Question for those that may know

[wb8oif]

A lurker on here told me to be careful what I post because it was technically illegal to do so. He told me to check "the communications act". I looked up on Google and found the Communications of 1934 amended and I assume that is to what he had referred.
I looked through this long and legally written mumbo-jumbo and found near the end this:

SEC. 705 [47 U.S.C. 605] Unauthorized Publication of Communications.
......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. .....

My question for anyone knowledgable of FCC law, is this:
Can we be in violation for posting what we hear on our scanners to a forum such as this?

This law, if that is whatit is, smells of Big Brother if it is enforceable on scanner listeners!

Someone that knows, please advise!

Thanks,
Bob

 

[mike_s104]

A lurker on here told me to be careful what I post because it was technically illegal to do so. He told me to check "the communications act". I looked up on Google and found the Communications of 1934 amended and I assume that is to what he had referred.
I looked through this long and legally written mumbo-jumbo and found near the end this:

SEC. 705 [47 U.S.C. 605] Unauthorized Publication of Communications.
......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. .....

My question for anyone knowledgable of FCC law, is this:
Can we be in violation for posting what we hear on our scanners to a forum such as this?

This law, if that is whatit is, smells of Big Brother if it is enforceable on scanner listeners!

Someone that knows, please advise!

Thanks,
Bob

I don't "know" but I do know what you're saying. I've thought about that before. my feeling is, are they going to prosecute EVERYONE posting in threads like this? I don't think so. I don't post anything that I feel would place someone in danger or blow an officer's cover. I've heard things on the new system here but kept them to myself. I think if you're careful and use common sense, you'll be fine.

 

[hankv]

A lurker on here told me to be careful what I post because it was technically illegal to do so.

Technically, he might be correct, but that was aimed at employees of communications companies who might profit by selling information.

My question for anyone knowledgable of FCC law, is this:
Can we be in violation for posting what we hear on our scanners to a forum such as this?

FCC does not make laws.

This law, if that is whatit is, smells of Big Brother if it is enforceable on scanner listeners!

In 1934, scanners were not even a concept. I'm not a lawyer, and if you're really concerned, I suggest you consult one; but I am not worried about it. Notice the specific Quote:

Except as authorized by chapter 119, title 18, no person receiving, assisting in receiving, transmitting, or assisting in transmitting, any interstate or foreign communication

Unquote :twisted:

 

[wb8oif]

Hanky, thanks for the response, but I think you're off base a bit. That is why I was asking for those that know the law. They would know who the regulation is "aimed at".
Second, the FCC does indeed regulate and to the average Joe the regulations have the force of law. If you don't believe me, violate one of the regulations then try to get out of the penalty by saying it is not a law. The regulations may not be called laws, but "if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck..." You know what I meant.
Third, scanners not around in 1834......you are right about that. that act has been amended a number of times it seems. Hell it even has a section about satellite TV broadcasts. They were not around in 19334 either. While I was looking for this in the long winded act, they also give definitions of some terms and your reference to interstate or foriegn at different places can also refer to where a transmission can be received. Also at other places it refers to covering transmissions within and without state boundaries.
Again, because of all of the "technicalities" that is why I asked for a law-type person to answer. I ain't trying to start a flame war, just resonding to what you had written.

Peace and 73,
Bob

 

[JESSERABBIT]

Hanky, thanks for the response, but I think you're off base a bit. That is why I was asking for those that know the law. They would know who the regulation is "aimed at".
Second, the FCC does indeed regulate and to the average Joe the regulations have the force of law. If you don't believe me, violate one of the regulations then try to get out of the penalty by saying it is not a law. The regulations may not be called laws, but "if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck..." You know what I meant.
Third, scanners not around in 1834......you are right about that. that act has been amended a number of times it seems. Hell it even has a section about satellite TV broadcasts. They were not around in 19334 either. While I was looking for this in the long winded act, they also give definitions of some terms and your reference to interstate or foriegn at different places can also refer to where a transmission can be received. Also at other places it refers to covering transmissions within and without state boundaries.
Again, because of all of the "technicalities" that is why I asked for a law-type person to answer. I ain't trying to start a flame war, just resonding to what you had written.

Peace and 73,
Bob

I am not a "law type person", however, if you have time, you may want to check out the following:
Goto the "Streaming Scanners And Radios On Line" thread on RR.
Goto the thread "When Will LAFD Get With The Times".
Goto Post #4 from "ZERG901"
Click on the link "Geocities.com, etc."
Read what is there. What it says may or may or may not be true, as far as the Law goes, however, it may be worth considering when looking for an answer to your original post.
Please let us know what you think about it.

 

[wb8oif]

Jesse, I looked at the post you referenced and it seems as confusing as the Comms Act...lol
It sounded like a Fed Judge said that the interpretation he had said if the transmission was in the clear then it could be divulged. Elsewhere it says the ruling only applied to New England or something like that....strange that a Fed Judge ruling is only valid in one part of the US. Makes everything from that site a bit suspect.
I remember a long time ago that the local radio station used to go on the air every time there was a fire alarm and they would announce what the alarm was. Then it stopped and I was told that they had to quit because it violated some law. At the time I didn't pay any attention to it, but it may have something to do with the Comm Act.
Maybe wm8s may know about it. He seems knowlegeable in FCC matters.

 

[JESSERABBIT]

Yes, I agree it is confusing, That's why I put it out for consideration. Regarding the radiio station putting out emergency related information, we get bombarded with wrecks, fires, and all manner and sorts of police activities through the news media on TV now. In this day and time, it seems that the "Government" coulld care less what goes out. I reckon times and attitudes have changed in this area. Thoughts anyone?

 

[Don_Burke]

I work in broadcast radio and I never say I got something off a scanner.

The way I read 605, there is a penalty for divulging and about twice that for making a profit off divulging.

I do not need any federal convictions and it is very easy to work around it.