
                              (NOTE: Haven't read up on this fully yet but...)

                              Yeah, but our use of devices has changed. A lot. Virtually anything with a chip in it produces RF radiation. (Purchase any piece of personal electronics and it has its FCC approval somewhere in the user's guide.) Most are not transmitters, but they do radiate, albeit in a generally minute and fairly benign manner. These are (generally) unlicensed devices that are fully approved BY THE FCC.

                              What makes this insidious is that, technically, the FCC can demand entry and inspection of your premises for items as innocuous as an iPod or your cable box. The TV and microwave, too. (Obviously, things like Wi-Fi and cellphones are real RF transmitters.)

                              The intent of the law is to protect licensed operations from interference. But the current interpretation leverages that into unwarranted entry into virtually any home, at any time. And given the warrantless search and wiretaps of recent years, it's fair to say there is cause for concern that these outdated rules might be applied, um, conveniently, rather than as intended -- which is to protect licensed users (broadcasters, public safety, medical telemetry, etc) from harmful interference. Period.
                              It's not insidious. It's always been this way; the difference is that you are doing a lot more broadcasting than before. But the fact that people broadcast more often inherently justifies greater potential for the FCC to investigate them!

                              The role of the FCC thus scales naturally with the role of broadcasting in our lives. Isn't that how it should be?



                              PS have there actually been any cases of this being abused?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X