RadioReference on Facebook   RadioReference on Twitter   RadioReference Blog
 

Go Back   The RadioReference.com Forums > Computer Aided Monitoring and Programming > Streaming / Broadcasting / Audio Recording


Streaming / Broadcasting / Audio Recording - Interested in putting your scanner online for others to hear? Want to listen to other radios on the internet. This forum is here for you to discuss these topics related to streaming scanners online.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 09-19-2007, 5:51 PM
crayon's Avatar
RF Cartography Ninja
  RadioReference Database Admininstrator
Database Admin
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 95° 53 17.67
Posts: 2,986
Default Scanners, Internet and the Law: An objective discussion with case law.

At issue here is if it is legal to connect a scanner to the Internet so that others can listen to local communications. Typically, the public safety communications of police and fire departments are what most people are interested in listening to over the Internet. So it goes with most topics of discussion, there are usually two opposite points of view, each holding to be correct and this topic is no exception.

I decided to fork this thread from a previous thread to try and compare personal opinions (YEA and NAY) to relevant case law and see what matched up. Essentially, the NAY camp rallies around the legislation found in Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter VI, § 605 (a) as it's foundation that scanners connected to the Internet are illegally divulging a radio transmission.
Quote:
Originally Posted by § 605 (a)
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,
While that may seem like a fairly easy prohibition to understand, what complicates matters in this discussion is that the "(a)" paragraph of § 605 starts off with:
Quote:
Originally Posted by § 605 (a)
Except as authorized by chapter 119, title 18,
What does "chapter 119, title 18" authorize? To what extent does chapter 119, title 18 modify § 605?

Amongst other things, § 2511 of Chapter 119 authorizes which radio transmissions can be legally intercepted:
Quote:
Originally Posted by § 2511 (2)
  • (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;
This too seems like it should be easy to understand: "It shall not be unlawful .. to intercept any radio communication which is transmitted .. readily accessible to the general public". Applying lawful, authorized activities of § 2511 Chapter 119 back to § 605 paragraph (a)'s exception "Except as authorized by chapter 119, title 18", it would seem (to the YEA camp) that any activity deemed not unlawful in § 2511 Chapter 119 would allow someone to tell/divulge what is heard to anyone and by extension relay it to the Internet.

On the other hand, the NAY camp, as articulated by N_Jay's post, holds that "The rules regarding "interception" are independent from the rules regarding "divulging, publishing, or utilizing the contents of any radio communication". Both camps seem to have the correct opinion on the matter, but it is just that ... opinions and conclusions drawn from personal observations and prejudices.

So we are back to the original question of, to what extent does chapter 119, title 18 modify § 605? In order to authoritatively answer this question we need case law.

Ready?

In U.S. v. Rose, 669 F.2d 23, 26-27 (1st Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 828 (1982), the First Circuit held that Chapter 119 applied to radio communications otherwise protected by 605(a), by virtue of 605(a)'s introductory clause. The court recognized that "the protective shield of 605 is significantly diminished in scope by incorporating the requirements of [Chapter 119]." The court noted, however, that it was significant that Congress simultaneously added 605(a)'s introductory clause when it passed Chapter 119 in 1968. The court cited legislative history which clearly states that "The regulation of the interception of wire or oral communications in the future is to be governed by the proposed new [Title III]." Id.

In Edwards v. State Farm Ins. Co., 833 F.2d 535 (5th Cir.1987), the Fifth Circuit held that while the phrase could be interpreted to preface only the first sentence of section 605,. . . "we think the better interpretation limits each of section 605's prohibitions to activities not authorized by the Wiretap Act." Id. at 540. The court went on to note that Under the former interpretation, activity permissible under the Wiretap Act could be prohibited under section 605 of the Communications Act. Since Congress added the introductory phrase to section 605 at the same time that it enacted the Wiretap Act, we believe Congress likely intended to make the same statutes consistent. The latter interpretation has this effect by ensuring that the interception and divulgence of a voice communication transmitted by radio waves is not prohibited by section 605 unless the communication also falls within the protections of the Wiretap Act. . . . [W]e acknowledge that neither the language of section 605 nor the relevant legislative history makes it entirely clear whether Congress intended this result . . .. Id. The Fifth Circuit reasoned that the 1986 amendments to the Wiretap Act add much support to that court's conclusion, as these amendments expressly govern voice communication transmitted by radio waves. The court rejected the argument contained in Bruce Fein's law review article that Chapter 119 only applies to the first sentence of 605(a). The court noted that "[e]ven this commentator . . . suggested as an alternative interpretation the one adopted by the First Circuit in Rose." Id. at 540 n.7.

Additionally, the Eighth Circuit followed the lead of the First and Fifth Circuits in Tyler v. Berodt, 877 F.2d 705 (8th Cir. 1989),cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1022 (1990), which held that the requirements of Chapter 119 apply to 605.

In U.S. v. Gass, judgment of acquittal, the court mused:
Quote:
If this Court were to give effect to the government's argument, then the governmental radio interception exception contained in Chapter 119 makes no sense; a person would be permitted under Chapter 119 to intercept police radio transmissions only to be subject to criminal prosecution under 605. Why would Congress impose a ban on the interception and divulgence of radio communications in one statute, while allowing for a specific exception in another, if it did not intend for the statutes to be read together?

The only way to avoid absurdity in such a case is to interpret the conflicting statutes in a manner which permits the statutes to complement one another, thereby giving effect to the specific exception. It would seem that the maxim "specific over general" is especially applicable here. As the Supreme Court noted, a "more specific statute will be given precedence over a more general one. "Busic v. U.S., 446 U.S. 398, 406 (1980).

Since Chapter 119 specifically addresses radio communications transmitted by the government, it must control 605(a)'s general prohibition with respect to such radio transmissions. As such, 605(a) is qualified by the exception contained in Chapter 119 for the interception of governmental radio transmissions. The government's fear that such an interpretation will seriously undermine the protections contained in 605(a) is largely unfounded. Chapter 119 does serve the purpose of providing protection to radio communications, but it also contains several exceptions and additional qualifications. Concededly, 605(a)'s protections are minimized by Chapter 119's applicability, but this result is mandated in order to harmonize two otherwise conflicting statutes.
Not to be deterred, the government decided to submit a request for a retrial. In denying the government request, the court had more to say on the subject:
Quote:
The Court does not agree. Chapter 119 generally prohibits the interception of any oral or electronic communication, which, by definition, includes radio signals. 18 U.S.C. 2510 and 2511(1)(a).

Chapter 119 also generally prohibits the intentional disclosure or use of oral or electronic communications where the person knows or has reason to know that the communication was intercepted in violation of subsection 2511(1). 18 U.S.C. 2511(1)(c) and (d). Conversely, 2511 does not generally prohibit the divulgence of communications which are legally intercepted. Any "electronic communication" that is "readily accessible to the general public" may be intercepted. 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(g)(i). Moreover, any governmental "radio communication" that is "readily accessible" to the general public may be intercepted, regardless of any expectation of privacy. 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(g)(ii)(II).

Since it is not a violation under 2511 to intercept readily accessible governmental radio communications, 2511(1)(c) and (d) do not prohibit divulgence or use of such communications. If a governmental radio communication is "readily accessible to the general public," then where is the harm in intercepting it and divulging the contents of the communication? Chapter 119 recognizes this by not prohibiting the interception and divulgence of such "readily accessible" governmental "radio communications." Furthermore, whenever a "readily accessible" message is sent out over the airways, it is essentially "divulged" to the public. Presumably, anyone using a lawful device, in a lawful manner, can receive "readily accessible" radio communications.

Section2511(1)(e) is also noteworthy in that it prohibits the disclosure of certain communications which are otherwise legally intercepted. Significantly, 2511(1)(e) does not prohibit the disclosure of communications legally intercepted under the exceptions contained in 2511(2)(g). If Congress desired to prohibit the divulgence of radio communications legally intercepted pursuant to 2511(2)(g), it could have easily done so in 2511(1)(e).
This next quote box is actually part of the text of court's comments denying the government's request for a retrial, but it's content is so powerful that I wanted to present it in such a manner so that it stands out.
Quote:
Since the Court recognizes that "readily accessible" governmental "radio communications" do not fall within the protections of Chapter 119, as they are expressly excepted from that Chapter's general prohibitions, the interception and divulgence of such communications is not prohibited by virtue of 605.
Finally, the FCC has provided an opinion via email specifically addressing placing scanner audio on the Internet:
Quote:
Originally Posted by FCC Consumer Center Response email - Ref# 02777194
Section 705 of the Communications Act generally does not prohibit the publication on the Internet of fire department and police department radio broadcasts. The interception of these radio communications is legal under the criminal wiretap statute, 18 U.S.C. 2510 et seq., to the extent the communications are readily accessible to the general public, which police and fire department radio communications generally are.

Therefore, the rebroadcast of police and fire department radio communications that are obtained legally does not constitute a violation of section 705 of the Communications Act.
Almost finished .. I need to start a new post because 12k charaters is the max allowed per post. (in case you've ever wondered)
__________________
I don't always terminate radar service but when I do, frequency change is approved.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored links
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 09-19-2007, 6:14 PM
crayon's Avatar
RF Cartography Ninja
  RadioReference Database Admininstrator
Database Admin
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 95° 53 17.67
Posts: 2,986
Default

As was pointed out by SkipSanders, the LAFD threatens legal action against anyone who places LAFD audio on the Internet "without formal permission".

It is not a question of can they sue, but can they prevail in this type of legal action. To quote the LAFD's website:
Quote:
Originally Posted by http://lafd.org/audio.htm
We firmly believe any re-broadcast of LAFD radio signals without formal permission to be a violation of Federal Law. If you are aware of any person or organization that may be doing so, please notify them of our sincere concern. We suggest you report any suspected violation of this law to both our City Attorney and the Department of Justice via e-mail.
Notice that it says "We firmly believe". HA! It is quite another matter to say "We firmly believe" as opposed to "It is against the law". In furthering the bluff, LAFD hyperlinked "Federal Law" to a usdoj.gov website for 47 U.S.C. 605. Based upon the forgoing case law, it would seem they would have a very hard time winning if they solely relied on 47 U.S.C. 605 as their argument.

It would seem more reasonable to prosecute those who would charge a fee to listen to the audio over the Internet. That is interception of a transmission for personal gain. To complete the ruse they follow up with:
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAFD FAQ
Q: What is the benefit from using only an official LAFD audio source?

A: Our Dispatch Center can provide an authentic digital quality signal directly to a dedicated high-capacity webserver in real-time. With the use of a supervised and secure webserver, there is lesser chance that our listeners will experience the many technical and listening problems that routinely plague amateur sites using unattended scanner radios. We also won't play pranks, charge a subscription fee, subject you to annoying advertisements or violate your privacy.
Have they been reading Microsoft's EULA's? Does anyone really care about "an authentic" or a "quality signal"? I am sure that the vast majority only care if it is F-R-E-E.

It is admirable that they seem concerned about privacy, but forbidding all Internet feeds under the shield of 47 U.S.C. 605 is flawed.


I hope you find this infomation useful as I put a lot of work into researching and presenting it. Comments and debate are encourged.

__________________
I don't always terminate radar service but when I do, frequency change is approved.

Last edited by crayon; 09-19-2007 at 6:16 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 09-19-2007, 7:46 PM
N_Jay
Guest
   
Posts: n/a
Default

Thank you.
Case law trumps diverse interpretations.

I was Wrrrroooo, Wwwrrooooooo, wwwrrooooooooon, . . . . .

. . . . . . incorrect.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 09-19-2007, 10:47 PM
Member
  Audio Feed Provider
Audio Feed Provider
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Clendenin, WV
Posts: 28
Default

I need a drink before I try to read that again.
__________________
BC780XLT broadcasting on Scan America
BCT15 in my Crown Vic
Minitor IV for Fire Department dispatches
Clendenin, WV
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 09-19-2007, 10:54 PM
hoser147's Avatar
Member
   
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Grand Lake St. Marys Ohio
Posts: 4,439
Cool

Thanks.Defiantly called there Bluff. lets see if more LAFD feeds come up.................Hoser147
__________________
Good Scanning Hser
http://www.radioreference.com/apps/audio/?feedId=165

Last edited by hoser147; 09-19-2007 at 10:56 PM..
Reply With Quote
Sponsored links
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 09-19-2007, 11:39 PM
jpryor's Avatar
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nashville / Green Hill TN
Posts: 538
Default

Excellent job on consolidating all of the facts and evidence into one concise posting. I'd like to see more on case law supporting the FCC Consumer Center Response email - Ref# 02777194 statement, however I suspect there just have not been any cases yet regarding this specific internet streaming topic.

The FCC's formal statement on their site at http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/interception.html seems to indicate that the interpretation of the law has also not been well defined: "A more recent Supreme Court decision, however, questions the ability of the government to regulate the disclosure of legally-obtained radio communications, and this area of the law remains unsettled." Do you know of any more details of the particular Supreme Court decision that the FCC is referring to?

While less related to the streaming topic, I found it interesting to see that the FCC site mentions "The Communications Act also contains provisions that affect the manufacture of equipment used for listening to or receiving radio transmissions, such as “scanners.” The FCC cannot authorize scanning equipment that: 3) may be equipped with decoders that convert digital transmissions to analog voice audio." That sounds like all digital scanners to me (it simply says decode, not decrypt).
__________________
Jeff Pryor KC8NNO
Nashville / Green Hill TN
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 09-20-2007, 12:42 AM
crayon's Avatar
RF Cartography Ninja
  RadioReference Database Admininstrator
Database Admin
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 95° 53 17.67
Posts: 2,986
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jpryor
I'd like to see more on case law supporting the FCC Consumer Center Response email - Ref# 02777194 statement, however I suspect there just have not been any cases yet regarding this specific internet streaming topic.
That would have made the job much easier! As far as I can tell there are none.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpryor
Do you know of any more details of the particular Supreme Court decision that the FCC is referring to?
I too read that in my research, but I could not find the specific case. It was a very vauge reference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpryor
The FCC cannot authorize scanning equipment that: 3) may be equipped with decoders that convert digital transmissions to analog voice audio." That sounds like all digital scanners to me (it simply says decode, not decrypt).
Funny you should ask this question (I think that what I am about to say is applicable to point #3 .. ) because, belive it or not, I read the *entire* floor debate about the "WIRELESS PRIVACY ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 1999" from the Congressional Record while researching case law on 605.

Although it may seem to include digital transmissions as we would know it, (i.e. P25, ProVoice) one needs to account for the context that the language was written in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas
Furthermore, there are some scanners that even have the ability to
decode the digital transmissions that up until now were a strong
selling point for high-end cellular phones. Many of the purchasers of
digital phones, in fact, purchased them in part because they felt that
their conversations and cellular phone profiles are more secure than
with the use of analog technology.

This bill works to better protect those consumers, and in fact, all
consumers of wireless technologies, by making it illegal to
intentionally intercept or disclose any wireless communication. By
criminalizing both behaviors, we will be protecting all consumers from
the fraudulent misuse of their conversations and transmissions.
This really underscores the witch hunt that took place at the behest of the cellular industry. As you can see from this snippet, they are more concerned about scanners decoding digital cellular voice rather than P25 or ProVoice. Besides, digital cellular is CDMA, TDMA, etc. What scanner has *ever* been able to decode digital cellular as suggested by Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas and others? AFAIK, none.

Puppets.

HTH's
__________________
I don't always terminate radar service but when I do, frequency change is approved.

Last edited by crayon; 09-20-2007 at 12:50 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 09-20-2007, 2:24 AM
Señor Member
  RadioReference Database Admininstrator
Database Admin
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 6,752
Default

This needs to go in the wiki.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 09-20-2007, 8:30 AM
scanjunkie's Avatar
Member
   
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Montgomery County, PA
Posts: 1,355
Default

I'm sorry, I wasn't paying attention, can you repeat that please?

Actually, thanks for the info your efforts are very much appreciated!
__________________
Take care!!
Mark
"OH, YEAH!!"
"I think...therefore, I thought!"
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 09-20-2007, 9:14 AM
NYRHKY94's Avatar
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Brunswick County, NC
Posts: 1,313
Default

A big thanks to Crayon for an excellent summation regarding this topic. The analysis backed up by case law is outstanding. Well done!
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 09-20-2007, 12:13 PM
AZScanner's Avatar
Member
   
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Somewhere in this room. Right now, you're very cold.
Posts: 3,352
Default

Agreed. Well done, Crayon.

A word of warning to those of us who choose to use this information to start streaming LAFD: Just because they probably won't win doesn't mean they probably won't prosecute you. If you've got lots of money and free time to go to court and you have a rock solid understanding of federal communications law (and/or a damn good attorney) then I say sure, go for it. And if so, be prepared for a long, hard, expensive fight. Be prepared for some lower court judge to hand down an injunction preventing your website from streaming. Be prepared to have your house raided by federal agents, and your computers and scanners confiscated. Be prepared for numerous appeals. Be prepared to literally fight City Hall.

The good news is, there's a good chance you'll win and if so you can then sue the city for a tidy sum. But it'll probably take years to get to that point and you'll be damned lucky to emerge out of it without filing bankruptcy by then - the legal fees alone will be staggering.

If all that sounds appealing to you, then I look forward to listening to your LAFD stream.
-AZ
__________________
Author of:ActiveEMS - Phoenix Fire Now Free!
NewsBrief US - Breaking News and More
Currently in beta: ScanDroid X36
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 09-20-2007, 1:03 PM
Tryton's Avatar
Member
  Shack Photos
Shack photos
Audio Feed Provider
Audio Feed Provider
Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Largo, Fl
Posts: 526
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZScanner



If all that sounds appealing to you, then I look forward to listening to your LAFD stream.
-AZ

LOL, now thats funny!
__________________
Equipment:
2 Uniden Bearcat BCD996XT's
2 Uniden Bearcat BCD536HP's
Software:Proscan
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 09-20-2007, 2:16 PM
crayon's Avatar
RF Cartography Ninja
  RadioReference Database Admininstrator
Database Admin
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 95° 53 17.67
Posts: 2,986
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZScanner
If all that sounds appealing to you, then I look forward to listening to your LAFD stream.
I would like to think that the LAFD's position could easily be undermined simply by the scanner community going on the offensive and out flanking the LAFD. Contact the people that the LAFD is relying on to prosecute for them, show them LAFD's position, show them case law and ask questions.

Someone might just be able to find a ripcord on this balloon of hot air without needing to engage the courts. Remember, a threat of legal action is just that .. a threat. If they really, truly do not have legal standing, it is not a threat. On the other hand, they all may be in bed with one another, which is wrong .. but that is politics.

LAFD has graciously provided email links to the attorney's office for LA and the DOJ. Use them .. call them. At the very least, make them aware that other people know section 605 in of itself is not the be all, end all.
__________________
I don't always terminate radar service but when I do, frequency change is approved.
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 09-20-2007, 2:58 PM
AZScanner's Avatar
Member
   
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Somewhere in this room. Right now, you're very cold.
Posts: 3,352
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by crayon
LAFD has graciously provided email links to the attorney's office for LA and the DOJ. Use them .. call them. At the very least, make them aware that other people know section 605 in of itself is not the be all, end all.
Or, perhaps even more wisely, you could choose to not invite them to fix what they don't know is broken.

In your efforts to outflank the LAFD, you could wind up having the law changed by a bunch of folks who can't hear the word "scanner" without associating it to the term "cell phones" or the name "Newt Gingrich". If they were to make any changes in the law, I seriously doubt anyone in this forum would be happy with the results. Well... anyone except maybe N_Jay.

Good discussion however.

-AZ
__________________
Author of:ActiveEMS - Phoenix Fire Now Free!
NewsBrief US - Breaking News and More
Currently in beta: ScanDroid X36
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 09-20-2007, 3:32 PM
crayon's Avatar
RF Cartography Ninja
  RadioReference Database Admininstrator
Database Admin
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 95° 53 17.67
Posts: 2,986
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZScanner
Or, perhaps even more wisely, you could choose to not invite them to fix what they don't know is broken.
Perhaps. But courts can and do look to congressional records when trying to decide what the intent of the lawmakers was at the time a bill was crafted. The link to the record that I posted talks to this:
Quote:
I think it is also important to make clear what this bill does not
do, because I think it can be confusing, especially for those of us who
are not really used to dealing with some of these telecommunications
widgets. There are a lot of people who listen to the police and fire
departments on the scanners because they are volunteer firefighters or
just because they like to. They like to know what is going on in their
town and where they can help. There are also ham operators that enjoy
their hobby, and they provide a public service, and that is okay.

It is okay now, and it will continue to be okay with this bill. Those
are public service and amateur radio frequencies, and people should be
able to listen to them and to use them. Just to make it perfectly
clear, we have added report language to the bill that makes this intent
very clear to the FCC. There will be no interference with those rights
and public frequencies and the ability to have scanners for public
service and fire and police.
IMO, the only thing that is broken the heavy hand that the LAFD uses to squish audio streaming onto the Internet. It would sad for other departments to adopt it as policy because it was unchallenged.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AZScanner
Well... anyone except maybe N_Jay.
Ya gotta give him props for responding to this thread. SkipSanders has not ... not that he is required to, but N_Jay was the first.

__________________
I don't always terminate radar service but when I do, frequency change is approved.

Last edited by crayon; 09-20-2007 at 3:39 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 09-20-2007, 3:52 PM
AZScanner's Avatar
Member
   
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Somewhere in this room. Right now, you're very cold.
Posts: 3,352
Default

I dunno Crayon. I see it ending badly if the scanner community pissed off the LAFD. One of a few scenarios would likely play out:

1. LAFD encrypts their system. Voila, no more streaming OR scanning.
2. LA City council passes a local law banning all internet streaming of city communications, complete with hefty fines and jail time.
3. More active enforcement of the local ordinances banning mobile scanner use in LA (yes, there is a law in LA County prohibiting this, although it's rarely enforced).
4. LAPD encrypts and adopts a similar "No Streaming" stance.
5. More anti-scanner legislation run through congress under the guise of "enhancing homeland security".
etc.

None of these sounds very appealing and all could very easily become reality if the local scanner community were to piss off the right (or wrong) people. While I agree with your sentiment here, it's just not worth upsetting the apple cart IMHO.

-AZ
__________________
Author of:ActiveEMS - Phoenix Fire Now Free!
NewsBrief US - Breaking News and More
Currently in beta: ScanDroid X36
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 09-20-2007, 4:16 PM
crayon's Avatar
RF Cartography Ninja
  RadioReference Database Admininstrator
Database Admin
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 95° 53 17.67
Posts: 2,986
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZScanner
While I agree with your sentiment here, it's just not worth upsetting the apple cart IMHO.
Without a doubt, the law of Unintended Consequences cannot be ignored. Then there is also the supply and demand factor to consider. Personally, I have not seen a sustained howl of protest from a user base wanting to be able listen to the LAFD on the Internet. So is there really a "need"? And if there is not a need why push?

According to the LAFD's website, they are very pro-scanner. They provide frequencies and channel descriptions, etc. in a very easy to find manner.

FWIW ...
__________________
I don't always terminate radar service but when I do, frequency change is approved.
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old 09-21-2007, 9:29 PM
K4IHS's Avatar
Member
  Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 688
Default

The DC lawmakers stream themselves. It's called CSPAN...
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old 09-21-2007, 10:05 PM
Silent Key
   
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,058
Default

I haven't responded because there seemed no need. Your examples show nothing new from what I've said, which was not 'It's illegal', but 'It's arguably illegal, and you'd better be willing to face court time and expenses if you refuse to take down a stream when asked/demanded'.

No matter what one federal court rules (and it wasn't the California one, as I recall) that you show, the others can rule differently, until it drags out and up to the Supreme Court for a final decision. (Till the next time).

The language of the law allows prosecution. Any given individual prosecutor can decide to prosecute. Oh, and the FBI can, too, if you were to piss them off by streaming them. Will you win in court? Maybe. But even winning will cost you a fortune. What I said was, 'Do you think it's worth it?' I don't, and I don't think pissing off the departments/agencies involved at scanner users is, either.
__________________
N6IMN - GMRS WQGJ903
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old 09-21-2007, 10:16 PM
DaveNF2G's Avatar
Member
  Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Rensselaer, NY
Posts: 8,864
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jpryor
"A more recent Supreme Court decision, however, questions the ability of the government to regulate the disclosure of legally-obtained radio communications, and this area of the law remains unsettled." Do you know of any more details of the particular Supreme Court decision that the FCC is referring to?
I think they might be referring to a case that originated in Pennsylvania where someone illegally intercepted a cordless phone conversation and turned it over anonymously to a radio station, who played it on the air. An attempt was made to prosecute the station personality who aired the recording, but the courts held that he did not commit the original unlawful interception or divulgence (with cordless phones, either one violates federal law), so he could not be held criminally liable.

My notes on the case are buried here on my hard drive somewhere....
__________________
David T. Stark
NF2G WQMY980 KYR7128
ARRL VE & Registered Licensing Instructor
Reply With Quote
Reply

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 3:42 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
All information here is Copyright 2012 by RadioReference.com LLC and Lindsay C. Blanton III.Ad Management by RedTyger
Copyright 2015 by RadioReference.com LLC Privacy Policy  |  Terms and Conditions