• Effective immediately we will be deleting, without notice, any negative threads or posts that deal with the use of encryption and streaming of scanner audio.

    We've noticed a huge increase in rants and negative posts that revolve around agencies going to encryption due to the broadcasting of scanner audio on the internet. It's now worn out and continues to be the same recycled rants. These rants hijack the threads and derail the conversation. They no longer have a place anywhere on this forum other than in the designated threads in the Rants forum in the Tavern.

    If you violate these guidelines your post will be deleted without notice and an infraction will be issued. We are not against discussion of this issue. You just need to do it in the right place. For example:

RadioReference receives a Cease and Desist Demand from the Civil Air Patrol

Not open for further replies.


Founder and CEO
Staff member
Dec 9, 2000
Shavano Park, TX
We received a Cease and Desist demand from the Civil Air Patrol to remove a post that had a PDF attached of a CAP communications plan.

We've complied with the request for now pending further review of the legalities of the request.

The thread where the post was removed was here:


Attached is the Cease and Desist letter and other associated communications from the Civil Air Patrol.


Last edited:
Aug 16, 2008
Considering the CAP is sort of like a government sponsored Boy Scout group of flying wannabees, isn't their 'plan' more or less public record?
Feb 28, 2005
Delta, Pa
It may be private but YOUR tax dollars are supporting it Via the US Air Force..It is the "OFFICIAL" Auxiliary of the Air Force, commanded by an active duty Air Force Officer.. Do some research.. 23 years in the organization, and retired..
Apr 22, 2012
Puget Sound
Seams to me like some one has their pantys in a wod over nothing.

Unlike the logo's and some other things that can be clasifed as "exclusive use" does not mean that some one can not monitor a frequency, it just means that unless you are permited by the license holder to USE that frequency then you better not TX on it.

Also just because 'for offica use' is pasted to some thing also does not mean that there are not other ways to get information and there is also no law any where that says I can not pass that information out.

Monitoring CAP is in no encrypted on normall use and is legal to monitor and pass out frequency's but not what was heard on them.
All radio frequency's are in the public domain and are available to monitor unless they have encryption on them, at which point if you try to break the encryption you are doing something illegal.

CAP is, as stated, a civialian volundory group of pilots that do a very good job just like fire and police explorers and cadits.

Just because CAP is under the Air Force there is no differance.

However, I feel for Mr. Blanton in that if a potental for a fight is there, it maybe better to back away.


Premium Subscriber
Mar 21, 2004
Northeast PA
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 6_1_3 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/536.26 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/6.0 Mobile/10B329 Safari/8536.25)

Sections of U.S.C. 18 cover FOUO classification. Read more here, including case citation:
Oct 1, 2007
Drexel Hill, Upper Darby Twp, Delaware Co, Pennsyl
FOUO is a document designation not a classification. It's meaning is only relevant to the agency. It's like marking a document as Sensitive or Limited Official Use.

It does not mean it is or isn't exempt from a FOIA request, though. FOIA has 9 exemptions or the generic "legitimate government purpose."

If CAP is recognized as a government agency, then the onus is theirs to prove why it must not be released.

If CAP is simply a non-profit corporation, then they have no government protection, and it's simply a civil matter like any other corporate document, which is handled by a C&D that reads pretty much exactly like what they have sent.


Database Admin
Dec 19, 2002
San Diego County, California
Email from Skip at News of the Force about this thread; http://www.newsoftheforce.org / http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NewsoftheForce/

Check this:

Sec. 40306. Exclusive right to name, insignia, copyrights, emblems,
badges, marks, and words

The corporation has the exclusive right to use the name "Civil
Air Patrol" and all insignia, copyrights, emblems, badges,
descriptive or designating marks, words, and phrases the
corporation adopts. This section does not affect any vested rights.

(Pub. L. 105-225, Aug. 12, 1998, 112 Stat. 1332.)

Revised Source (U.S. Code) Source (Statutes at Large)
40306 36:206. July 1, 1946, ch. 527, Sec.
6, 60 Stat. 347.

The word "sole" is omitted as included in "exclusive". The words
"right to use the name 'Civil Air Patrol' and all" are substituted
for "right to the name 'Civil Air Patrol' and to have and to use,
in carrying out its purposes, all" for consistency in the revised
title and to eliminate unnecessary words. The words "the
corporation adopts" are substituted for "now or heretofore used by
the Civil Air Patrol" in section 6 of the Act of July 1, 1946 (ch.
527, 60 Stat. 347) for consistency in the revised title. The words
"in carrying out its program" are omitted as unnecessary. The words
"This section does not affect any vested rights" are substituted
for "Provided, however, That no powers or privileges herein granted
shall interfere or conflict with established or vested rights" for
consistency in the revised title and to eliminate unnecessary

I'm not a lawyer, but I would think "vested rights" would include the exemption provisions of "fair use" in the copyright law, 17 USC 107, as shown here:
"Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.
In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for non-profit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors."

Nothing in the Civil Air Patrol's claim to right of law exempts the CAP from the "fair use" exemptions to the copyright law. In fact, nobody is exempted from the "fair use" provisions of the copyright law.

Additionally, the law is that any government corporation or agency which receives federal funds cannot "copyright" anything. The theory is that if it is created by or used by such a corporation or agency, it's in the public domain and does not require copyright release, because it was created by and/or is being used by a federally-funded (i.e., with taxpayers' dollars) agency.

This is published on Wikipedia: "A work of the United States government, as defined by United States copyright law, is "a work prepared by an officer or employee of the U.S. government as part of that person's official duties." The term only applies to the work of the federal government, including the governments of "non-organized territorial areas" under the jurisdiction of the U.S Government, but not state or local governments. In general, under section 105 of the Copyright Act, such works are not entitled to domestic copyright protection under U.S. law, sometimes referred to as "non=copyright." I would think their use of "United States Air Force Auxiliary" on their seal means they are assuming "United States Government" status.

If you publish something they released, and they used their "seal" on it, I can't see how they can complain about it.

Additionally, as they pointed out, some of the pages in the report you published read "UNCALSSIFIED // FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY." Well, unclassified is unclassified, but FOUO is a classification. The military's three main classifications are "For Official Use Only," "Secret," and "Top Secret." The CAP seems to be confused about a lot of things. You don't get it both ways, it's either "classified" or it isn't.

We got one of these "cease and desist" things from the CAP, too. Essentially, we told them to "PFO" and we haven't heard from them about it again. They complain about anyone using their seal, but they never say anything about anyone using this:

Skip Munger
Chief Warrant Officer, US Army (Ret.)
Managing Editor
News of the Force (R)
Oct 1, 2007
Drexel Hill, Upper Darby Twp, Delaware Co, Pennsyl
Well, unclassified is unclassified, but FOUO is a classification. The military's three main classifications are "For Official Use Only," "Secret," and "Top Secret." The CAP seems to be confused about a lot of things. You don't get it both ways, it's either "classified" or it isn't.
Not quite, the military's classifications are: Top Secret, Secret, and Confidential.
For Official Use Only is a document designation it does not convey any sort of classification. I have plenty of orders saying "UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY"
Not open for further replies.