Washington Wants 10,000 Web Surfers 147
crimeandpunishment writes "This one sounds too good to be true: surf the Web, and you'll be helping the government. The FCC is looking for 10,000 volunteers to take part in a study to determine if broadband providers are really providing Internet connections that are as fast as advertised. The broad look at broadband will involve special equipment installed in homes across the country to measure Internet connections and compare them to advertised speeds." Here's where to go to apply.
As Admiral Ackbar says... (Score:3, Interesting)
As a consumer... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:The Government? (Score:4, Interesting)
And once the telcos get a box to play with? (Score:1, Interesting)
Let's assume that there are bandwidth shenanigans going on. What do you think is going to happen here?
1) FCC sends out boxes
2) ISPs put a high bounty on finding a box-recipient to cooperate with their engineers for testing
3) ISPs use what they learn to identify every box-recipient via the boxes' reporting data back to the central server
4) All box-recipients get double speed broadband, to the detriment of everyone else.
When the plan is that obvious, it really makes you question the FCC that much more in this. What do they honestly expect to happen? And wait, doesn't the government already have the capability to monitor the Internet at a much more fundamental, back-bone-esque level? Isn't there some way they could measure this from there?
But then, why would they send the boxes out, if they could just monitor our traffic from that same level?
When you realize that there is NO WAY the ISPs wouldn't cheat the distributed-box system if they were already cheating on bandwidth, this whole thing really makes no sense at all.
Re:As Admiral Ackbar says... (Score:2, Interesting)
You don't think the major ISP's have the ability to prioritize traffic to specific locations. Methinks consumers will happen to get much better throughput to this website than they will get to most others...
Re:The Government? (Score:3, Interesting)
Nope, you don't dispose of anything, because as you indicated, you'll be busted for tampering with evidence.
Tell them "Not without a warrant, and I'm not talking without my lawyer", go inside, pour yourself a nice cold (non-alcoholic) drink. Then go sit on the porch smile and wait for your lawyer to arrive and for the judge to say no to the warrant because they didn't have just cause for the search in the first place. If they had cause in the first place, they wouldn't have tried to search without a warrant.
With your lawyer present, they'll have to stick with the letter of the law. Make sure they do everything as required. If your state requires, upon request, that they read every word of the warrant to you before searching, make them read it.
This doesn't make it so you were avoiding the law. It doesn't make you look guilty. With your lawyer present, you were following the letter of the law for your own protection. So what if they take your shovel, duct tape, rope, and hand tools? If they can't directly tie your property to the crime scene, it's circumstantial, and will be argued so by your lawyer.
If you're innocent, it will only serve to help you. You were protecting your rights as a citizen of the United States of America. If you are guilty, well, you do deserve to get caught, and it will only show that they did everything correctly.
Years ago, a friend of mine had the police show up wanting to search the house. It was the morning after a big party. Guests were still sleeping around the house. He required them to follow the law to the letter (including reading the warrant out loud before entering). They did manage to get a judge to sign off on the probable cause warrant, but they didn't find anything related to the warrant. They tried to ask party guests who they were, which was generally followed by a hung over "Fuck you. I'm sleeping. Go away." They tried a few other times, which met with the same result. In reality, what they were trying to find simply didn't exist there.
You never have to take police harassment laying down. Make them do their jobs properly, and you've created a nice long paper trail of the abuse. When you go to sue the police for harassment, you can now show a half dozen searches that didn't find any evidence. Now you go from being the defendant to being the plaintiff. Always take down names, badge numbers, get a copy of the warrant(s), and take notes of what they do. The police use their notes in court, and you should too.
I've had the police want to search my car without a warrant. I've told them, "I'd prefer if you don't, but if you feel you must you could obtain a warrant. It's ok, I'll wait." I've never had them get a warrant. The warrant still has to be specific to what they're looking for. If they get a warrant for "illegal drugs and paraphernalia", and they find something else, it's not admissible as evidence. Of course, if they find a bloody knife, they can obtain another warrant which will likely be expanded to include your residence and surrounding property.
(IANAL, and your jurisdiction may be different. Talk to a defense lawyer where you live for jurisdiction appropriate advice.)