Tue May 26, 2009 12:47PM EDT
See Comments (77)
We're surrounded by wireless gizmos -- cell phones, cordless phones, Wi-Fi networks -- day and night and at home and at work. But did you know the FCC can enter your home whenever it would care to in order to inspect all that gear? And they don't need a search warrant to do so.
Wired reports on this long-lingering policy of the FCC, which was originally designed to ensure that people aren't encroaching on regulated portions of the wireless spectrum from way back in the early days of radio -- the main idea being to knock pirate radio stations off the air and to ensure that gear isn't causing interference in parts of the spectrum where it doesn't belong. One can imagine this could be a big problem in areas near military installations, should a consumer decide to fire up a transmitter that garbles a critical Air Force communications band, so some measure of oversight is certainly a good idea.
But times have changed since then -- the original act that allowed the searches dates back to 1934 and its constitutionality has never been seriously tested in courts -- and the world of wireless is a far different beast than it was when only the occasional citizen owned a CB or a ham radio and wanted to broadcast from his car or apartment. Now, just about everything we use on a daily basis is seemingly subject to regulation by the FCC.
That has an increasing number of experts alarmed, as the FCC's jurisdiction stretches beyond just computers and cell phones to baby monitors and remote control key fobs for your car. It's safe to say that nearly every household in America would be compelled to open its doors for the FCC on request so the agency could investigate at its whim whether you're breaking the law. Refuse to let them in, and fines can run into the thousands of dollars.
Privacy advocates are specifically worried that the FCC could become (and arguably has already become) a tool of law enforcement to gain quick and easy entry into a home, where feds can search for additional transgressions unrelated to wireless technology once they have a foot in the door, no warrant needed. A 1987 Supreme Court case suggests this has already happened at least once, and has been upheld, after officers found stolen vehicles and prosecuted while performing an unrelated wireless investigation at an auto junkyard.
A little scary, eh?
Join in the discussion. Here you'll see the comments in the order they were posted.
So dcsoccer25, you have a militia in your home?
And one of two things will happen to you dcsoccer25, you'll either end up dead or spend the rest of your life in jail for shooting an FCC official.
What else is new?.........that is exactly what Socialist/Facist Governments do. I run a way from one of those type of Government's in 1969, ONLY to get "stuck" in another one (still better than the one I left behind). If you just realize that your freedome is on the way out,....well.....you late; that's being goin on (that I know) since 1996....Get use to it. It is "here" and probably is here to stay. Good Luck
dcsoccer25 is correct the previous administration already broke the law with its listen to all calls servers abusing the Patriot act. FOR THE PEOPLE BY THE PEOPLE.
Just another example of practice versus intent and the fact is there is NO reason what so ever for any agency to enter without a warrant as a matter of FACT they have the equipment to monitor ALL transmissions and determine whether or not those transmissions are interfering with other bandwidths WITHOUT entering your home and THAT IS protected under the constitution for both parties and to use that particular section even the FCC has to have "Probable Cause" BEFORE they enter the premises, band width infringement IS "Probable Cause" and a warrant should be easy to obtain EXCEPT in the presence of Criminal Activity or direct eminent threat to National Security ~Nemo~
This is immoral. Warrants should be required no matter what. I honestly would have no problem with someone shooting an FCC employee because they violated basic human rights. This is coming from a Democrat... who believes that common sense is better than a set of rules that are applied to everyone regardless of the situation. So, although there MIGHT be situations where a warrant isn't warranted... sigh... such as during a hostage situation or with someone known to have a nuke under their bed (or at least I think they shouldn't need warrants)... in this case it is obvious that warrants are needed to protect innocent people's basic human rights. Sigh.
I have nothing to hide, so why would I care if the government searches my Wi-Fi, or any digital footprint? As long as there is no crime committed, they certainly don't care what your life is about. If you have something to hide, then perhaps it is not a bad idea that you are a target for search and seizure.
@ neverbl803 because i dont want some hacker piggybacking their systems and looking through all my files
If that is so, then they can find out who shot that young 21 year old girl celebrating her birthday in the Gas Lamp Quarter. So many people were taking cell phone video and pics of the shooting outside that club and authorities are asking peeps to step forward. Why don't they just take what they need if this is the truth and they can do it. No is coming forth to help police
1 Posted by dcsoccer25 on Tue May 26, 2009 2:41PM EDT Report Abuse
Well the Fourth Amendment guards against unlawful search and seizure. That means no warrant, no search, period. They can have all the regulations and policies contrary to that they want but let me tell you this, in my house the Fourth Amendment is defended by the Second Amendment.