Canadian Radiocommunication Act

[rclegion]

Hi all I don't want to start a debate on this I just wondering if someone can give me better understanding of this law .

Now in the canadian Radiocommunication Act section 9 (2) it states that :

(2) Except as prescribed, no person shall intercept
and make use of, or intercept and divulge,
any radiocommunication, except as permitted
by the originator of the communication
or the person intended by the originator of the
communication to receive it.

9.1 Every person who contravenes subsection
9(1.1) or (2) is guilty of an offence punishable
on summary conviction and liable

(a) in the case of an individual, to a fine not
exceeding twenty-five thousand dollars or to
imprisonment for a term not exceeding one
year, or to both; and

(b) in the case of a person other than an individual,
to a fine not exceeding seventy-five
thousand dollars.

Now what that tells me that nothing heard on a scanner can be repeated for example on a social media ie twitter , facebook etc... , would you not think that ?

Now also Radiocommunication Act 9 (3) says :

(3) Subsection (2) does not apply in respect
of radiocommunication that consists of broadcasting,
a subscription programming signal or a
network feed.

So again that would not apply to a scanner right ? so writing something on social media would be illegal if I am reading this law correctly .

Thanks in advance to everyone who responds just looking for answers .

 

[krokus]

While I am not a lawyer, but it sounds like the intent is to keep people from blabbing about what they hear, or profiting from what they hear.

Sent via Tapatalk

 

[popnokick]

The U.S. Communications Act of 1934 says essentially the same thing. Based upon the content of many topics posted here on RR by US citizens, it seems to be a widely ignored law. Perhaps true in Canada as well?

 

[fourthhorseman]

The key term,as I read it is

Intercept AND Make use of..

Were I see the Iffy part is what do they deem as -making use of-?

If your using it for personal entertainment, Is that in violation.
Or is it simply the clause of,Using in commission of a crime,Or
to intercept and interfere with public safety agencies.Or intercept and
rebroadcast,Or rebroadcast for profit..

Id say,with some confidence that If your monitoring and minding your
business Or even allowing others to -Overhear- for their entertainment
Id say your good to go,However In the case there is a police action
occurring nearby and LEO's hear your scanner squaking and echoing
their comms you may get your radio grabbed.Then it would fall into one
of the a fore mentioned categories..

Just my humble opinion,and a good measure of common sense.If your
country/province sells the receivers that Can monitor PS Bands than I
think your A-O-K.!

 

[DickH]

The U.S. Communications Act of 1934 says essentially the same thing. Based upon the content of many topics posted here on RR by US citizens, it seems to be a widely ignored law. Perhaps true in Canada as well?

You took the words right out of my mouth (keyboard).

 

[rclegion]

Well what made me look closer at this is the incident we had in moncton newbrunswick where 3 rcmp officers where killed , during the man hunt people where posting what they where hearing on the scanner and possibly putting other officers at risk . It is a law in canada but does not seem to be enforced and if it is the same law in the US it does not seem to be enforced as well .
Can someone post the link to the US discussion on this same topic I can't seem to find it if there is one ... thanks .

 

[popnokick]

There are multiple threads discussing the Communications Act of 1934 and its amendment/supplement the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (which did not replace the act of 34, merely amended it). Search here on RR for "ECPA 1986" or "Communications Act 1934".