Broadcastify Questions and Answers

Status
Not open for further replies.

chris451rr

Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2008
Messages
49
Location
iowa
Obviously you don't get permission from these radio sources that I can find.
Below I quoted something that brings into question any of the scanner rebroadcasting.
The lack of clear dispatch channels here now puts me the motorist in danger as I can no longer
reroute around incidents that I used to hear about on a dispatch channel with my radios.
I got stuck behind one this week, in the middle of a 4 lane. Not a good place to sit in heavy rain.
Any open discussion or public broadcasting of these may be very questionable. From what I see anyone can connect to them. The following FCC rules apply to this internet feed.

Guidelines for Use of Information from Police Scanners
By Kathleen A. Kirby, Partner and Ari S. Meltzer, Associate; Wiley Rein LLP

Scanner traffic is a direct source of information as it happens. But it is always unconfirmed. Anyone tuning into a live scanner feed, or reading a transcription of a feed on social media, should not assume that everything they are hearing is accurate. Obviously, use or broadcast of scanner traffic raises ethical questions such as how to carefully balance the public’s right to know against the potential for disclosing tactical movements designed to keep the public safe.

For broadcast journalists, there always has been the additional legal question of whether the rebroadcast of police, fire, or other emergency radio communications violates the Communications Act or the rules and regulations of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). When read in conjunction with the Wiretap Act, the Communications Act permits the interception of police or fire communications generally available to the public using a scanner. The statute has long been read to prohibit the divulgence or publication of these intercepted communications (although we are aware of no instance where a broadcaster has been prosecuted for divulging a police or fire communication). In the wake of the Supreme Court’s 2001 decision in Bartnicki v. Vopper, however, in which the Court sanctioned the publication of information about an issue of public importance that was lawfully obtained, the FCC itself has recognized that the law in this area is unclear and that Section 705’s prohibition on divulgence may well be unconstitutional.

Section 705 of the Communications Act provides that:
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. 47 U.S.C. § 605(a). The penalties for violating this section are severe: a fine of not more than $2000, imprisonment, or both or, where such violation is “willfull[] and for purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage or private financial gain,” a fine of up to $50,000 and imprisonment of not more than two years for the first such conviction and up to $100,000 and five years for subsequent convictions. In addition, the statute provides for a private civil remedy to any person aggrieved by a violation of this section. The FCC regulations implementing this section more specifically provide that messages originated by “privately-owned non-broadcast stations . . . may be broadcast only upon receipt of prior permission from the non-broadcast licensee.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top