Broadcastify Receives Cease and Desist from Terre Haute, IN City Attorney

[nd5y]

So exactly where is the 'right' to stream public safety comms enshrined in the constitution? Also where is the 'right' to listen to listen to 2way radio communications, not intended for you to be a recipient enshrined in the constitution?

It's not in the constitution. The federal laws about it are at:
http://uscode.house.gov/browse/prelim@title47/chapter5/subchapter6&edition=prelim
Click on Sec. 605. Unauthorized publication or use of communications
and
http://uscode.house.gov/browse/prelim@title18/part1/chapter119&edition=prelim
Click on Sec. 2510. Definitions
and
Sec. 2511. Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited

 

[wx5uif]

On top of what Lindsay stated, Enid, OK delayed their NXDN roll out until they found a way to simulcast their traffic on the old analog repeater. The Chief found out that the community couldn't listen to the new digital and made the switch over wait for a couple months.

My friend who is an officer there said they get many calls that come in from listeners that help them out.

 

[Chronic]

D. Broadcastify takes the feed down and tomorrow receives 10,000 more take down letters from other agencies.
But it would be interesting to know the Political affiliation of the mayor of TH .

 

[blantonl]

D. Broadcastify takes the feed down and tomorrow receives 10,000 more take down letters from other agencies.
But it would be interesting to know the Political affiliation of the mayor of TH .

E. The Streisand effect kicks in and 5 other people set up feeds on their own Web sites.

 

[KK4JUG]

Here are the three scenarios that will happen.

A. Broadcastify fights the letter.

B. Broadcastify wins the battle because of Constitution rights

C. City and County then goes Encrypt everything. They win the war. Problem solved.

You're probably right. Broadcastify will win all the battles but the city and county will win the war.

 

[krazybob]

FCC Position on Streaming

The FCC does not consider it illegal. Their standard reply is as follows:

"FCC rules do not prohibit redistributing over the Internet those communications licensed under FCC rules Part 90, such as the communications of local government, law enforcement, civil defense, private land mobile, or public safety communications, including police, EMS, fire and the like.

Licensees under FCC rules Part 90 concerned about the intercept and divulgence of their communications may encrypt or "scramble" these communications, except for station identification. Part 90.735(d) requires station identification to be transmitted by unencrypted voice. Station ID may also be by digital transmission of the station call sign, including by Morse code. A licensee that identifies its station in this manner must provide the Commission, on request, information (such as digital codes and algorithms) sufficient to decipher the data transmission to ascertain the call sign transmitted.

Rules are located in Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations; Part 90 is available online at

FCC: Wireless Telecommunications Bureau

Hope this information proves helpful.

Saundra Drayton
Federal Communications Commission"

 

[allend]

Anybody that has a brain and has common sense and that is smart will realize how this story is going to end.

Cities and Counties that have already locked down their comms are not having any meetings with The City Attorney on how to deal with these kinds of issues. They have moved on to bigger issues than dealing with their radio communication problems getting streamed all over the world.

Just wait until your comms get locked down in your city and county. It will happen and I guarantee that you will feel the stress and pain. I can guarantee it. Where I live we all have been feeling the pain for the past 15 years

 

[Bellingham_Scanner]

Also nice try pinning this on Trump, when in theory the FCC is indeed one of the LEAST political branches of government. ACTUALLY if you want to really go there, encryption has SKYROCKETED under President Obama,. So get your facts straight

Okay mister facts, tell me how a program (Project 25) started in 1989 during the Reagan Administration is somehow Obama's fault?

Just like the "Obama Phone" (another program started by the Reagan administration), Conservatives love to blame their failed policies on the other guy. For being the party of "personal responsibility", Conservative seem unable to take responsibility for their own actions.

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

I wonder if this development is related to activity of this clown.

http://www.profitsoverpublicsafety.org/home2.html

Take Action!

I notice some recent activity and comments on the Take Action! Page.

If they are so concerned, why not try to take on Uniden and Whistler for making it so easy for anyone to listen in?

 

[Hans13]

Anybody that has a brain and has common sense and that is smart will realize how this story is going to end.

Cities and Counties that have already locked down their comms are not having any meetings with The City Attorney on how to deal with these kinds of issues. They have moved on to bigger issues than dealing with their radio communication problems getting streamed all over the world.

Just wait until your comms get locked down in your city and county. It will happen and I guarantee that you will feel the stress and pain. I can guarantee it. Where I live we all have been feeling the pain for the past 15 years

There is an even bigger picture... With the right fight, government will have to justify a dire need to encrypt before they can do so. Respectfully, your viewpoint is myopic and akin to Neville Chamberlain's stance. Rolling over is not an option.

 

[krazybob]

I wonder if we could stick to the original topic leaving out the unnecessary sarcasm and political overtones.

I stream 20 separate feeds from three separate locations in Southern California to a private site web site that reaches a paltry 3.3k users. I thought of bringing them over here to Radio Reference. The letter I quoted is an actual letter from the FCC. I think I would send the associated U.S. Title 47 sections as well as the letter I posted directly to the City Attorney. He's calling you out. The city has deeper pockets and it could backfire.

Since they're not encrypting their primary dispatch channel if I read this correctly pursuant to the FCC is position and backed up by Title 47 they don't have a legal leg to stand on. I do have to agree having been involved with the San Bernardino terrorist act that there are valid reasons for encryption. I've had a long fast rule absolutely no narcotic, surveillance or Homeland Security information may be streamed. He states that the climate has changed and I believe he's correct in that assessment.

On the other hand as has been stated by another if a terrorist wants to listen in that enough he'll buy a scanner. What will the City Attorney have accomplished then?

I have found the police departments generally don't encrypt their primary dispatch channel(s) for interoperability reasons. And neighboring City may need to come up on their channel for mutual aid and may not have the encryption key. If the city has not integrated an unencrypted utual aid access channel like LAPD has as well as Orange County California sheriff all bets are off. But the mere creation of the access channel defeats the purpose of encryption. Therefore, cities are less likely to encrypt their primary dispatch channel. This is just my speculation but based on 40 years of scanning.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

 

[n0nhp]

City and County Communications officials are aware and with the last conversation I had with them and officers in the community, have no problem with my feed. When we were able to see the IP addresses of the listeners to our feeds, I often saw the 911 dispatch center, Highway patrol dispatch as well as other city, county and state addresses listening for extended periods.
That said, all car to car, sensitive scene (TAC) and detective channels are encrypted.
Much of dispatch is carried over the CAD (Computer Aided Dispatch) to the officer's MDT (Mobile Data Terminal).
I will, on occasion hear Tactical communications on a feed channel and if I am in a position to do so, will Remote into the feed computer and temporarily lock the channel out for officer and public safety.

Being as our semi-rural area relies on many volunteers, the feed provides a way for them to get information before they arrive and can pickup an expensive, limited availability radio.

I will side with Lindsay on fighting this as the officials who put the county attorney up to filing the paperwork, unless it is proven to them that no laws are being broken, will continue to attempt to grow their power using the courts and made up grievances.

Bruce

 

[krazybob]

So exactly where is the 'right' to stream public safety comms enshrined in the constitution? Also where is the 'right' to listen to listen to 2way radio communications, not intended for you to be a recipient enshrined in the constitution?

Those aren't fair questions because the obvious answer to both is that they are not. The City may believe that the Electronics Communications Privacy Act of 1934 as amended 1981 gives them the authority to send a cease and desist. Title 47 says otherwise. This isn't a political or constitutional issue. Respectfully, I think you know that.

 

[krazybob]

I wonder if this development is related to activity of this clown.

Unauthorized Streaming: A strange practice...

Take Action!

I notice some recent activity and comments on the Take Action! Page.

If they are so concerned, why not try to take on Uniden and Whistler for making it so easy for anyone to listen in?

I wonder who pee'd in his Cheerio's? Perhaps he ran a private feed a RR/ Broadcastify outnumbered him and took profits from him. He wants to get even. Seems to me anyone taking a serious stand doesn't privately register their web site address. There are many, many, many reasons not to encrypt. If it is sensitive move it to a secure TAC. Problem solved.

I swear that when I hit the $1.5B Powerball I'm taking on Orange County, CA! As a citizen I have a right to know what my police officers are up to in real time. Orange County hid behind their encrypted system to protect the Under Sheriff and his rapist, drug dealing son. He is now in prison. Deputies that used secure communications to seek "counsel" on how to handle the matter have been sanctioned. This is old news now. But every bit true. The Sheriff is now doing federal time!

 

[NC1]

It would appear to me that they have made a demand that exceeds their authority, and are out of their jurisdiction.

 

[KK4JUG]

It would appear to me that they have made a demand that exceeds their authority, and are out of their jurisdiction.

The DA probably figures it's worth a shot. I'm sure it didn't cost anything.

 

[krazybob]

Except that the feed originates in or near Terre Haute Indiana. I believe I read that the streamer cooperates and when he hears sensitive information on an unencrypted channel he voluntarily shuts down. Those are the kind of ethics that are hobby needs. Streamers that willy-nilly stream out information that just shouldn't be out there should not be allowed to do so. I booted people off of my system for doing just that and they went around bad-mouthing me but so be it. To me it comes very close to what some people think is a small act of publicizing DUI checkpoints. DUI checkpoints are supposed to be random for a reason. Why do we want to enable drunks to go around them and completely miss the point and waste resources? I see it on my Facebook group all the time. Not directly related to this issue but kind of the same mental process. We police ourselves and that should be enough.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

 

[NC1]

The DA probably figures it's worth a shot. I'm sure it didn't cost anything.

I am sure of that too.

In my opinion, there is a personal gripe or agenda somewhere at play here.

Those who give up liberty for a little peace and safety deserve neither.
Hmmmm, that sounds familiar, lol

The only thing worse than that is making everyone in the country give up their liberty for something that may or may not happen to a few people in a specific location. That is not how this country was set up. It is a safe bet that the DA is not a Constitutionalist. But I digress.............

I still think it is up to the FCC since they have authority throughout the entire process; from someone keying the microphone, to the point it is heard by the listener.

 

[blantonl]

The thing that has me confused is Terre Haute already encrypts all their sensitive talkgroups for law enforcement. They *only* leave their regular single dispatch channel open.

So they are already doing everything right when it comes to protecting their officers and their sensitive communications.

It's as if they've setup their communications plan to keep routine generation operations open and transparent to the public, but then they want to control/restrict access to that through legal means.

The more I think about it the more it makes my head hurt.

 

[bailly2]

only time i goto broadcastify is during nfl games, and not once has anyone streamed any police or security during them. so if broadcastify gets shut down fine by me. they should just sell their servers on ebay