FCC Scanner License for Digital Encryption

[tumegpc]

I feel that a FCC issued Scanner License would be good for our hobby. With the help of Uniden and RadioReference the FCC would allow individuals with a license to monitor encrypted non sensitive communications. An individuals license would act as a key to unlocking certain local agencies that recognize the FCC Scanner License. This would be a non-transferable license that would require a renewal fee if a change of permanent address.
I feel those who work in the Law enforcement or Medical field should be allowed local access with a
professional state license.

What do you think?

[FFPM571]

Never going to happen.

[Skypilot007]

What are smoking man, some of that government issued dank bud or something.

Are you serious ! For real. Tell us all how many beers you drank before making this post!

[N8GXZ]

The FCC has enough to do

[n5ims]

Originally Posted by tumegpc

I feel that a FCC issued Scanner License would be good for our hobby. With the help of Uniden and RadioReference the FCC would allow individuals with a license to monitor encrypted non sensitive communications. An individuals license would act as a key to unlocking certain local agencies that recognize the FCC Scanner License. This would be a non-transferable license that would require a renewal fee if a change of permanent address.
I feel those who work in the Law enforcement or Medical field should be allowed local access with a
professional state license.

What do you think?

While not issued by the FCC, nor a license, there is already a way for this to happen. If an agency thinks that their radio traffic is "non sensitive communications" then they simply don't have to encrypt it (thereby allowing the scanners to receive the communications). The existence of a "FCC Scanner License" would be a non-issue for most agencies that encrypt their communications since they obviously feel that 100% of them qualify as "sensitive communications" in one way or another. Remember that the definition of "sensitive communications" would be done by the agency, not the FCC.

If the FCC had to rule on encryption, then they could make it very simple. "Encryption must only be used for sensitive communications; all non-sensitive communications must be in the clear and freely accessible to commercially available scanners through normal retail channels at reasonable prices." There already are precedents to this type of FCC rules in the Part-95 set of rules (quote from http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-200...5-part95.pdf):

§ 95.183 Prohibited communications.

(a) A station operator must not communicate:
…
(4) Coded messages or messages with hidden meanings (‘‘10 codes’’ are permissible);

Based on fines issued to companies that included encryption as a feature in their GMRS/FRS radios, the FCC considers encryption to be a violation of 95.183 (a) (4). Why would the FCC create and administer a new license that would be fought by their other licensees to accomplish something that they could already accomplish quite easily with a simple new rule for Part 90 licenses based on an already existing rule covering Part 95 licenses?

[JoeyC]

Originally Posted by tumegpc

What do you think?

I think you have a very vivid imagination!

[mancow]

Originally Posted by Skypilot007

What are smoking man, some of that government issued dank bud or something.

Are you serious ! For real. Tell us all how many beers you drank before making this post!

[cknizeski]

There is a reason for encryption. The reason is the agency that is using it does not want you to hear what they are saying. Even if the FCC gave you license to listen to encrypted communications, what makes you think the agency using the encrypted comms would just hand you the encryption key. And some agencies change their key every week, day month or whatever.

If the agency thinks you have a ligament reason for listening they will accommodate you. For example some media organizations buy or borrow the equipment and the radio techs program the encryption code, although this is rare. No extra license needed, just an agreement with you and the agency.

[K4IHS]

Just when you think you've read them all...

[tumegpc]

Ouch ! I did have one beer.

[Thayne]

Originally Posted by Skypilot007

What are smoking man, some of that government issued dank bud or something.

Are you serious ! For real. Tell us all how many beers you drank before making this post!

I would like to know too; Whatever it is it must be some new stuff like "Whizzer Wheaties" that is becoming so popular on this site---

[kc9lut]

just go get your ham radio license then you dont have to worry about it.

Originally Posted by tumegpc

I feel that a FCC issued Scanner License would be good for our hobby. With the help of Uniden and RadioReference the FCC would allow individuals with a license to monitor encrypted non sensitive communications. An individuals license would act as a key to unlocking certain local agencies that recognize the FCC Scanner License. This would be a non-transferable license that would require a renewal fee if a change of permanent address.
I feel those who work in the Law enforcement or Medical field should be allowed local access with a
professional state license.

What do you think?

[nd5y]

Originally Posted by kc9lut

just go get your ham radio license then you dont have to worry about it.

A ham license has nothing to do with the impossible feat of receiving encrypted transmissions on a scanner.

[kb2vxa]

That will never happen, it would defeat the whole purpose of encryption. As they say in New Yawk; fogitaboutit!

[n1das]

Never going to happen since it's not up to the FCC in the first place. It's not that the FCC doesn't care either. It's simply not their department. It would require an Act of Congress for it to happen and you probably wouldn't like the results if Congress did act on it.

Remember H.R.2369, The Wireless Privacy Enhancement Act of 1997? This legislation was introduced in 1997 after the SHTF over the Newt Gingrich cell phone incident. If this legislation were to have become the law of the land, ALL scanner listening would have become outright prohibited and receivers capable of receiving prohibited transmissions would have been prohibited. Modifying ANY receiver to receive a prohibited transmission would also have become prohibited. The legislation proposed to change one word in Section 705(a) (formerly Section 605(a)) of the Communications Act of 134 that would have vastly changed the scope of the Section. Changing "...intercept AND divulge..." to "...intercept OR divulge..." would have made it a federal crime to receive a radio transmission even if you do not divulge or use the contents if it wasn't meant for you. If this legislation became law, the USA would become one of the most repressive governments in the world with regards to radio communications. Fortunately this legislation quietly died due to the groundswell of opposition it created.

In the USA we currently don't need a licence to receive a radio transmission. Be careful with what you wish for.

[surfacemount]

OP<<<<

I feel what you're saying. Having an official credential kinda legimates your hobby, and would seem to make things smoother when questioned.

Here's the angle you forgot about: the goverment of the United States is hungry. You can't just feed it a toe. Look at firearms law for a perfect example.

Plus, I believe in freedom. If I can catch it in a stream, whether its trout in the water or electrons in the aether, I think I should be able to keep it. Too many other disagree, and now here we are, right?

Unless you're trolling, in which case, :thumbsup:

surfaceMount

[rapidcharger]

No license and no encryption.

[mikepdx]

Some countries license both SW and above 30 MHz
at a phenominal fee and some prohibit any monitoring
except broadcast radio. Just about every country
prohibits federal frequencies.

The Brits must license their TV receivers.

Do we want that?
Besides it's just about unenforceable.
Compliance relies on fear.

We're very lucky in the US & Canada.

[bgav]

Not up to the FCC, plus if it's encrypted, it's protected under the ECPA. If an agency wants you to be able to listen to their encrypted comms, they'll give you a radio. That way they revoke it from the system or change encryption keys if it gets lost or stolen.

[vindictive42]

I think this guy was smokin some pro or even some gre or something like that......In Canada we pay the government enough money for licenses.....huntin, fishin,boatin,drivin,radio-in, etc.....maybe this guy should buy everyone a license.....then he might change his mind....or smoke somethin else...like some icom....or yeasu......just dont smoke the uniden....thats powerful...s#!+