Broadcastify Receives Cease and Desist from Terre Haute, IN City Attorney
- Thread starter blantonl
- Start date
- Status
RFI-EMI-GUY
Member
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2013
- Messages
- 7,478
I was able to grab this off Google before it goes away:
www.profitsoverpublicsafety.org/contact-us-.htmlHome. © Copyright 2016 profitsoverpublicsafety.org. All rights reserved. Who We Are. Contact Us: Profits Over Public Safety. PO Box 253. Quantico, VA 22134.
www.profitsoverpublicsafety.org/contact-us-.htmlHome. © Copyright 2016 profitsoverpublicsafety.org. All rights reserved. Who We Are. Contact Us: Profits Over Public Safety. PO Box 253. Quantico, VA 22134.
Well, I learned something new today. I had no idea what a "451" page meant so I did my 'google-fu' and found out.
beischel
Member
You have to wonder what the Terre Haute government is trying to hide from the people? Start looking for corruption there.
slicerwizard
Member
It's named after this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit_451
There are laws in some areas prohibiting scanners/receivers. These have been in effect for a long, long time, way before the current climate in this country. With the advent of amateur vhf/uhf radios that also receive out-of-band transmissions, these are not classified as scanners. Many amateur operators program public service frequencies into their radios. So, what is Terre Haute going to do, outlaw amateur radio?
I seriously doubt there were many scanner owners showing up at scenes. The ones that did the call was probably right in their neighborhood. So what they showed up. Did they interfere with anyone doing their jobs? So much for "protect and serve". Who's going to protect us from the police? No wonder this country is going to hell in a hand basket.
I seriously doubt there were many scanner owners showing up at scenes. The ones that did the call was probably right in their neighborhood. So what they showed up. Did they interfere with anyone doing their jobs? So much for "protect and serve". Who's going to protect us from the police? No wonder this country is going to hell in a hand basket.
cpetraglia
Member
Why do you keep ragging on this website? I thought it was a great idea. It just did not take. Too bad. You act like we the scanner hobbyists have no right to voice our opinion. I personally do not want to loose something I have enjoyed for over 40 years while someone else gets rich destroying it. !!! If you cared at all about our hobby, you would quiet down. You must be making money too. !!
RFI-EMI-GUY
Member
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2013
- Messages
- 7,478
Would you mind sharing the backstory on this website? I see you are in Fairfax VA. You must know more?
I don't make any money on scanning, nor any more at my day job should someone encrypt or not.
RFI-EMI-GUY
Member
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2013
- Messages
- 7,478
Here is my opinion. Streaming has been going on since the invention of the PC soundcard. Perhaps in the past 8 years Smartphones and smartphone apps have become prevalent in society. Some public safety agencies provide feeds voluntarily because they want the media and citizens to be aware of their efforts.
1) There are absolutely no FBI statistics correlating scanner or streaming apps with any increased crime statistics. No data has been catalogued period. Show us the NUMBERS!
2) Encryption of Public Safety systems is lucrative business for Motorola and Harris. Analog systems require a P25 upgrade which is extremely expensive despite any grant funds. You the tax payer foot the bill regardless. Existing P25 systems require a $750 (per algorithm) AES and or DES UCM module (plus labor) for EVERY radio and EVERY CIU as well as a Key Management Facility. Again very pricey and lucrative.
3) Running around and disparaging streaming only denigrates scanning and scanning hobbyists as a whole. Whomever trolls these pages with anti streaming diatribe only feeds the flames that will empower Motorola and Harris (see #2 above) to wave this (non) issue in front of decision makers who will cut a check.
4) Whomever put up the ProfitsOverPublicSafety site was either doing so with a profit motive in mind (see #2 above) or was a misguided scannerist thinking that by banishing streaming services that encryption would be thwarted. I am suspecting the latter and that is pretty juvenile logic.
5) when encryption arrives, it will result of the fires being fanned on these pages and websites like ProfitsOverPublicSafety.
Let's see, these are public employees protecting the public, driving vehicles purchase with public funds, using radios purchase with public funds, broadcasting on public frequencies, licensed by a public agency. I think the public has a right to know what they are doing. Encrypted transmissions should be limited to limited to the military and intelligence agencies.
cpetraglia
Member
That makes sense. The only thing is, we are BOTH fanning the flames. I know a little more than you do about the site. I choose not to reveal any more. What I do know, is they are as passionate as I am about taking any possible steps to slow down encryption. The site was not as popular as hoped, hence shut down by the owner. It was costing money and with all the people on here like you and the owner, it was not getting anywhere. However there were thousands of hits and I am sure it got people thinking.
That's all the intention was. Not intended to hurt RR or anyone else. Just to bring attention to the damage streaming is causing our hobby. You nor anyone else will ever convince me that all this new encryption has nothing to do with streaming. If not, this 15 page thread would not exist.
"I think the public has a right to know"
So, the bank robbers trying to flee on the interstate have a right to know there will be spike strips deployed right before the county line? Perhaps.
But this is why there is a *legislature* to make laws, and a court system to slap the legislature when they've stepped out of bounds. And executives and administrators, like the ones from that PD, don't get a voice in the matter of what is or isn't legal or proper.
In fact Broadcastify might stand to make a nice bit of money by politely enquiring what the basis of jurisdiction is, and if they didn't get a good answer, bringing suit for frivolous and wrongful claims, the use of the threat of wrongful prosecution as extortion. Some lawyers would be glad to send that letter and bring that suit for free. And, of course, bring it in federal court, and force that PD to come to answer in Broadcastify's home district. (Ain't karma a *****?)
All the elves love to help Santa with the shiny stuff and pretty bows, but Santa throws a special good party to thank the elves who roll up their sleeves and help pass out the coal.
So, the bank robbers trying to flee on the interstate have a right to know there will be spike strips deployed right before the county line? Perhaps.
But this is why there is a *legislature* to make laws, and a court system to slap the legislature when they've stepped out of bounds. And executives and administrators, like the ones from that PD, don't get a voice in the matter of what is or isn't legal or proper.
In fact Broadcastify might stand to make a nice bit of money by politely enquiring what the basis of jurisdiction is, and if they didn't get a good answer, bringing suit for frivolous and wrongful claims, the use of the threat of wrongful prosecution as extortion. Some lawyers would be glad to send that letter and bring that suit for free. And, of course, bring it in federal court, and force that PD to come to answer in Broadcastify's home district. (Ain't karma a *****?)
All the elves love to help Santa with the shiny stuff and pretty bows, but Santa throws a special good party to thank the elves who roll up their sleeves and help pass out the coal.
Seriously? Did you even read what you had written?
This is my surprised face.
dondi1
Member
a changed climate he means socialism
Isn't that a little much? This the only forum I've ever seen where 99% of the participants have a chip on their shoulder.
bballdawg84
Member
I have been saber rattling about encryption in my home county since a group of unelected public safety officials decided to encrypt all police communications. In fact, at one point I was personally attacked by a local fire marshal on social media claiming that I was a "cop hater" for opposing blanket encryption. I let him know that I would be taking legal action against him personally and in his official capacity if he continued his slanderous and unfounded remarks.
Use the state equivalent of FOIA requests on these departments that fully encrypt. Bury them in requests for weekly stats for logs of incidents and arrests.
Use the state equivalent of FOIA requests on these departments that fully encrypt. Bury them in requests for weekly stats for logs of incidents and arrests.
"Bury them"
ROFLMAO. I'm going to rashly assume that NJ follows the same laws that the rest of the US follows. You can file a FOIA request whenever you please, but the agency that it is served on has the right to CHARGE YOU for the search time and printing or otherwise disseminating the results.
So you can bury them in requests, but the courts will give them all the time they need to gather the data, and often also give them the right to send you an obscenely high bill before you can receive it.
That's the way THAT game is being played, all over the nation. There are plenty of award-winning traditional newspapers that have been stonewalled the same way, simply unable to drop ten grand for every simple FOIA request that shouldn't cost them more than fifty bucks.
Sometimes the court steps up. Someones a patron does. But if your request requires, say, audio transcriptions? And that means an agency is either booked up for three years or has to hire new help? You'll be given a choice. Wait in line, or pay up front. Or both.
But feel free to exercise your legal rights. Just be aware, you have the right to pay before you can do so.
ROFLMAO. I'm going to rashly assume that NJ follows the same laws that the rest of the US follows. You can file a FOIA request whenever you please, but the agency that it is served on has the right to CHARGE YOU for the search time and printing or otherwise disseminating the results.
So you can bury them in requests, but the courts will give them all the time they need to gather the data, and often also give them the right to send you an obscenely high bill before you can receive it.
That's the way THAT game is being played, all over the nation. There are plenty of award-winning traditional newspapers that have been stonewalled the same way, simply unable to drop ten grand for every simple FOIA request that shouldn't cost them more than fifty bucks.
Sometimes the court steps up. Someones a patron does. But if your request requires, say, audio transcriptions? And that means an agency is either booked up for three years or has to hire new help? You'll be given a choice. Wait in line, or pay up front. Or both.
But feel free to exercise your legal rights. Just be aware, you have the right to pay before you can do so.
And, I've heard of some states that have changed their barratry laws to include frivolous use of some government processes besides litigation. The changes were aimed at the harassing use of FOIA. Admittedly, the information is anecdotal because I've never actually looked for it but it certainly wouldn't surprise me.
RFI-EMI-GUY
Member
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2013
- Messages
- 7,478
Florida is a Sunshine State, meaning that Govt processes must be performed in the open for the public to witness. In reality, it is not and most dealings go on behind closed doors.
This boiler plate shows up on our local planning and commission agenda, it as it is presented, it is clearly aimed at intimidating dissent from citizens in this developer friendly town:
"PURSUANT TO SECTION 286.0105, FLORIDA STATUTES, ANY PERSON DESIRING TO APPEAL ANY
DECISION MADE BY THE CITY COUNCIL, WITH RESPECT TO
ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT ANY
MEETING OR HEARING, WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCE
EDINGS AND MAY NEED TO ENSURE
THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE W
HICH INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND
EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
"This record is not provided by the City of xxxxx.""\
The last sentence is added by the City to append the actual Statute. The next section in Florida Law: FS 286.011 Public meetings and records; public inspection; criminal and civil penalties, clearly indicates the City must provide such records.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
