Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

RIAA-Backed Warrantless Search Bill In California

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the what's-a-few-amendments-among-friends dept.

Government 208

lordvramir writes "If you run a CD or DVD duplication company and you're based in California, you may soon be subject to warrantless searches in order to 'fight piracy.' California Senate Bill 550, introduced by Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Pacoima), has slowly begun making its way through the state legislature as a way to cut down on counterfeit discs, but critics worry that it may open the door to Fourth Amendment violations." This fits in well with other recent moves to neuter the Fourth Amendment.

cancel ×

208 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

riaa backs unconstitutional bill... (3, Funny)

ganjadude (952775) | more than 2 years ago | (#36182184)

and water is wet, details at 11

Democrats back unconstitutional bill... (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36182290)

I thought the Dems were all about personality andshit. Fuck whoever you want in the ass wherever you want using government condems.

So now they want to fuck everyone in the ass with taxes and no warrent searches.

Had enough Change yet?

Re:Democrats back unconstitutional bill... (2)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 2 years ago | (#36182418)

Had enough Change yet?

Change? What change? Everything looks exactly the same as it always has. Just because the left hand blinker has been flashing all this time, the car is still just moseying along straight ahead, obstructing traffic...

Re:Democrats back unconstitutional bill... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36182690)

Yea, to be honest, I think our government is falling apart because your post is a pretty accurate representation of the average intelligence level of American voters.

Re:Democrats back unconstitutional bill... (0)

spidercoz (947220) | more than 2 years ago | (#36182926)

word.

Re:Democrats back unconstitutional bill... (1)

cozzbp (1845636) | more than 2 years ago | (#36183156)

No joke. The last presidential election is a prime example. The best we could do is McCain and Obama? Are you fucking kidding me? They are both asshats IMO.

Re:Democrats back unconstitutional bill... (5, Informative)

obergfellja (947995) | more than 2 years ago | (#36182720)

I thought the Dems were all about personality andshit. Fuck whoever you want in the ass wherever you want using government condems.

So now they want to fuck everyone in the ass with taxes and no warrent searches.

Had enough Change yet?

This is not really a republican or democrat idea but a recent trend of infringement on American's Fourth Amendment. Indiana has recently passed a bill to have warentless searches. If a police officer suspects any "Funny business" of any sort, they can intrude without a warent. This is fine and dandy when an actual crime is happening, but they can do it at any time, and if you resist in Indiana, you can be arrested for impeding an officer's investigation. If you attack an officer while he/she barges in because you are trying to protect your property, you will be charged with Assault of an Officer (which is a federal crime). It has passed in Indiana, and it is has set forth for similar laws in Texas, California, and anyone else. If someone suspects that you are doing something bad or wrong, they can call the cops and infringe on your fourth amendment.

This is a recent bill passed in indy, so it can be overturned if it is taken to to the feds, but hasn't yet.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110518/17015914326/what-4th-amendment-indiana-sheriff-says-random-warrantless-house-to-house-searches-are-okay.shtml [techdirt.com]

Democrats^H^H^H statists back unconst. bill (5, Insightful)

fnj (64210) | more than 2 years ago | (#36182900)

You're right; this is not Democrat vs Republican. It is statist vs libertarian.

If there was EVER any definable difference between Democrat and Republican, it has been gone for a LONG time. To SOME degree there is a remnant of liberal (D) vs conservative (R) difference, but even that is obsolete thinking. It is about the other orthogonal axis. It is about the lure of power vs a willingness to LEAVE THE HELL ALONE. It is about caving in to faceless demonic corporations vs seeing to the rights of the people. It is about tilting at windmills: war on drugs, war on terrorism, war on copyright "infringement."

Re:Democrats^H^H^H statists back unconst. bill (1)

obergfellja (947995) | more than 2 years ago | (#36182984)

or even "War on Prices" for a much more humorous level in the corporate world.

Re:Democrats back unconstitutional bill... (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36183030)

Posting anonymously for reasons that should be obvious.

When I heard about that bill my first thought was its time to get violent. That is so fucking outrageous, so blatant, so "fuck you citizens" that I have to believe the only way to save this country is through violence. Supreme Court rulings where you are criminally responsible for any self defense during a SWAT raid on the wrong address, court rulings saying the smell of marijuana is enough to bust down somebody's door, the whole war on drugs, the TSA, prosecuting people taping their traffic stops under wire tapping laws when the government itself performs warrantless wiretaps. They're all ridiculous, they're not getting better, and it doesn't matter who we vote in. Never forget that the citizens are the highest authority, and these disgusting pieces of filth are the real criminals. Kill them before they kill you.

Re:Democrats back unconstitutional bill... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36183118)

Blah blah blah. Put up or STFU.

Re:Democrats back unconstitutional bill... (2)

obergfellja (947995) | more than 2 years ago | (#36183154)

Don't get me wrong, I will respect a cop, if he respects me and my space, but Indiana has had a bad track record of corrupt cops in the past 18 months alone. This alone is making me look at the law as a full on war on personal rights. I have my weapons (second amendment) ready for this. I have been the type to oppose guns or any weapons, but as this was handed down, I am now seeing a real reason for the Second amendment and I will do whatever it takes to protect myself and all who are in my home from any invaders, domestic or foreign.

The US military, when they sign up, they sign up to protect the citizens and uphold the constitution from Foreign and Domestic threats. We need them to help us now, more than ever.

What the hell? (1)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 2 years ago | (#36182200)

Is this international kill the 4th amendment week in the US???

WTF...the Supreme court makes a horrible decision with regard to warrant-less searches.

I believe it was Indiana that just made warrantless searches ok, and you can't defend yourself against them...and now this??

Geez...the police state is gathering steam MUCH faster than I'd expected.

Re:What the hell? (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 2 years ago | (#36182268)

Sounds like a national celebration, rather than international.

What a joke. Is it legal to shoot someone doing a warrantless search? Methinks it should be. If you're going to have guns floating around, might as well put them to good use.

Re:What the hell? (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#36182374)

To be honest, I suspect that it is. If the police don't have a warrant, then how exactly is the home owner to know that it's a search rather than burglary. Any police officer can flash a badge, but without a warrant there's no way of knowing the difference between a legitimate action and one that's criminal in nature.

Re:What the hell? (5, Informative)

Seumas (6865) | more than 2 years ago | (#36182688)

Just google "cops warrant wrong house" for an endless flood of no-knock warrant stories where cops broke down the door of the wrong house. They often end with an innocent citizen (of course, until convicted, aren't they ALL innocent?) being shot or even killed or with a home owner defending themselves against the home invasion by shooting the police (which never works out well for the victim).

http://www.google.com/search?q=cops+warrant+wrong+house [google.com]

Re:What the hell? (2)

Seumas (6865) | more than 2 years ago | (#36182654)

Depends who that someone is. If you're the one having your home or business invaded, then yes, it's almost certainly okay to shoot you. In fact, it has happened before without any discipline of the shooter. Just "part of the job". Even when the warrant was served on the wrong fucking place and person. However, if you're the one being searched and a bunch of armed guys storm into your home in the middle of the night and your initial response is to grab a weapon and defend yourself - you'll probably be killed in return. Or at least imprisoned. Even if you are an innocent person and the warrant was served (as seems to happen often) on the wrong address (say, the cops go to 1131 W. Broadway when the address is supposed to be 1311 W Broadway).

I still fail to see how this is a criminal issue. Why are government resources being used to enforce and police what should be civil matters? If you and I sign a contract and you violate that contract, can I send the police (or the FBI or other armed squad of gestapo) to exact retribution on you?

Re:What the hell? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36182340)

This is what happens when people vote in leaders who feel that we are subjects, and not citizens. They feel that anything in the name of the interest of the state outweighs personal rights. The reason that the Constitution says our rights are granted by God is so that people don't think it is the government that grants us our rights.... because if the government gives, then the government can take away. If we allow this trampling of our rights to continue, those in power are just going to continue to try to gain more power (power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely). You just wait until they start deeming protests and speaking out against the government as "threats to national security", and start grossly curtailing freedom of speech.

Well underway (1)

tekrat (242117) | more than 2 years ago | (#36182474)

Protests are *already* threats to national security.

Remember Dubya's "free speech zones" that were a mile or more from where he was giving a speech, and the protesters were herded into these areas, nowhere near the media or the president?

Or how the FBI infiltrates even the most innocuous groups that band together to discuss freedoms, rights, and how badly run the government is?

And it doesn't matter which "team" they are playing for, all politicians are about power and money. They are all in the pockets of big corps.

Re:Well underway (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36182980)

Republicans and Democrats alike had free speech zones.

Re:Well underway (1)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 2 years ago | (#36183082)

Remember Dubya's "free speech zones" that were a mile or more from where he was giving a speech, and the protesters were herded into these areas, nowhere near the media or the president?

Is Obama continuing these same free speech zones wherever he speaks?

Re:What the hell? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36182578)

The reason that the Constitution says our rights are granted by God

Where does it say that? At least read it for crying out loud.

Re:What the hell? (2, Informative)

querist (97166) | more than 2 years ago | (#36183050)

The idea is in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. First line of the second paragraph: "... that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, ... " (http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/)

Re:What the hell? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36183066)

He meant the Declaration of Independence. And the rights he talks about are inherent, aka Lockean natural rights. Natural rights have been called God given rights as well by some.

Re:What the hell? (3, Informative)

Seumas (6865) | more than 2 years ago | (#36182792)

Where is this list of politicians who don't feel that their constituency is just a power pool to fuel their own personal selfish motivations and goals?

Also, where is the statement in the Constitution that says rights are granted by this "God" fellow? The closest I'm aware of is all men being created equal, endowed by their creator (where creator is clearly intentionally open and vague to be interpreted by each individual as is appropriate to them - including sensibly metaphorically).

Also, it is false to say that our "rights" are somehow granted by a mythological sky-person. The fact is that they ARE granted by the government. In the days when Kings owned all the land and you were allowed to live and toil on their land, you were subject to their whims. Today, you are subject to the government's whims. Ostensibly, that means the whims of your fellow man, but in practice it's more of a limited control by aristocracy than "fellow man". At any rate, if you have some inherent right to speak freely and posses a weapon, I suggest you think again. Any right that I feel is a basic right of a human being and that I currently enjoy the freedom to exercise is done so only because the government hasn't taken it away from me. They could come in tomorrow and shut me up and take my gun or even take my life and there isn't a fucking thing I could do about it, because I'm one person and I don't own nukes or tanks or bombs or assault rifles or have a military or an entire court and legal team on my payroll.

Re:What the hell? (5, Insightful)

anegg (1390659) | more than 2 years ago | (#36182890)

Quoting from the inset document in one of the articles, "In the 1920s, legal scholarship began criticizing the right [to resist unlawful entry by a police officer] as valuing individual liberty over physical security of the officers."

At what point in the history of the United States did "legal scholarship" become an authoritative source of law capable of destroying inherent natural rights not granted by the US Constitution but specifically called out as examples of existing rights such as those expressed in the 4th amendment such as "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures..." To say that there is no right to resist an unlawful entry (and arrest) because there are now "after the fact" remedies available that may not have been available to those in the 18th century misses the point that unlawful entry and arrest can be just as effectively used to suppress and intimidate now as it was then. Exercising remedies to get out of jail after an unlawful arrest takes time and money, time spent in jail and fighting an unlawful arrest takes away from time required to earn a living (try missing 2 weeks of work and income - see what happens to your bills and your job), and the stain of the arrest may take a long time to fade, if in fact it ever does.

Without *some* possibility of a negative consequence to an unlawful entry and/or arrest, what is left to hold police back from engaging in whatever related conduct they so choose, so long as they know that their superior officers (who aren't elected officials) won't hold them at fault or punish them?

Re:What the hell? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36182364)

The 4th Amendment has been up against the ropes for at least 30years or so. I guess TPTB are intent to finish it off with a few knockout blows.

Re:What the hell? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36182546)

It's all about making the people subservient to the Government.

Now, ask yourself, what is worse?...big corporations with maketing departments or big government with guns?

Re:What the hell? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36182674)

I'll take "big corporations with marketing departments who control big government with guns" for $1000, Alex.

Re:What the hell? (1)

Seumas (6865) | more than 2 years ago | (#36182818)

The reality we live in is that big corporations with marketing departments largely operate the big government with guns. If you doubt it, look at the employment and lobbying history of any random handful of politicians or cabinet and committee members in the government before and after their time "serving the public".

Re:What the hell? (1)

fnj (64210) | more than 2 years ago | (#36182928)

Is there a difference between the corporations and the American regime any more?

Re:What the hell? (1)

biek (1946790) | more than 2 years ago | (#36182994)

Now, ask yourself, what is worse?...big corporations with private security contractors or big government with guns and also private security contractors?

FTFY

Re:What the hell? (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#36182574)

Is this international kill the 4th amendment week in the US???

Nothing international about it; this is a domestic effort.

Geez...the police state is gathering steam MUCH faster than I'd expected.

Really? It was not all that long ago that the secret service was trying to imprison people who merely possessed a copy of the BellSouth E911 document. During that same period of the time, the Justice Department was trying to sneak back doors into cryptography products (clipper chip), something that they are still pushing for to this day:

http://www.justice.gov/criminal/cybercrime/crypto.html [justice.gov]

Re:What the hell? (4, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#36182742)

The Indiana Supreme Court wrote "We believe however that a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence."

It is abundantly clear that modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence is incompatible with the Fourth Amendment.

Re:What the hell? (1)

sandslash (1997172) | more than 2 years ago | (#36182952)

The end always comes faster than you think.

good idea (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36182210)

You commie slash-dots should love this. Hell, I bet those companies even make a profit, and operate within evil America!

Because what could be more important... (4, Informative)

gestalt_n_pepper (991155) | more than 2 years ago | (#36182252)

than suppressing music and movie piracy? Those individual rights ideas in the constitution that we inherited from the Magna Carta just make that soooooo... difficult.

Excuse me, I have to go wipe up some of that sarcasm that's dripping on the floor here.

Re:Because what could be more important... (2)

Kenja (541830) | more than 2 years ago | (#36182650)

Given that music and movies are about the only thing we as a nation create these days... Only partially kidding is the sad part. Time to cry into my imported mexican Coca-Cola (with actual sugar!).

Re:Because what could be more important... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36182710)

I am sure our elected representatives will squash this. No true American patriot would stand for such an infringement of basic freedom, and all our governers are true American patriots.

Right?

Oh no! my disc replication plant!! (5, Insightful)

bit trollent (824666) | more than 2 years ago | (#36182298)

That's not the most controversial part of the bill, though. SB550 also has provisions that would allow law enforcement to begin inspecting disc replication plants without a warrant in order to verify that they're complying with the law. These inspections must take place during regular business hours, but if officers find equipment that they suspect is being used for non-legit purposes, it can be seized.

I wonder how the summary somehow left out that these warrentless searches are of commercial disc replication plants.

I would assume that all commercial buildings are subject to warrentless searches to enforce various safety and workplace laws...

Anyway, I don't support any degradation of the 4th amendment, but I don't appreciate the deceptive manipulation of large numbers of people who can be counted on to not read the fucking article either.

Re:Oh no! my disc replication plant!! (2)

demonbug (309515) | more than 2 years ago | (#36182412)

That's not the most controversial part of the bill, though. SB550 also has provisions that would allow law enforcement to begin inspecting disc replication plants without a warrant in order to verify that they're complying with the law. These inspections must take place during regular business hours, but if officers find equipment that they suspect is being used for non-legit purposes, it can be seized.

I wonder how the summary somehow left out that these warrentless searches are of commercial disc replication plants.

I would assume that all commercial buildings are subject to warrentless searches to enforce various safety and workplace laws...

Anyway, I don't support any degradation of the 4th amendment, but I don't appreciate the deceptive manipulation of large numbers of people who can be counted on to not read the fucking article either.

Yeah, I was wondering about that too. There are certainly cases where government representatives can conduct unannounced inspections (OSHA, fire marshal, etc.), but in all the cases I know of those are safety-related inspections. There isn't a safety issue at all here, they just want to be able to check and make sure that the unique codes that are apparently required for all media (first I've heard of this...) are actually being imprinted on the media.

Not as evil as the summary/article portrays (it doesn't allow going around to random people and searching them for counterfeit media), but it is very troubling.

That's just it - safety and workplace laws (5, Insightful)

langelgjm (860756) | more than 2 years ago | (#36182470)

I would assume that all commercial buildings are subject to warrentless searches to enforce various safety and workplace laws...

But that's just it - there are exceptions to warrantless searches on grounds such as public safety and worker safety... e.g., health inspections, nursing home inspections, OSHA compliance, etc.

Extending those kinds of warrantless searches to look for potential copyright infringement is not in the same vein. Where is the pressing public necessity that justifies the encroachment on the 4th Amendment? To me, it just sounds like the copyright industries want the taxpayer-funded police to act as their own private security force. What if every industry took that approach? Why not have warrantless searches of research labs in order to make sure there is no patent infringement going on?

Re:That's just it - safety and workplace laws (1)

memnock (466995) | more than 2 years ago | (#36182554)

If they're gonna make it legal to just search a business, I want them to start with the offices of execs in the financial industry. While they're at it, they should install taps on the phones and start monitoring them as well.

Re:That's just it - safety and workplace laws (2)

bit trollent (824666) | more than 2 years ago | (#36182734)

I really doubt that this is the first non-safely related law that has ever been enforce by the police on local business without warrents.

code enforcement [wikipedia.org] is nothing new, and it covers ordinary laws as well as safety.

I hate to see the government doing the RIAA's bidding as much as the next guy, but is this really any different than what the law has been for the last 60+ years? Give me a break.

There is nothing new from a civil liberties standpoint about this law. I don't particularly like this law or anything else with RIAA fingerprints, but the reaction to it here is just absurd.

Re:That's just it - safety and workplace laws (1)

d34thm0nk3y (653414) | more than 2 years ago | (#36183116)

Actually (I work in environmental and safety compliance) a lot of those inspections aren't even truly warrantless. You can deny an inspector access to a private facility and they do have to come back with a warrant. Its just that nobody in their right mind would do so because then the inspector is going to be pissed and assume you are hiding things.

Re:That's just it - safety and workplace laws (1)

Grond (15515) | more than 2 years ago | (#36183146)

But that's just it - there are exceptions to warrantless searches on grounds such as public safety and worker safety... e.g., health inspections, nursing home inspections, OSHA compliance, etc.

Actually, no, the Supreme Court has held that a warrant is required for an OSHA inspection. Marshall v. Barlow's, Inc. [google.com] , 436 US 307 (1978). Warrantless inspections require special circumstances, and the Occupational Safety and Health Act's jurisdiction was simply too broad.

Re:Oh no! my disc replication plant!! (1)

index0 (1868500) | more than 2 years ago | (#36182562)

The summary has the word "company" in it. Learn to read.

Re:Oh no! my disc replication plant!! (2)

leonardluen (211265) | more than 2 years ago | (#36183060)

why does being a "company" suddenly make it ok to break the 4th amendment? all companies are owned by one or more individuals, so it is still private property

Re:Oh no! my disc replication plant!! (5, Informative)

profplump (309017) | more than 2 years ago | (#36182628)

You would assume wrong. Warrants are required to enter commercial property, including workplaces. This applies to OSHA, fire inspections, etc., and has been tested in federal court (Marshall v. Barlow’s, Inc). There are cases where a business must subject itself to an inspection in order to qualify for a license or other certification. But that's the business owner requesting an inspection, not the government demanding one, and a failure to allow the inspection results in a failure to issue the license, not in a mandatory inspection or seizure of property. It works just like electrical inspections in your home -- when you have new work done, you must request an inspection, and a failure to pass an inspection might lead to your property being condemned, but at no point in the process are you required to submit to a search/inspection, and you if you choose to allow one you can prepare for it and limit the scope of the inspection to the relevant portions of your home.

If law enforcement has probable cause to believe that a business is participating in copyright infringement that can *already* get a warrant. No new law is needed to authorize that action. This law would mean that they don't need probable cause and can just come in and hassle legitimate business owners while threatening to seize the equipment necessary for their day-to-day operations, which doesn't sound much like justice to me.

Re:Oh no! my disc replication plant!! (2)

similar_name (1164087) | more than 2 years ago | (#36182658)

I wonder how the summary somehow left out that these warrentless searches are of commercial disc replication plants.

The first line of the summary is.

If you run a CD or DVD duplication company

Just sayin'

Re:Oh no! my disc replication plant!! (2)

fnj (64210) | more than 2 years ago | (#36183026)

[but ... but ...] The first line of the summary is "If you run a CD or DVD duplication company"

Don't go getting all secure feeling there, friend. Do you ever slam out a DVD and hand it to a friend? Guess what. That could be held to be a sole proprietorship providing service in exchange for undefined consideration. Does the friend ever ... gasp ... give you a different DVD back? Maybe you're engaging in ... shudder ... barter. The IRS thinks barter is taxable. And what the IRS thinks, goes. They are also pretty much given a free rein to do whatever they want to seize your resources.

Re:Oh no! my disc replication plant!! (1)

Kohath (38547) | more than 2 years ago | (#36182686)

I wouldn't worry too much. Companies are leaving California pretty fast. This is just another reason to leave. If there are no commercial duplication companies in California, there won't be any warrentless searches.

Re:Oh no! my disc replication plant!! (1)

nicholas22 (1945330) | more than 2 years ago | (#36182876)

I wonder how the summary somehow left out that these warrentless searches are of commercial disc replication plants.

Haven't we seen all these rights given somehow used in the wrong contexts? Such as the spying of people by government officers for petty reasons?

Re:Oh no! my disc replication plant!! (1)

billcopc (196330) | more than 2 years ago | (#36183002)

The problem here, and by extension the problem with all MAFIAA activity, is that they are misusing publicly funded law enforcement resources to push a corporate, profit-driven agenda.

Murder, larceny, rape. These are criminal offenses.

Copyright infringement is a CIVIL issue. The police has no business mediating such affairs. If the RIAA wants to fight the fight, they must do so using civil courts. Law enforcement officials have better things to worry about, like all the murder, larceny, and rape going on.

Re:Oh no! my disc replication plant!! (2)

anegg (1390659) | more than 2 years ago | (#36183052)

Be sure to read the second referenced article about the Indiana Supreme Court decision before condemning those folks protesting most vociferously at the legal jurisprudence here. SB 550 may be warrantless searches of commercial facilities, but the Indiana decision is all about you and your home.

I'm also surprised that people might be in favor of permitting police to inspect the disc replication plants even if they are commercial businesses. A business premise is private property and the property owner has rights accordingly. The police have not, in the past, been generally permitted to enter any private property, business or not, without a warrant. This seemingly paves the way for future legislation that allows police to be able to enter any business premise for the purpose of determining whether a violation of law is occurring. That is specifically the kind of "fishing expedition" that the requiring a warrant is supposed to deter. How about the police being able to enter into your factory to make sure that none of your workers are stealing from you, whether you want them there or not, without a warrant? How about the police being able to enter your office building and look through your books to make sure you are reporting all of your revenue properly for tax purposes, without a warrant?

In other words, what principle separates the police action being permitted by SB 550 from any other such "inspection" action that might be undertaken by policy to ensure a law, some law, any law - is not being broken? If there is no such delineating principle, when what exactly was the intent of the framer's of the US Constitution when they added in the 4th Amendment?

RIAA in my pants (1)

slashpot (11017) | more than 2 years ago | (#36182312)

I got RIAA in my pants.

Oligarchy, here we come ... (1, Insightful)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 2 years ago | (#36182348)

Once you reach the point where the police forces are there to enforce the rights and whims of corporations, you might as well accept the fact that you're no longer a democracy.

A lot of these things used to be civil law, but now all of a sudden we're using tax-payer funded agencies to police on behalf of copyright holders.

If people were astonished to realize that the FBI spends most of its cybercrime resources of child pornography ... wait until traditional police forces and government agencies are spending much of their time policing copyright.

This will only get worse.

Moving out (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36182354)

So guess those companies will be leaving California and probably the US altogether.

Montana (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36182356)

This sort of thing has been going on for a while. I vaguely recall hearing a few years ago that Montana had a law on the books that made it a crime to resist the police when they tried to do warrantless searches. Someone else might have details.

It's a pretty ingenious way around the unconstitutionality of these searches, too. If you resist, the results of the search will ultimately not be usable, but you'll be arrested and convicted, so it's in your best interest to not resist. And if you don't resist... well, you've just consented to the police searching your house, so whatever the search turns up WILL be usable.

A pretty ingenious way to get around the 4th amendment in practice, indeed. I wonder if SCOTUS ever ruled on the whole thing - although I'll bet clowns like Scalia would claim that it does not technically violate the letter of the law and thus is OK, as usual.

Business as usual in CA (1)

geekforhire (300937) | more than 2 years ago | (#36182372)

Reps in our fine state tend to pass laws to look good for their constituents knowing that it wont stand up to the legal challenge...assuming a group or person will bring a lawsuit of course. This makes oh so much sense for a state without a dime to its name. Passing stupid and unconstitutional laws is cheap, getting them repealed is very expensive for both the state and its citizens. Watching the state senate at work via stream is about the most painful thing you can do, especially as you write your yearly tax check. Keep up the good work!

Re:Business as usual in CA (2)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#36182712)

That tends to be how that works. Unfortunately the people voting on those bills have forgotten that they're supposed to be voting in good faith about the legislation, not counting on the courts to overturn unconstitutional legislation. In recent years the courts have taken a disturbingly deferential view on their jobs. Largely because of all the right wing nut jobs screaming their heads off whenever SCOTUS or the judicial branch in general overturns a law that they like.

Which would be comical if it didn't mean that they feel it's OK to challenge healthcare reform, the one that made it through congress and was signed by the President is suddenly a valid use of the judicial system.

This is one of the few that is legal and 'right' (1)

LetterRip (30937) | more than 2 years ago | (#36182386)

Businesses are not people, they don't have any rights against warrantless search.

This is one of the few times on this type of issue where the government isn't overreaching and violating the constitution.

We also already have inspections of other industrys for illegal practices (food industrys, chemical industrys, etc.) So why should replication businesses have any special status.

Re:This is one of the few that is legal and 'right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36182476)

and they make evil profits within evil Americas borders

Re:This is one of the few that is legal and 'right (3, Insightful)

Applekid (993327) | more than 2 years ago | (#36182514)

Businesses are not people, they don't have any rights against warrantless search.

This is one of the few times on this type of issue where the government isn't overreaching and violating the constitution.

We also already have inspections of other industrys for illegal practices (food industrys, chemical industrys, etc.) So why should replication businesses have any special status.

Because illegal practices in those other industries can lead to mass death and loss of life. Tainted food could kill consumers, unsafe chemical plants can explode and leave a city sized crater.

Who dies if the copyright cops have to wait to get a warrant as opposed to not getting one?

Re:This is one of the few that is legal and 'right (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 2 years ago | (#36182682)

Who dies if the copyright cops have to wait to get a warrant as opposed to not getting one?

Kittens, and corporate profits.

You don't want to kill kittens, do you?

Re:This is one of the few that is legal and 'right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36182778)

The riaa boss's families might go hungry and starve

Re:This is one of the few that is legal and 'right (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | more than 2 years ago | (#36182612)

Businesses are generally PRIVATE property owned by CITIZENS. Inspections for safety are in the public's interest, it makes sense and even then they cant just barge into sensitive and trade secret areas on a whim. No one from OSHA could force their way into a building through use of force or violence. Police action fishing for copyright compliance is not the same thing at all. Do i really need to write out a long post to explain the difference between safety regulations and criminal law enforcement in a free society?

Re:This is one of the few that is legal and 'right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36182752)

Just one small point. It's not criminal law, it's civil law.

Re:This is one of the few that is legal and 'right (5, Informative)

Grond (15515) | more than 2 years ago | (#36183096)

Businesses are not people, they don't have any rights against warrantless search.

This is completely false. "The Court long has recognized that the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is applicable to commercial premises, as well as to private homes. An owner or operator of a business thus has an expectation of privacy in commercial property, which society is prepared to consider to be reasonable." New York v. Burger, 482 US 691, 699 (1987).

Re:This is one of the few that is legal and 'right (1)

anegg (1390659) | more than 2 years ago | (#36183106)

Businesses are owned by people. The property of a business is private property. Government cannot enter upon private property without a warrant. All of the inspections that you mention require arrangements for inspection, some with penalties if the inspections are denied, but all require some kind of process surrounding the inspection. Not a blanket permit for the police(!) to walk through the business looking for violations of law.

This is clearly a job for ... (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 2 years ago | (#36182416)

Ninja Stallman! [xkcd.com]

But seriously, if this passes and is enforced, then we might as well accept that we're now a fascist state according to Mussolini's definition of it.

Re:This is clearly a job for ... (1)

fnj (64210) | more than 2 years ago | (#36183046)

Ya think? You're catching on.

Repeat after me: (0)

isotope23 (210590) | more than 2 years ago | (#36182426)

There is no slippery slope.
There is no slippery slope.
There is no slippery slope.

We have always been at war with East Asia
We have always been at war with East Asia
We have always been at war with East Asia

So..apparently.. (0)

SuperCharlie (1068072) | more than 2 years ago | (#36182452)

It only takes a couple hundred years to go from tyranny to freedom and then back to tyranny.

Re:So..apparently.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36182630)

Our forefathers banded together and killed the king's men to win their freedom.

We're apparently not willing to kill the oligarchy's men to keep our freedom, today. I wonder if that will change at some point.

Re:So..apparently.. (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#36182762)

The problem is that there are a lot of people out there that think this is an appropriate use of governmental power, and will be more likely to vote for the politicians who support it. Ultimately, there is no protection available that can protect us from ourselves in a democratic society.

Maybe Constitutional, Maybe Not (5, Informative)

Grond (15515) | more than 2 years ago | (#36182520)

For decades the Supreme Court has recognized the constitutionality of warrantless administrative inspections of closely regulated businesses with a long tradition of close government supervision. "Certain industries have such a history of government oversight that no reasonable expectation of privacy could exist for a proprietor over the stock of such an enterprise." Marshall v. Barlow's, Inc., 436 U.S. 307, 313 (1978). This has come to be called the Colonnade-Biswell doctrine, after the cases of Colonnade Corp. v. United States and United States v. Biswell. Industries in which warrantless searches have been approved include pawn shops that sell firearms (the Biswell case), liquor stores (the Colonnade case), quarries, and automobile junkyards.

However, even if warrantless searches of CD duplication businesses are allowable as a threshold matter, there are still three important limits on those searches. First, there must be a substantial government interest that informs the regulatory scheme pursuant to which the inspection is made. Second, the warrantless inspections must be necessary to further the regulatory scheme. Third, the statute's inspection program, in terms of the certainty and regularity of its application, must provide a constitutionally adequate substitute for a warrant. In other words, the regulatory statute must perform the two basic functions of a warrant: it must advise the owner of the commercial premises that the search is being made pursuant to the law and has a properly defined scope, and it must limit the discretion of the inspecting officers. See New York v. Burger, 482 US 691, 702-03 (1987).

Here, it's not clear to me that CD duplication businesses are closely regulated businesses with a tradition of close government supervision. It's possible that the copyright laws (particularly the criminal copyright laws) amount to such regulation, but in my opinion it would be a close case. In most cases there is some kind of government licensing regime, and I don't think a license is required to operate a CD duplicating business. But it's important to note the limits on those searches that would still be in place even if they are allowed.

Re:Maybe Constitutional, Maybe Not (0)

jcr (53032) | more than 2 years ago | (#36182614)

For decades the Supreme Court has recognized the constitutionality of warrantless administrative inspections

I'd phrase that a bit differently. More like: "for decades, the supreme court has routinely shirked its duty to uphold the constitution, by allowing obviously illegal searches to take place without repercussions to the government agents who are violating the fourth amendment rights of business owners."

-jcr

Re:Maybe Constitutional, Maybe Not (4, Insightful)

Grond (15515) | more than 2 years ago | (#36183038)

My purpose was to inform people about the law as it is, not to argue what the law should be or curse the Court for making the law what it is. Polemics don't help anybody understand whether this law is likely to be upheld or not.

Re:Maybe Constitutional, Maybe Not (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | more than 2 years ago | (#36183010)

But they can't inspect the federal reserve, a private company, even if they DO have a warrant. Explain that one to me.

Hello, Nevada. (1)

jcr (53032) | more than 2 years ago | (#36182522)

If I operated a business of this kind in California, I'd relocate it to Reno or Vegas in a week. No more unconstitutional searches, and no corporate income tax to boot.

-jcr

Congress Shall Pass No Law.... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36182570)

What part of that do they not understand?

So what exactly is it going to take (1)

spidercoz (947220) | more than 2 years ago | (#36182588)

for the people of this once great country to finally stand up for themselves and assert the power they've always had?

"Stand up for my rights? I'd rather sit down and watch American Idol."

Re:So what exactly is it going to take (1)

fnj (64210) | more than 2 years ago | (#36183068)

Let's just say, I wouldn't hold my breath. Never underestimate the stupidity of the voters. There's a sucker born every minute.

Somebody is knocking my door... (1)

Pirulo (621010) | more than 2 years ago | (#36182594)

... it seems I have  a CD burner in my laptop and can be used to manufacture CDs

Government should fear it's citizens. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36182604)

Lobbyists and corporate owners should be real careful with what they are doing. If you strip enough rights away from citizens and piss off enough people, they will stand up in revolt. I don't give a shit what words are on your piece of paper or what you paid an old fat man on a bench to say. There are more of us than you, even cops and servicemen are citizens. What effects us effects them too, so good luck enforcing it.

Re:Government should fear it's citizens. (1)

spidercoz (947220) | more than 2 years ago | (#36182860)

When? The rights of the citizens of this country, right now, are being trampled by OUR OWN GOVERNMENT far more than the crown was accused of doing 235 years ago. What is it going to take?

Back-ups (1)

Trivial Solutions (1724416) | more than 2 years ago | (#36182608)

I buy 400 CDs a year, all at once, for back-ups. They're cheap. You cannot be a professional in the computer industry if you haven't addressed backing-up regularly. My back-ups serve the same role as source-code control, too.

Re:Back-ups (1)

omnichad (1198475) | more than 2 years ago | (#36182922)

Isn't a 300GB SATA drive cheaper than 400 CD's?

Eh? (1)

CyberGarp (242942) | more than 2 years ago | (#36182626)

So, my car was broken into last night. The thief, ate my crackers, took the $2 in meter change, and left the 20 CD's stacked there. So the RIAA is pursuing CD duplication? Not even petty thieves see it worth their effort to steal them at this point. This is so anachronistic it proves how little they understand their own market.

Malatesta (1)

chemindefer (707238) | more than 2 years ago | (#36182764)

"The enemy is not he who is born beyond our borders, nor he who speaks a language different from our own, but he who, without any right, seeks to strip away the liberty and independence of others." --Enrico Malatesta

So how long will it be... (1)

MoldySpore (1280634) | more than 2 years ago | (#36182830)

...before people finally figure out that their basic civil liberties are being eroded? Why are there not marches on Washington over things like this? Has America become so lazy, stupid, and nonchalant that we are going to let this happen? I live in NY, and work with the police everyday at my job. If they tried to come into my house without a warrant, I sure as hell wouldn't let that happen. And I sure as hell wouldn't let it be ok and just go about my business like nothing wrong just happened if they did somehow come in.

The more news I read lately, the more depressed I get about America.

Re:So how long will it be... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36183110)

Why are there not marches on Washington over things like this?

Because people are too busy working and afraid of losing their jobs after getting arrested or put on a nofly list if they revolt.


I sure as hell wouldn't let that happen.

Then you would probably simply be arrested and charged with disrupting justice and some kind of contempt.


You can't win.

holding music hostage terrifying at least (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36182834)

until there's music in the air at all times, there's censorialism.

no wonder it's to be decreed this day that the god given chosen ones' holycost must be extendead until at least 2025, because of our fear, & the # of us, which both are big. disarmament is catching on all over the globe. so we'll clearly be at some advantage, & the rest of the world will continue to bow down, suck up, & just re-fear us in general. it worked for us until it didn't, now it's not our fault if a lot more death & destruction is done because THEY won't listen/give us their resources, even though we need them to keep the dream a lie for another day. when self-importants of our guys get nailed, it's ALWAYS 'former' head..., alleged, unproven blah blah blah. innocent until ,,, unless. terrorific example of regimes run amok.

still waiting? more stand-up talknician routines. more threatening now? will the FSF guys be arrested for sex crimes too? julians, adrians, everybody's at risk, of being arrested, or worse. scary? 13 year old tagged by ss.gov at school for unapproved tweeting. so we're safe from him now. the key to the bells & whistles of just one city is way too much trust to put in one human. our/our planet's fate however, is different?

same old; how many 1000 babys going up in smoke again today? how many 1000's of just folks to be killed or displaced again today? hard to put $$ on that. the cost of constant deception, to our spirit? paying to have ourselves constantly spied on & lied to by freaky self chosen neogod depopulationers? the biblically styled fatal distraction holycost is all encompassing, & never ends while we're still alive, unless we cut them/ourselves off at the wmd. good luck with that, as it's not even a topic anywhere we get to see, although in real life it's happening everywhere as our walking dead weapons peddlers are being uncontracted. you can call this weather if it makes you feel any better. no? read the teepeeleaks etchings.

so, once one lie is 'infactated', the rest becomes just more errant fatal history.

disarm. tell the truth. the sky is not ours to toy with after all?

you call this 'weather'? what with real history racing up to correct
itself, while the chosen one's holycostal life0cider mediots continually
attempt to rewrite it, fortunately, there's still only one version of the
truth, & it's usually not a long story, or a confusing multiple choice
fear raising event.

wouldn't this be a great time to investigate the genuine native elders social & political leadership initiative, which includes genuine history as put forth in the teepeeleaks etchings. the natives still have no words in their language to describe the events following their 'discovery' by us, way back when. they do advise that it's happening again.

who has all the weapons? who is doing MOST of the damage? what are the motives? are our intentions & will as the ones who are supposed to be being represented honestly & accurately, being met? we have no reference to there being ANY public approval for the current mayhem & madness pr firm regime style self chosen neogod rulership we've allowed to develop around us, so we wouldn't have to stop having fun, & doing things that have nothing to do with having to defend from the smoke&mirrors domestic frenetics, of the unproven genocides. rockets exploding in syria fired from Libya? yikes?

the zeus weather weapon is still being used indiscriminately against the population, our rulers' minions are fleeing under fire.

the whore of babylon has been rescued by the native elders. she has the papers of challenge authored by the hymenical council, & is cooperating wholeheartedly with the disarmament mandate.
disarm. thank you.

censorship, or convenience?
Due to excessive bad posting from this IP or Subnet, anonymous comment
posting has temporarily been disabled. You can still login to post.
However, if bad posting continues from your IP or Subnet that privilege
could be revoked as well. If it's you, consider this a chance to sit in
the timeout corner or login and improve your posting. If it's someone
else, this is a chance to hunt them down. If you think this is bogus, you are right moderation@slashdot.org with your MD5'd IPID and SubnetID, (which have been maliciously edited from time to time for effect by /.censory)
which are always changing, you butthead

can't stop the spirit when it moves.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36182950)

lyrics like that can cause trouble. after the disarmament things will be different/better, as in not afraid

Is a PC with a DVD recorder is an Unlicensed plant (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36182898)

Now the state has the authority to do a hardware refresh just by confiscating yours. Can I forgo the burner on my next PC.

FUD (1)

jklovanc (1603149) | more than 2 years ago | (#36182974)

Does a health inspector need a warrant to search a restaurant or food plant?
Does a BATF inspector need a warrant to search a distillery?
Does a safety inspector need a warrant to search a manufacturing plant?
In all these cases the answer is no. They can freely inspect commercial establishments to ensure the companies are following the law.

Equating this to random searches of houses is FUD. A random search of a private residence is against the Fourth Amendment. The statement by a couple of Sheriffs in Indiana, refuted by their Attorney General, is not evidence that random house to house searches are considered legal. It has never been tested in court and would in all likelihood be thrown out.

The Supreme Court case is also different in the following ways;
1. The police were in pursuit of a drug suspect.
2. The apartment smelled of drugs. A police officer made the connection between the drug suspect and the smell of drugs.
3. They knocked on the door identifying themselves as they are probably required to do.
4. They heard something that sounded like destruction of evidence (an illegal act).
5. They went in.

Should they have waited a half hour for a warrant while the suspect was in another apartment or getting away through another exit? Would they have enough manpower to cordon off every apartment that smelled of drugs? The stupid part about all this is that had the occupants been smart and just sat there the police would have had no "exigent circumstances" with which to enter. Another solution would have been for someone to come to the door and ask for a warrant. In this case the police are attempting to capture a suspected drug dealer in possession of illegal drugs and they had every indication that someone was attempting to destroy the evidence that were looking for. It is not a random search. That ruling is nowhere near as broad as the article is trying to make it.

CD's and DVD's? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36183092)

Does anyone still use those?

Solved it all, huh? (1)

EvilStein (414640) | more than 2 years ago | (#36183108)

It's so nice to see that California has solved its multi billion dollar budget shortfall and has plenty of time to craft bullshit legislation that is obviously a gimme to the MPAA/RIAA drones that are stuffing their pockets with cash.

Schools are funded, everyone has a job, housing market is stable, health care system is awesome. Right? Nope. But hey, we need to allow no-knock warrants where someone might be committing the heinous act of burning a bunch of DVDs. Clearly that is worthy of felony charges and huge fines. The MPAA & RIAA sure think so.

Hopefully the rest of America doesn't. But Feinstein got her "recording device in theater = felony" bill signed into law. Stuff like this slips right under the radar of the average American, especially when "American Idol" is about to finish up another season. Ugh.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>