My Apology to the Group

[evergreenwaterman]

It is important that we all recognize and appreciate the signifcant risks inherant for those who serve and protect us on a daily basis. My posting of important communication information regarding the Jeffco incident tonight was not only inappropriate, but lacked a sense of security for the situation. I apologize for that....Dave

 

[SCPD]

Why are you apologizing? You did nothing wrong. You were not the one that the police were after. You were not the reason why the swat team was called out. You didn't put any police in harms way. I read the thread and you did nothing wrong. You just stated what was going on and other people busted your balls for that.
To Scan-Denver you asked you to edit out the talkgroup maybe you should do the same. Saying this is why police go to encryption is wrong. Swat channels and other units like swat should be encrypted.
You should not have to apologize because you posted something that was going on and the talkgroup so other people could listen.

 

[DTRS_Master]

Your actions were in poor judgement, but are no less in violation of the Communications Act of 1934 than services such as the Incident Page Network and Mountain NewsNet. Both of these services have individuals, or "dispatchers", listen to scanners and then divulge and/or publish the information that they hear on the scanners via distribution lists that go to 3rd parties via pagers, e-mail, or other text forms of communications. To me, you're not violating any more laws than anyone else is who is participating in a sending or "dispatcher" capacity for the aforementioned services, or any other similar services.

Citation from the Communications Act of 1934, as Amended:
Sec. 705 [47 U.S.C. 605] UNAUTHORIZED PUBLICATION OF COMMUNICATIONS
(a) No person not being authorized by the sender shall intercept any radio communications and divulge or publish existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of such intercepted communication to any person.

http://www.fcc.gov/Reports/1934new.pdf

 

[Thayne]

Yo Masta; Does this mean your slip is showing?
It seems to bother you when people listen to the Colo boondoggle. I would venture a guess that most of us that look at this board are capable of finding a talkgroup if we want. Anybody else will watch the 10:00 news and get the scoop.
If the Bulls want privacy all they do is push the encryption button, (If they paid for it) Whats the difference between IPN, MNN guys and Paula Woodward types? (IMHO, MNN guys are nice and she is a witch)
I guess you are too young to remember "Sky spy standing by" :twisted:

 

[eyes00only]

OK, I'll throw in my opinion. Scanning is no big secret. Every agency knows that they can & ARE being monitored. How do you think the media gets the jump on incidents? The only thing I don't like to see posted in a forum is the location of a "sensitive operation".

Jerry

 

[Thayne]

I totally agree.

 

[evergreenwaterman]

Thanks everyone for the comments...Dave

 

[firescannerbob]

Your actions were in poor judgement, but are no less in violation of the Communications Act of 1934 than services such as the Incident Page Network and Mountain NewsNet. Both of these services have individuals, or "dispatchers", listen to scanners and then divulge and/or publish the information that they hear on the scanners via distribution lists that go to 3rd parties via pagers, e-mail, or other text forms of communications. To me, you're not violating any more laws than anyone else is who is participating in a sending or "dispatcher" capacity for the aforementioned services, or any other similar services.

Citation from the Communications Act of 1934, as Amended:
Sec. 705 [47 U.S.C. 605] UNAUTHORIZED PUBLICATION OF COMMUNICATIONS
(a) No person not being authorized by the sender shall intercept any radio communications and divulge or publish existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of such intercepted communication to any person.

http://www.fcc.gov/Reports/1934new.pdf

Blah, blah blah. With the exception of more recent prohibitions on cell phone monitoring, intercepting pager or data messages, or theft of cable or satellite entertainment, not a single person has been prosecuted under this act. The exceptions I have noted were all for monitoring transmissions in which those transmissions were intended for PAYING (i.e. private) customers. Since we're all taxpayers, and public safety comms and are taxpayer supported, and since those monitoring them are not comitting any other crime, well, good luck prosecuting anyone.

 

[LFRfreak]

Here is my take on this whole thing:

If anyone has looked through the database, there are plenty of SWAT talkgroups listed. Maybe they should be removed from the database. If criminals were browsing through these forums, you can bet your butt that they would go out, buy a scanner, and learn how to use it.

Even if people post information about SWAT operations that doesn't come close to putting SWAT in danger, I can still see why people get disappointed about it. For example, if a newbie thinks that its ok to post information about SWAT incidents, they might post too much information during the next SWAT incident without realizing it.

As far as the whole encryption thing goes, I would hate to see SWAT go encrypted. But I would REALLY hate to see an officer get hurt or injured because they haven't encrypted their communications. SWAT incidents are really cool to listen to, but if SWAT communications need to be encrypted to ensure officer safety, then they should be encrypted.

-LFRfreak

 

[evergreenwaterman]

Ok, feedback from me. The original posting of the incident was bad judgement, given I disclosed the location and talkgroup. That could give the criminal element an advantage, and increase the risk to those responding, although the chances of the subject watching this forum during the incident were likely remote. One lesson is there should not be a trend, or tendancy, by newer folks or veterans of the group, to disclose inappropriate information during, and i repeat, during an incident. Summaries after the incident, and a quick post that something is going on, should be and likely are in the spirit of these forums. Digital trunked scanning is relatively new, and not cheap. Logic tells me that the average criminal may not even own his own computer, but likely is not even aware of how to use one or a digital scanner. More sophisticated criminals...a different story, not to mention those intent on inflicting greater harm on this country as a whole. That is the more significant exposure with this site. For that reason, we should always strive to think before we click the keyboard. Moderators and webmasters of this site hopfully have an increased sense of responsibility to the bigger picture as well...Dave.

 

[hoser147]

You did nothing wrong the media does it every day. Think the Bad guys are into more than sittin around readin RR posts all day............If they were all that inteligent we would all be in it up to our eyeballs............My 2 cents Opps someone got a penny I can borrow? Hoser147

 

[Scan-Denver]

To Scan-Denver you asked you to edit out the talkgroup maybe you should do the same. Saying this is why police go to encryption is wrong. Swat channels and other units like swat should be encrypted.

Good catch ! I realized that later and have taken care of it - thanks for the heads up !

 

[Scan-Denver]

Your actions were in poor judgement, but are no less in violation of the Communications Act of 1934 than services such as the Incident Page Network and Mountain NewsNet. Both of these services have individuals, or "dispatchers", listen to scanners and then divulge and/or publish the information that they hear on the scanners via distribution lists that go to 3rd parties via pagers, e-mail, or other text forms of communications. To me, you're not violating any more laws than anyone else is who is participating in a sending or "dispatcher" capacity for the aforementioned services, or any other similar services.

Citation from the Communications Act of 1934, as Amended:
Sec. 705 [47 U.S.C. 605] UNAUTHORIZED PUBLICATION OF COMMUNICATIONS
(a) No person not being authorized by the sender shall intercept any radio communications and divulge or publish existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of such intercepted communication to any person.

http://www.fcc.gov/Reports/1934new.pdf

When you become an admin or better yet, the owner of RR, then you can dictate what actions members can and cannot take. Until then, why not try to be friendly with everyone instead of pointing out (in your opinion) everyone's mistakes.

 

[BobWeb]

Dave: Thanks. As someone who has an immediate family member involved in law enforcement, I appreciate the way you responded and ceased any further posting. No big deal, we all make mistakes and learn from them. Thanks again.

Thanks also to the rest of the group who removed the TG and location.

 

[BobWeb]

blah, blah, blah

Do you have anything useful to contribute to this forum or do you just come here to shoot your mouth off?

 

[evergreenwaterman]

The thought for the moment.."When everything's coming your way, you're in the wrong lane"....

 

[firescannerbob]

Do you have anything useful to contribute to this forum or do you just come here to shoot your mouth off?

I guess just to shoot my mouth off, jack ass.
Did you miss the message I was responding to?
I see you've made a worthwhile contribution. Have a nice day!

 

[DTRS_Master]

Yo Masta; Does this mean your slip is showing?

*sigh* The simple-minded.

It seems to bother you when people listen to the Colo boondoggle.

Translate this into plain language so that I can respond to it.

I would venture a guess that most of us that look at this board are capable of finding a talkgroup if we want.

I never doubted that anyone could, nor did I say that people couldn't. You seem to think that I believe it is wrong to listen to public safety communications and/or find or post talk groups. I don't. What I believe is wrong is what I outlined as being illegal according to the Communications Act of 1934. In plain and simple english (since I give that courtesy). Whatever else you want to construe from that is on you.

 

[DTRS_Master]

Blah, blah blah. With the exception of more recent prohibitions on cell phone monitoring, intercepting pager or data messages, or theft of cable or satellite entertainment, not a single person has been prosecuted under this act.

Please clarify "not a single person has been prosecuted under this act." Large business entites are prosecuted under the Communications Act of 1934, as Amended all of the time. Now, has anyone been prosecuted for the SECTION of the act I cited? I don't know - but I don't want to find out. Does anyone else?

Since we're all taxpayers, and public safety comms and are taxpayer supported, and since those monitoring them are not comitting any other crime, well, good luck prosecuting anyone.

It's not a crime to listen to it and I never said that it was. It is only a crime when someone divulges the contents of what was heard to a third party. Look in the front few pages of your scanner manual - most, if not all of them have a statement to that effect in there. I don't make the rules, but I do follow them.

 

[firescannerbob]

Please clarify "not a single person has been prosecuted under this act." Large business entites are prosecuted under the Communications Act of 1934, as Amended all of the time. Now, has anyone been prosecuted for the SECTION of the act I cited? I don't know - but I don't want to find out. Does anyone else?



It's not a crime to listen to it and I never said that it was. It is only a crime when someone divulges the contents of what was heard to a third party. Look in the front few pages of your scanner manual - most, if not all of them have a statement to that effect in there. I don't make the rules, but I do follow them.

Well, good job at dodging the questions. I'm sure you know exactly what I was referring to. Obviously you can't back much up.
If incident paging services (I use that term in the generic sense) is such a violation of the act you're referring to, how come the FCC hasn't taken any steps against them? Hmm...
And before you mention BNN, they were prosecuted for intercepting pager and data transmissions, which is a different thing all together.