Bad reporting

[jimmyhat]

This is a Virginia issue, but ya'll Marylanders sure can produce some great discussion.

Twice, the writer of this article, DAVID STEGON (Potomac News), mentions information received through "police radio reports" as a source for his column. Am I being paranoid, or is this completely irresponsible??????

http://www.potomacnews.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=WPN%2FMGArticle%2FWPN_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031783698632&path=!news

 

[Al42]

This is a Virginia issue, but ya'll Marylanders sure can produce some great discussion.

Twice, the writer of this article, DAVID STEGON (Potomac News), mentions information received through "police radio reports" as a source for his column. Am I being paranoid, or is this completely irresponsible??????

Cnsidering what he reported from "police radio", no, but it definitely is illegal.

 

[lawman349]

For any of you who often wonder "Why on Earth would a police or fire agency wish to go totally encrypted..."

reporters like THIS GUY are the reason...not the general public.

 

[maus92]

Irresponsible, and probably illegal as well. I think that you are allowed to listen to police radio transmissions, but you are not allowed to divulge what you have heard - gotta look up the law though...

CA
Annapolis

 

[jpm]

I myself don't reveal what i hear on the scanner. I have seen many posts here on this site and several others informing others what happened in their town while listening to the police scanner. I Don't know, silence is golden.

 

[CryptoJoe]

I don't think it illegal to use a scanner, and then discolse or report on what was communicated in the clear. Anyone know the legal details?

Thanks
Joe

 

[maus92]

>>>TITLE 47 > CHAPTER 5 > SUBCHAPTER VI > § 605

§ 605. Unauthorized publication or use of communications


Release date: 2005-03-17

(a) Practices prohibited 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,
(1) to any person other than the addressee, his agent, or attorney,
(2) to a person employed or authorized to forward such communication to its destination,
(3) to proper accounting or distributing officers of the various communicating centers over which the communication may be passed,
(4) to the master of a ship under whom he is serving,
(5) in response to a subpena issued by a court of competent jurisdiction, or
(6) on demand of other lawful authority. No person not being authorized by the sender shall intercept any radio communication and divulge or publish the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of such intercepted communication to any person. No person not being entitled thereto shall receive or assist in receiving any interstate or foreign communication by radio and use such communication (or any information therein contained) for his own benefit or for the benefit of another not entitled thereto. No person having received any intercepted radio communication or having become acquainted with the contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of such communication (or any part thereof) knowing that such communication was intercepted, shall divulge or publish the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of such communication (or any part thereof) or use such communication (or any information therein contained) for his own benefit or for the benefit of another not entitled thereto. This section shall not apply to the receiving, divulging, publishing, or utilizing the contents of any radio communication which is transmitted by any station for the use of the general public, which relates to ships, aircraft, vehicles, or persons in distress, or which is transmitted by an amateur radio station operator or by a citizens band radio operator. <<<

CA

 

[jpm]

What state was this document from and very well stated. As far as I'm concerned all communications on the scanner I hear is hear say.

 

[TinEar]

I'm not sure whether you've quoted Maryland or federal law but it looks to be federal. In either case, that particular statute doesn't apply to us because it concerns itself with interstate or foreign communication. The comms we listen to are intrastate - at least for the most part. There are probably other laws on the books but that one doesn't cover us.

 

[CryptoJoe]

Sounds federal, Maryland doesn't use Title/Chapter, they use Article/Section

Hmm, so those internet sites that allow you to listen to the scanners on the air might actually be illegal, if they are listened to it from out of state.

 

[maus92]

Yes, it is USC - meaning federal law. And generally, federal law applies to interstate issues, i.e. issues between, or involving 2 or more states. This does apply to "us" in certain circustances. For example, if you live in Maryland, but can receive transmissions from Delaware, Virginia, or DC. Or, if conditions are favorable, skip from non-adjacent states.

CA
Annapolis

 

[maus92]

Sorry, I forgot to include Pennsyltucky in the above conversation. And I'd say that internet scanner radio feeds could be described as "wire," thus covered by this section of the USC. But remember, listening to the transmissions, either by wire or over the air, is not illegal in itself. The illegal act is to divuldge what you hear. But I wouldn't worry about this issue too much - this provision has been around in some form since the Communications Act of 1934.

CA
Annapolis

 

[Al42]

Yes, it is USC - meaning federal law. And generally, federal law applies to interstate issues, i.e. issues between, or involving 2 or more states. This does apply to "us" in certain circustances. For example, if you live in Maryland, but can receive transmissions from Delaware, Virginia, or DC. Or, if conditions are favorable, skip from non-adjacent states.

CA
Annapolis

I don't have the citation, but radio transmissions are inherently considered to be interstate, since the signals don't stop at state lines. Therefore 605 applies to all radio transmissions, except those specifically exempted by law, which are those intended for reception by the general public - AM, FM and TV broadcasts and amateur radio transmissions (don't ask me why the last one is included).

 

[PeterSz]

I beg to differ with you folks.



USA SCANNERISTS CAN MONITOR AND DIVULGE DAMN NEAR EVERYTHING AS ...The jist of the decision in the Larry Gass case was the wording of Title 47, ... I have not been able to access the Gass case documents yet but I think I ...
www.geocities.com/45peter/gass.html - 11k -


Note - www.firefeeds.com intercepts and divulges from close to 30 major cities 24/7. News media reports from across the USA regularly state that the info was taken from scanners or police radios. And I suspect that this decision is their protection.

Peter S