Eavesdropping. Sort of the same issue by recording scanner traffic? Makes you think?

Status
Not open for further replies.
JPSan

JPSan

Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2006
Messages
441
Location
Tucson, AZ
I find this really interesting. How would they interpret recording of scanner traffic ?
How would or could they try to use this against the hobbyist if a recording of a police incident was circulated. Especially if the incident was detrimental to the PD?
Would they be anal to try an invoke this to prove a point?

Maybe why ENCRYPTION is becoming more widely considered by PD's ? A vendors selling point?

Just thinking out loud and typing. Who knows in today's world.

Thought provoking ? Yes? / No? Curious. Who knows. Opinions?

This is the articles headline:
Eavesdropping Laws Mean That Turning On an Audio Recorder Could Send You to Prison


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/23/us/23cnceavesdropping.html?_r=1
 
joefitz232

joefitz232

Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2010
Messages
7
That's been an issue for a while - the issue of disclosing to the other party that a recording is being made. I was pondering this yesterday, walking into a store with surveillance cameras and microphones. Most places require some kind of disclosure so that either side can stay or walk out of the situation. Probably, a simple statement that the event is going to be recorded would have prevented the charges.

Non-broadcast radio has protection too, where disclosure of the contents of a transmission is prohibited. Of course, there is the whole issue of cell phone privacy. The truth is that anything in the clear can be intercepted and recorded, but publishing a recording (and staying out of jail) requires use of "anonymity protecting" technology.

The feds and military know the facts and do indeed encrypt the things that are too sensitive to take chances on. Ha! Then someone on the inside gives transcripts or data files to Wikileaks and the cat is out of the bag forever.

Cheers,
JoeFitz
NAOC-TACAMO Nuke Monitors
 
K

ksphotoguy

Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2006
Messages
52
Location
western Kansas
Interesting.... the law can record "We the People" without our permission or knowledge, yet we aren't given that same right..... I think this sums it up pretty well... "There's a law for you'uns and a law for we'uns and it ain't the same law".
 
C

Confuzzled

Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2008
Messages
704
Mr. Donahue added that allowing the audio recording of police officers while performing their duty “can affect how an officer does his job on the street.”
Click to expand...

That's exactly right and that's why it should be done - to make sure they're doing the job properly.

I don't know what this Federal judge is thinking, but these laws are not valid. Public servants are accountable to the public and as long as the one doing the covert audio recording is a party to the conversation, there should be no problem.

Hopefully the ACLU moves it up the chain and gets it struck down.
 
S

SlowerLowerDelaware

Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2011
Messages
3
Location
Rehoboth Beach
"Cops are perfect, and make no mistakes."


Yet when we the citizens make mistakes they are happy to write tickets.... Which in most cases with misdemeanors is nothing other than a tax collection method for the state.
 
gmclam

gmclam

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Sep 15, 2006
Messages
6,452
Location
Fair Oaks, CA
I guess when you don't like things like the "Rodney King recording" or the more recent one in Oakland, you pass laws to make creating such recordings illegal. Nice...

If citizens have “reasonable suspicion” that a crime is about to be committed against them, they may obtain evidence by recording it.
Click to expand...
So everyone just needs to say/feel they feel a crime is about to be committed against them ... denial of their First Ammendment Rights!
 
NE1C4NSC4N

NE1C4NSC4N

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
May 22, 2010
Messages
1,279
Location
Lawrencetown, NS
Interesting post, I have been thinking about the legal ramifications, as I am now recording some radio traffic in my area, to share with folks on here.

Does anyone here know how the laws around recording work in Canada exactly? And also, how it would work for a Canadian recording USAF transmissions, any sticky points I should know before releasing the recordings to the public, or RR public at least? Its only air refueling I'm recording, but maybe there is some issue with security or IDK what, that could land me in hot water with the US government, or some agency I dont want knocking on my door?
 
Z

zz0468

QRT
Banned
Joined
Feb 6, 2007
Messages
6,034
I'm not sure that comparing a recording of off the air radio communications, and a face-to-face meeting in a police department interview room is a valid comparison. Police radio recordings are discoverable evidence, and subject to FOIA requests. A meeting may not be.

That being said, I have had many, many meetings with law enforcement people over the years, and have been compelled to record some meetings for various reasons. When I do, I take out the recorder, set it in the middle of the table for all to see, and then turn it on without saying anything. No one has objected, and meetings with difficult, or obstinate police personnel usually go better than normal. If I was requested to turn it off, I would have - and then I would have immediately departed the meetings. Keeping it hidden would be "eavesdropping". Putting it out in the open would not.
 
bassjunkie

bassjunkie

Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2007
Messages
57
Location
Vic, Australia
zz0468 said:
I'm not sure that comparing a recording of off the air radio communications, and a face-to-face meeting in a police department interview room is a valid comparison. Police radio recordings are discoverable evidence, and subject to FOIA requests. A meeting may not be.

That being said, I have had many, many meetings with law enforcement people over the years, and have been compelled to record some meetings for various reasons. When I do, I take out the recorder, set it in the middle of the table for all to see, and then turn it on without saying anything. No one has objected, and meetings with difficult, or obstinate police personnel usually go better than normal. If I was requested to turn it off, I would have - and then I would have immediately departed the meetings. Keeping it hidden would be "eavesdropping". Putting it out in the open would not.
Click to expand...

You really need to identify yourself and the other parties present for those recordings to be legitimate. The police probably knew this, so didn't care if you recorded. You must ask permission for a recording to be made if you want it to be held up in court.
 
Z

zz0468

QRT
Banned
Joined
Feb 6, 2007
Messages
6,034
bassjunkie said:
You really need to identify yourself and the other parties present for those recordings to be legitimate. The police probably knew this, so didn't care if you recorded. You must ask permission for a recording to be made if you want it to be held up in court.
Click to expand...

In this case, the meeting dates, subject, and attendees are identified on tape when it's started, with everyone present being quite aware. Did I ask permission? No. But neither was anyone under any illusions as to what was taking place.

Consider what happens when you're recorded on the phone. Permission isn't actually required. What's required is that all parties be aware of the recording, either by being verbally told at the beginning of the conversation, or by audible beeps every 10 or 15 seconds. Ever make a call to some organization's customer service number, and get a recording stating that the call may be recorded? They don't ask for permission, they just tell you that they're recording. That's all that's required.
 
A

APTN

Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2008
Messages
255
Location
Tennessee
zz0468 said:
In this case, the meeting dates, subject, and attendees are identified on tape when it's started, with everyone present being quite aware. Did I ask permission? No. But neither was anyone under any illusions as to what was taking place.

Consider what happens when you're recorded on the phone. Permission isn't actually required. What's required is that all parties be aware of the recording, either by being verbally told at the beginning of the conversation, or by audible beeps every 10 or 15 seconds. Ever make a call to some organization's customer service number, and get a recording stating that the call may be recorded? They don't ask for permission, they just tell you that they're recording. That's all that's required.
Click to expand...

Spot on, zz0468. It should be noted that the states in these instances require consent of all parties, which will likely be noted by their respective courts. Some states, like mine, only require the consent of one party.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top