RadioReference receives a letter demanding removal of Mobile Relay Associates SMR

Status
Not open for further replies.

blantonl

Founder and CEO
Staff member
Super Moderator
Joined
Dec 9, 2000
Messages
11,068
Location
San Antonio, Whitefish, New Orleans
On July 15th 2009, RadioReference.com LLC received letter on behalf of Mobile Relay Associates ("MRA"), from David J. Kaufman (Rini Coran, PC Law Firm, Washington DC), requesting that RadioReference immediately remove technical details of their SMR from our database.

Pending further review of the demand, RadioReference has restricted access to the public for all Mobile Relay Associates ("MRA") trunked system information stored in the RadioReference Database (RRDB).
 

Attachments

  • 00014329.pdf
    178.7 KB · Views: 2,947

scanbc780

Usually Lurking
Joined
Aug 30, 2002
Messages
416
Location
Maricopa/Yavapai Counties, Arizona
Not to throw coals on a fire, but why is it people assume that frequencies and such are private and confidential? Maybe they could send the FCC C&D for divulging their frequencies? This is censorship at it finest.

To bad they assume that RadioReference is the reason and is responsible for the interference based on the published information.
 

firetaz834

Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2007
Messages
323
Location
Metro Area, MI
My gosh, I can't believe in what I'm reading and I have to wonder if this law firm specializes in communication law. Because, if they do then somebody needs to go back to school for a bit.
 

KE4ZNR

Radio Geek
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jan 21, 2002
Messages
7,254
Location
Raleigh, NC
MRA must have to change their TGIDs every day because all it takes an hour or less of monitoring to know basics about the system.
My big question is how do they have proof that the supposed "harassment" of named users on their talkgroups came about because of RR.com?
There are gigantic loopholes in the above letter that are ridiculous.
I would almost say call their bluff and make them prove that RR.com was the source of supposed "harassment" but I wouldn't want Lindsay to be put in a bad spot.
This is what happens when uninformed people panic.
Marshall KE4ZNR
 

n4lne

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
5
Location
Loganville, Ga.
These people fell and hit their heads on something. I read the law and if in fact they could do this they would have to go after every scanner manufacturer and every scanner user in the country. This is a bluff by a big law firm that assumes that they can out spend Radio Reference and force them to do as they bid. I am hoping there is a lawyer out there that will assist with this. If they get away with this one it will be like a dam bursting on our hobby. This is an attempt by a private company at censorship and must not be allowed. If I had the information they are talking about I would post it far and wide every time the changed it. By the way here is a link to the law they claim applies.

47 U.S.C. 605. Unauthorized Publication or Use of Communications

Good Luck RR
Phil
N4LNE
 

guitarbrian30

Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2007
Messages
182
Location
Bismarck ,ND
Funny how things work. The FCC has already been digging into MRA for running higher powers then they are permitted to use. Google found this for me. This is for the La Crescenta, CA location using VHF.

http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-271062A1.html

What about there other sites in Texas, Colorado? Must just be a California thing. Lindsay, Be the better man and just put a link to the FCC website.
 

n4lne

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
5
Location
Loganville, Ga.
Sorry for the second message people.

Management at RR and all users should forward a copy of this THREAT to every scanner manufacturer, scanner listeners group and ham club in the land. I say hams to because I am one and I also listen to my scanners trunked and conventional. Remember government in the dark is always evil. Protect your right to listen.
Phil
N4LNE
 

mtindor

OH/WV DB Admin
Database Admin
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
10,351
Location
Carroll Co OH / EN90LN

Larryfire26

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
63
Location
Hudson Valley NY
Call Their Bluff

I agree i would not want to see Mr. Blanton get in any trouble, but if these pig headed attorneys want to assess blame They should send the same letter to the FCC. Once the FCC does not publish this information than I would not put in on The web either so until that happens ( which it will not) I would place it back on line and when these bathroom attorneys threaten you again then you can go ahead with a counter suit and throw in some criminal charges of harrassment against them! All they are is hot air, remember Radio reference is not responsible for anyone who commits illegal transmissions!

Just Look at their client They just violated the law with high power output!
 

W1VFB

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2009
Messages
1
Location
Taunton, MA
This is to mtindor, I just tried the FCC link and I got through. The FCC hasn't pulled the info. I agree that it seems to be a strong arm tactic.
 

mtindor

OH/WV DB Admin
Database Admin
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
10,351
Location
Carroll Co OH / EN90LN
Probably isn't him. If it were, I'm sure people could think of things to say. But I wouldn't use the RR forums as the place to ridicule those folks. That certainly won't do RR or any of us any good.

So, as a happy user of RR, I'd ask that we don't encourage anybody to take it upon themselves to stir ****.

Mike
 

blantonl

Founder and CEO
Staff member
Super Moderator
Joined
Dec 9, 2000
Messages
11,068
Location
San Antonio, Whitefish, New Orleans
Understand that the demand for removal is based on us posting LTR LCNs and talkgroups - not FCC Licenses or just frequency lists. Make sure you read the letter completely, as they have made that very clear.

Their assertion is that during the process of folks figuring out the information 47 USC 605 was violated (Unauthorized Publication or Use of Communications).

However, they are in fact wrong.

47 USC 605 (Unauthorized Publication or Use of Communications) States in the beginning:

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,......

Chapter 119, Title 18 § 2511 states:

(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;

(iii) to engage in any conduct which--

(I) is prohibited by section 633 of the Communications Act of 1934; or

(II) is excepted from the application of section 705(a) of the Communications Act of 1934 by section 705(b) of that Act;

(iv) to intercept any wire or electronic communication the transmission of which is causing harmful interference to any lawfully operating station or consumer electronic equipment, to the extent necessary to identify the source of such interference; or

(v) for other users of the same frequency to intercept any radio communication made through a system that utilizes frequencies monitored by individuals engaged in the provision or the use of such system, if such communication is not scrambled or encrypted.

Chapter 119, Title 18 § 2510 defines "readily accessible to the general public" as:

(16) "readily accessible to the general public" means, with respect to a radio communication, that such communication is not--

(A) scrambled or encrypted;

(B) transmitted using modulation techniques whose essential parameters have been withheld from the public with the intention of preserving the privacy of such communication;

(C) carried on a subcarrier or other signal subsidiary to a radio transmission;

(D) transmitted over a communication system provided by a common carrier, unless the communication is a tone only paging system communication; or

(E) transmitted on frequencies allocated under part 25, subpart D, E, or F of part 74, or part 94 of the Rules of the Federal Communications Commission, unless, in the case of a communication transmitted on a frequency allocated under part 74 that is not exclusively allocated to broadcast auxiliary services, the communication is a two-way voice communication by radio;

It doesn't look like their claim has much basis, since private land mobile licenses are issued under FCC Part 90. Bottom line is the law states their transmissions are readily available to the general public and can be intercepted and divulged.

Furthermore, there is a large segment of communications on the system that are public safety agencies.
 
Last edited:

pachanga22

Completely Banned for the Greater Good
Banned
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
112
And it could be days or weeks before the cache completely disappears...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top