RadioReference on Facebook   RadioReference on Twitter   RadioReference Blog
 

Go Back   The RadioReference.com Forums > Announcements and News > Community Announcements and News

Community Announcements and News Announcements and News of interest to the RadioReference.com Community. All new threads posted here will be moderated by the administrators. Members are encouraged to post news and information here for the community.

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 07-16-2009, 1:37 PM
blantonl's Avatar
Founder and CEO
  Shack Photos
Shack photos
RadioReference Database Admininstrator
Database Admin
Audio Feed Provider
Audio Feed Provider
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 8,260
Default RadioReference receives a letter demanding removal of Mobile Relay Associates SMR

On July 15th 2009, RadioReference.com LLC received letter on behalf of Mobile Relay Associates ("MRA"), from David J. Kaufman (Rini Coran, PC Law Firm, Washington DC), requesting that RadioReference immediately remove technical details of their SMR from our database.

Pending further review of the demand, RadioReference has restricted access to the public for all Mobile Relay Associates ("MRA") trunked system information stored in the RadioReference Database (RRDB).
Attached Images
File Type: pdf 00014329.pdf (178.7 KB, 2779 views)
__________________
Lindsay C. Blanton III
CEO - RadioReference.com / Broadcastify
Facebook: RadioReference | Broadcastify | Twitter: @RadioReference
Sponsored links
        
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 07-16-2009, 1:50 PM
scanbc780's Avatar
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Wickenburg, Maricopa/Yavapai Counties, Arizona
Posts: 333
Default

Not to throw coals on a fire, but why is it people assume that frequencies and such are private and confidential? Maybe they could send the FCC C&D for divulging their frequencies? This is censorship at it finest.

To bad they assume that RadioReference is the reason and is responsible for the interference based on the published information.
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 07-16-2009, 1:50 PM
Member
   
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 114
Default Are they kidding?

Nice spin on the law, but wrong...its not encryted comm's and its public information.
__________________
Steve Isoldi - K2AUX
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 07-16-2009, 2:01 PM
firetaz834's Avatar
Member
   
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Metro Area, MI
Posts: 456
Default

My gosh, I can't believe in what I'm reading and I have to wonder if this law firm specializes in communication law. Because, if they do then somebody needs to go back to school for a bit.
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 07-16-2009, 2:11 PM
scanbc780's Avatar
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Wickenburg, Maricopa/Yavapai Counties, Arizona
Posts: 333
Default

As a matter of fact they do, look at the top left of the letter. Rini Coran, PC - Telecom | Media | Technology Law and Privacy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by firetaz834 View Post
I have to wonder if this law firm specializes in communication law. Because, if they do then somebody needs to go back to school for a bit.
Sponsored links
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 07-16-2009, 2:13 PM
KE4ZNR's Avatar
KE4ZNR@radioreference.com
  RadioReference Database Admininstrator
Database Admin
Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 5,826
Arrow

MRA must have to change their TGIDs every day because all it takes an hour or less of monitoring to know basics about the system.
My big question is how do they have proof that the supposed "harassment" of named users on their talkgroups came about because of RR.com?
There are gigantic loopholes in the above letter that are ridiculous.
I would almost say call their bluff and make them prove that RR.com was the source of supposed "harassment" but I wouldn't want Lindsay to be put in a bad spot.
This is what happens when uninformed people panic.
Marshall KE4ZNR
__________________
NC/SC Forum Moderator/Database Administrator
Frequently Asked Questions
Forum Rules & Guidelines

@KE4ZNR on Twitter
http://instagram.com/KE4ZNR
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 07-16-2009, 2:15 PM
Completely Banned for the Greater Good
   
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 117
Default

So, is he going to sue all the scanner manufacturers, too? Dork.

dkaufman@rinicoran.com
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 07-16-2009, 2:38 PM
Rob198's Avatar
Member
  Audio Feed Provider
Audio Feed Provider
Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 30
Default

ULS License - Industrial/Business Pool, Conventional License - KB92186 - MOBILE RELAY ASSOCIATES INC

So it took me less then 2 minutes to find this using google. Are they going to go after Google, ASk, and the others as well as the FCC for posting the info?
__________________
" common sense is not so common."
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 07-16-2009, 3:03 PM
Member
  Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Loganville, Ga.
Posts: 5
Default

These people fell and hit their heads on something. I read the law and if in fact they could do this they would have to go after every scanner manufacturer and every scanner user in the country. This is a bluff by a big law firm that assumes that they can out spend Radio Reference and force them to do as they bid. I am hoping there is a lawyer out there that will assist with this. If they get away with this one it will be like a dam bursting on our hobby. This is an attempt by a private company at censorship and must not be allowed. If I had the information they are talking about I would post it far and wide every time the changed it. By the way here is a link to the law they claim applies.

47 U.S.C. 605. Unauthorized Publication or Use of Communications

Good Luck RR
Phil
N4LNE
__________________
Philip L. McCleary
n4lne
Sponsored links
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 07-16-2009, 3:11 PM
Member
   
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Bismarck ,ND
Posts: 233
Default

Funny how things work. The FCC has already been digging into MRA for running higher powers then they are permitted to use. Google found this for me. This is for the La Crescenta, CA location using VHF.

http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2...-271062A1.html

What about there other sites in Texas, Colorado? Must just be a California thing. Lindsay, Be the better man and just put a link to the FCC website.
__________________
Fire Fighter I/II, PRO-95, PRO-107, PRO-96, Uniden BC895XLT,
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 07-16-2009, 3:11 PM
Member
  Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Loganville, Ga.
Posts: 5
Default

Sorry for the second message people.

Management at RR and all users should forward a copy of this THREAT to every scanner manufacturer, scanner listeners group and ham club in the land. I say hams to because I am one and I also listen to my scanners trunked and conventional. Remember government in the dark is always evil. Protect your right to listen.
Phil
N4LNE
__________________
Philip L. McCleary
n4lne
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 07-16-2009, 3:12 PM
mtindor's Avatar
OH/WV DB Admin
  RadioReference Database Admininstrator
Database Admin
Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Jefferson County, Ohio
Posts: 4,854
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob198 View Post
ULS License - Industrial/Business Pool, Conventional License - KB92186 - MOBILE RELAY ASSOCIATES INC

So it took me less then 2 minutes to find this using google. Are they going to go after Google, ASk, and the others as well as the FCC for posting the info?
I'm getting an error. <tinfoil hat on>It looks like they bent the FCCs arm and now the FCC has taken down there database <tinfoil hat off>

Mike
__________________
Mike / AA8IA
PSR800/PRO197/BCD436HP/BCD536HP

If I PM you about a submission, please reply promptly or your submission may be rejected.
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 07-16-2009, 3:22 PM
Larryfire26's Avatar
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hudson Valley NY
Posts: 63
Angry Call Their Bluff

I agree i would not want to see Mr. Blanton get in any trouble, but if these pig headed attorneys want to assess blame They should send the same letter to the FCC. Once the FCC does not publish this information than I would not put in on The web either so until that happens ( which it will not) I would place it back on line and when these bathroom attorneys threaten you again then you can go ahead with a counter suit and throw in some criminal charges of harrassment against them! All they are is hot air, remember Radio reference is not responsible for anyone who commits illegal transmissions!

Just Look at their client They just violated the law with high power output!
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 07-16-2009, 3:29 PM
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 2,179
Default

If this is him, he didn't get this job--
Desperate times call for desperate measures--


-Vote David J. Kaufman for Judge!
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 07-16-2009, 3:31 PM
Member
  Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Taunton, MA
Posts: 1
Default

This is to mtindor, I just tried the FCC link and I got through. The FCC hasn't pulled the info. I agree that it seems to be a strong arm tactic.
Sponsored links
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 07-16-2009, 3:32 PM
mtindor's Avatar
OH/WV DB Admin
  RadioReference Database Admininstrator
Database Admin
Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Jefferson County, Ohio
Posts: 4,854
Default

Probably isn't him. If it were, I'm sure people could think of things to say. But I wouldn't use the RR forums as the place to ridicule those folks. That certainly won't do RR or any of us any good.

So, as a happy user of RR, I'd ask that we don't encourage anybody to take it upon themselves to stir ****.

Mike
__________________
Mike / AA8IA
PSR800/PRO197/BCD436HP/BCD536HP

If I PM you about a submission, please reply promptly or your submission may be rejected.
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 07-16-2009, 3:34 PM
blantonl's Avatar
Founder and CEO
  Shack Photos
Shack photos
RadioReference Database Admininstrator
Database Admin
Audio Feed Provider
Audio Feed Provider
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 8,260
Default

Understand that the demand for removal is based on us posting LTR LCNs and talkgroups - not FCC Licenses or just frequency lists. Make sure you read the letter completely, as they have made that very clear.

Their assertion is that during the process of folks figuring out the information 47 USC 605 was violated (Unauthorized Publication or Use of Communications).

However, they are in fact wrong.

47 USC 605 (Unauthorized Publication or Use of Communications) States in the beginning:

Quote:
Except as authorized by chapter 119, Title 18, no person receiving, assisting in receiving, transmitting, or assisting in transmitting, any interstate or foreign communication by wire or radio shall divulge or publish the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning thereof, except through authorized channels of transmission or reception,......
Chapter 119, Title 18 2511 states:

Quote:
(g) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter or chapter 121 of this title for any person--

(i) to intercept or access an electronic communication made through an electronic communication system that is configured so that such electronic communication is readily accessible to the general public;

(ii) to intercept any radio communication which is transmitted--

(I) by any station for the use of the general public, or that relates to ships, aircraft, vehicles, or persons in distress;

(II) by any governmental, law enforcement, civil defense, private land mobile, or public safety communications system, including police and fire, readily accessible to the general public;

(III) by a station operating on an authorized frequency within the bands allocated to the amateur, citizens band, or general mobile radio services; or

(IV) by any marine or aeronautical communications system;

(iii) to engage in any conduct which--

(I) is prohibited by section 633 of the Communications Act of 1934; or

(II) is excepted from the application of section 705(a) of the Communications Act of 1934 by section 705(b) of that Act;

(iv) to intercept any wire or electronic communication the transmission of which is causing harmful interference to any lawfully operating station or consumer electronic equipment, to the extent necessary to identify the source of such interference; or

(v) for other users of the same frequency to intercept any radio communication made through a system that utilizes frequencies monitored by individuals engaged in the provision or the use of such system, if such communication is not scrambled or encrypted.
Chapter 119, Title 18 2510 defines "readily accessible to the general public" as:

Quote:
(16) "readily accessible to the general public" means, with respect to a radio communication, that such communication is not--

(A) scrambled or encrypted;

(B) transmitted using modulation techniques whose essential parameters have been withheld from the public with the intention of preserving the privacy of such communication;

(C) carried on a subcarrier or other signal subsidiary to a radio transmission;

(D) transmitted over a communication system provided by a common carrier, unless the communication is a tone only paging system communication; or

(E) transmitted on frequencies allocated under part 25, subpart D, E, or F of part 74, or part 94 of the Rules of the Federal Communications Commission, unless, in the case of a communication transmitted on a frequency allocated under part 74 that is not exclusively allocated to broadcast auxiliary services, the communication is a two-way voice communication by radio;
It doesn't look like their claim has much basis, since private land mobile licenses are issued under FCC Part 90. Bottom line is the law states their transmissions are readily available to the general public and can be intercepted and divulged.

Furthermore, there is a large segment of communications on the system that are public safety agencies.
__________________
Lindsay C. Blanton III
CEO - RadioReference.com / Broadcastify
Facebook: RadioReference | Broadcastify | Twitter: @RadioReference

Last edited by blantonl; 07-16-2009 at 6:49 PM..
  #19 (permalink)  
Old 07-16-2009, 3:46 PM
Completely Banned for the Greater Good
   
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,374
Default

Some idiots with nothing else to do, I wwould totally ignore i!t!
  #20 (permalink)  
Old 07-16-2009, 3:50 PM
Completely Banned for the Greater Good
   
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 117
Default

And it could be days or weeks before the cache completely disappears...
Closed Thread

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 5:44 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
All information here is Copyright 2012 by RadioReference.com LLC and Lindsay C. Blanton III.Ad Management by RedTyger
Copyright 2011 by RadioReference.com LLC Privacy Policy  |  Terms and Conditions