Years ago it was illegal to repeat what you heard on the scanner, is that still in effect
Against the law
- Thread starter scanman312
- Start date
- Status
Well if it were there'd be millions of keyboard warriors on social media giving up to the minute incident play by play who'd be repeat offenders
It is not. Otherwise websites like Broadcastify would be illegal.
I note the impractical (and somewhat unenforceable) ECPA86/90 is still in effect. Do we even use phones in those frequencies anymore?
"Unenforceable?" Yeah - the CMT bands were carved out of the UHF-TV bands, and any schmuck with a ten-dollar televisor from Goodwill (the sort with tuning knobs,) could start about, oh, Channel 63 I believe, and just fine-tune up from there to 75 or so and hit the whole CMT band.
An unenforceable pain in the rump. Seriously, how are you going to enforce and penalize someone merely monitoring or listening to a given frequency, if they don't do anything with it?
This is the sort of thing that happens when people tell Congress to "Do Something!" - when they could solve the problem themselves by going and getting encryption devices for their mobile phones (which was perfectly legal to do, as I recall.)
But, why fix the problem yourself when you can take the lazy/cheap way out and have Congress do something stupid and useless for you?
mmckenna
I ♥ Ø
Yes, however the days of AMPS cellular are L-O-N-G gone, and all the LTE stuff is encrypted. I think there has been some movement to clean up FCC rules, including doing away with this part. No reason to have an unenforceable rule in place when the system has already addressed the issue (a long time ago).
Early analog 800MHz public safety radio systems, also.
It was aimed more at blocking the consumers ability to tune into those frequencies with the available equipment. It was, and is, still entirely possible with spectrum analyzers, service monitors, and even SDR's. But like I said above, LTE is encrypted by design.
I think it was even better than that. I believe the original issue came from some government official that was voted in and was doing some inappropriate stuff via cell phone that was easily exposed.
Nothing makes a politician act faster than when the public can see what they are -actually- doing and who they are really working for.
Got a legal citation for that assertion of fact?
I‘ve never heard that the pertinent parts of the Communications Act (as amended) had ever been repealed.
It's not explicitly legal, but it's not illegal. It is a grey area. If it were fully illegal, do you not think the major feed providers would have been shut down ages ago? I am not a lawyer, but the way I and many others have interpreted the act is that unencrypted radio traffic is free to listen to and broadcast. Now what someone does with that radio traffic is another thing.
ecps92
Member
Not a Lawyer, but have slept at a Holiday Inn Express a few times. (See if anyone gets that reference)
Broadcasting / Streaming and then Re-Telling are two different animals.
Last edited:
Again, I'll ask also what @wa8pyr did, do you have a legal citation for what you posted?
The fact no one is doing anything about something and it being legal are two different things.
Legality of RadioReference Live Audio Broadcasts and Archives
Many questions come up about the legality of our audio feeds and archives, so here is RadioReference's position on the matter. 47 USC 605 (Unauthorized Publication or Use of Communications) states in the beginning (emphasis added): Except as authorized by chapter 119, Title 18, no person...
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2004
- Messages
- 1,063
- Reaction score
- 126
There are times the media uses sound of the calls as long as they courtesy
This is not a citation this is " so here is RadioReference's position on the matter."Legality of RadioReference Live Audio Broadcasts and Archives
Many questions come up about the legality of our audio feeds and archives, so here is RadioReference's position on the matter. 47 USC 605 (Unauthorized Publication or Use of Communications) states in the beginning (emphasis added): Except as authorized by chapter 119, Title 18, no person...forums.radioreference.com
Many laws are subject to interpretation by various lawyers and scholars. I guess it's allowed to be interpreted the way anyone wants. I suspect less and less this will be even a factor as one day, they'll be nothing left to stream worth listening to, and we'll sit here and wonder why...
Section 705 of the Communications Act of 1934 makes it illegal to divulge, publish, or use the information heard for personal gain or to assist in criminal activity. Section 705 of the Communications Act of 1934 is still active law (not been repealed or modified, at least I cannot find any citation that indicates that.
Enforcement of any law is discretionary. When I was working part of my responsibilities involved investigating and resolving complaints from tow companies. The most common complaint was when we called for a hook from Company A, Company B beat them to the scene likely because Company B was monitoring the police comms and heard the officer call for the hook. If true then, IMO, that would be a clear violation of Section 705 but good luck proving that much less getting the feds to even look at it. Heck, one holiday season we had a jammer on one of or fire frequencies. He was calling in all sorts of things that had the affected FD running around town. I spoke with someone at the Chicago FCC office, explained the situation and asked for help in locating the offender. My request was rejected with an apology citing not enough staff resources or something like that. He did ask that we notify them if we were able to identify and locate the jammer.
That situation resolved itself...the jammer disappeared as quickly as he appeared. A bit later we learned that the jammer had stolen an FD portable but not the battery charger which is why he eventually went quiet. The point being that If the FCC did not have the resources to help us silence a jammer...an actual, realtime threat to public and officer safety, they certainly do not have the resources or the inclination to enforce Section 705 violations.
GlobalNorth
Active Member
Keep in mind the two theories of law: 'Negative Freedom' and 'Positive Freedom'.
Negative Freedom is when you examine any legal codex and find that what is not specifically prohibited is legal. Example - The US Constitution's Bill of Rights.
Positive Freedom is when you look at another legal codex and discover that only what is specifically listed is permitted is legal and all other acts are inherently illegal. Example - The US IRS Tax Code.
Negative Freedom is when you examine any legal codex and find that what is not specifically prohibited is legal. Example - The US Constitution's Bill of Rights.
Positive Freedom is when you look at another legal codex and discover that only what is specifically listed is permitted is legal and all other acts are inherently illegal. Example - The US IRS Tax Code.
nd5y
Member
I also say Yes it is illegal, but it is really unenforceable like jaywalking until a politician gets caught up in the mix like what mmckenna referred to.
Listening to non-encrypted radio traffic is legal (at this time in the US), but repeating what was heard to anyone else is still illegal.
However, like every other law on the books nowadays, people do whatever they want until they get caught, and then the laws could be applied depending upon who they are or who they know.
And if the laws are applied for some wild reason, put a spin on it to call it something else (which it is not) to divert, just like all of the peaceful protesting.
Broadcastify was forced to add a long delay to all broadcasts so that the misunderstood people (criminals) would not know in real time what the police were doing and where they were at.
Oh how times have changed.
Best Regards
- Status
