Calgary, CAN Tweeting police scanner news 'risky,' say police

[gtaman]

The major reason why scanners were prohibited from being able to receive the cell band was cause Newt Gingrich was caught cheating on his wife by a local scanner buff in florida. He was so pissed and got all the politicians up in arms about them also potentially getting caught talking with their mistresses on their newly introduced cell phones that they locked out the cell bands from all scanners and also prohibited them from being able to be modified.

Anyone remember that?

Yup and I think it should be lifted. A regular scanner cannot decode cellphones and plus cellphones don't use only one band now. All we will hear is digital noise. The only way to listen to them is to buy a 4000 to 5000 dollar reciver that has the boards of CDMA and gsm built with the decoder software which the government can only get.

 

[mancow]

Joe Blow isn't breaking the law by tweeting what he sees from his window. Apples and oranges.

Not yet.

 

[Jay911]

Yup and I think it should be lifted. A regular scanner cannot decode cellphones and plus cellphones don't use only one band now. All we will hear is digital noise. The only way to listen to them is to buy a 4000 to 5000 dollar reciver that has the boards of CDMA and gsm built with the decoder software which the government can only get.

Ok, I'll buy into this (off-topic) discussion.

Why should we have access to this section of the band?

It's like being uptight because some scanners don't receive 520-760 MHz.

There's nothing in that range to listen to.

I for one wouldn't want a company to waste money R&D'ing and building a scanner that can receive 824-869 just for the purpose of having an "unblocked" scanner. It'd be like lobbying for television manufacturers to "give us back" channel 1 on the broadcast dial. You could argue for it, and if it were to come to pass, you'd be able to buy a TV that could do it (and that TV would cost more than one without it), but what benefit do you have?

 

[gtaman]

what HOST/DSP/UCM version are their XTS5000's using? What algo? Because they must be ANCIENT if they are having these problems.

Our county uses XTS5000's with AES-256 UCM's, current HOST/DSP/UCM and they are on an Astro 25 V7.x simulcast DTRS- which means unlike NYPD which correct me if I'm wrong is CONVENTIONAL, their radios are tuned to a trunking CC and decoding OSW's and responding to affiliation requests and polls, and yet their officers get the same rated 8.5-10hrs of battery life in secure mode vs. clear.

So either your radios are way out of date s/w wise, or your batteries are shot.

Have you ever tried them in simplex. When they are a repeater they work fine. But on simplex it's a whole different story. These were my recent tests on encryption using 4 watts simplex. Analog gave me about 2.2 miles in the clear. When encrypted both types I only got a mile and a quarter at that distance you could barly make out what the person was saying. Digital. On simplex in the clear I got about 1.8 miles in out of garbling. When encrypted I got a little under a mile. It was extremely garbled and then it stopped decoding and gave me a mixture if encrypted noise and decrypted noise. The point is encryption can work fine is the system is set up from the start to support encryption. Also if its not simplex. Now this is a different case for a trunking system encryption is fine on them. It's the conv system that it sucks at.

 

[gtaman]

Ok, I'll buy into this (off-topic) discussion.

Why should we have access to this section of the band?

It's like being uptight because some scanners don't receive 520-760 MHz.

There's nothing in that range to listen to.

I for one wouldn't want a company to waste money R&D'ing and building a scanner that can receive 824-869 just for the purpose of having an "unblocked" scanner. It'd be like lobbying for television manufacturers to "give us back" channel 1 on the broadcast dial. You could argue for it, and if it were to come to pass, you'd be able to buy a TV that could do it (and that TV would cost more than one without it), but what benefit do you have?

The same question comes back why did they block it? It was 15 years ago when this block was somewhat effective. Now it's useless. Ok also why do they insist on blocking wireless microphones thiers no point of it. I would gladly use a scanner for wireless microphone because I could change channels very easily. I wouldn't have to buy a 600 dollar reciver for listening to someone sing when a 200 dollar scanner will do it. I do see where your going and I somewhat agree but why are we the outcasts in the world. Look at scanner sold in other countries fully unblocked they can get almost anything. I have a friend who I shouldn't be saying this has a few forign scanners and all they do different is pick microphones and the annoying TDMA cell noise on cell bands.

 

[zerg901]

Joe Blow isn't breaking the law by tweeting what he sees from his window. Apples and oranges.

"Apples and oranges" perhaps in the trivial legal sense. Exactly the same in the operational sense.

 

[nunyax]

The major reason why scanners were prohibited from being able to receive the cell band was cause Newt Gingrich was caught cheating on his wife by a local scanner buff in florida. He was so pissed and got all the politicians up in arms about them also potentially getting caught talking with their mistresses on their newly introduced cell phones that they locked out the cell bands from all scanners and also prohibited them from being able to be modified.

Anyone remember that?

"cheating"? Oh, please... The recorded Gingrich call was from 1997.

Florida Couple Say They Recorded Gingrich's Call - Los Angeles Times

The Electronic Communications Privacy Act passed in 1986!

 

[KB7MIB]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; U; en-US) Gecko/20081217 Vision-Browser/8.1 301x200 LG VN530)

The GRE PSR-500's don't receive 782-791 MHz & 797-806 MHz apparantly due to the fact that they'd receive images from the cellular band. This covers a portion of the 775-793 MHz Commercial allocation, and the entire 799-805 Public Safety mobile allocation.

 

[KB7MIB]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; U; en-US) Gecko/20081217 Vision-Browser/8.1 301x200 LG VN530)

Rescind the ECPA, and scanners could cover the entire 763-805MHz range. I think it'd be interesting to be able to hear the inputs to a public safety trunked system, especially in areas where multi-path wrecks havoc trying to receive a system normally.

 

[Jay911]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; U; en-US) Gecko/20081217 Vision-Browser/8.1 301x200 LG VN530)

The GRE PSR-500's don't receive 782-791 MHz & 797-806 MHz apparantly due to the fact that they'd receive images from the cellular band. This covers a portion of the 775-793 MHz Commercial allocation, and the entire 799-805 Public Safety mobile allocation.

I'm not sure if the block is because they receive into the "cellular band" (actually, now that you mention that, it does make sense). I have seen demonstrable proof that tuning to ~791 on the GRE nets you signals in the ~866 range, so it's entirely possible that tuning a GRE radio to the 797-806 part of the band could put you above the 869 MHz limit of the "taboo" cell region (which is a barren wasteland these days anyway). That is about the only reason I can see to "unrestrict" the "cell band" - making it easier for manufacturers to open up the 763-806 MHz range, without worrying about hearing (nonexistent) images of cell calls.

 

[kf5jmd]

I'm not sure if I saw anywhere in that article about Boston anything giving an example of how any officers were ever put in danger by people listening to the scanner and then tweeting, facebooking, or whatever.

What again happened that endangered police officers, first responders, or anyone working the scene?

Only thing I saw in that article was someone *****ing about news media running wrong names of suspects, pictures from different storms, and, well, that's about it. Nothing about how it endangered anyone? Can someone please give an example? How does the Scanner or Scanner Streaming Apps cause possible harm to officers or otherwise?

 

[DaveNF2G]

How does tweeting what they are listening to or what they are reading online a crime..?? People want to cite a law that was in 1934 before any social media or the internet was around??

The Communications Act of 1934, as amended, is still the law of the land. Sort of like the Constitution of 1791. Get it?

"Apples and oranges" perhaps in the trivial legal sense. Exactly the same in the operational sense.

One of America's greatest social problems is the trivialization of law.

I for one wouldn't want a company to waste money R&D'ing and building a scanner that can receive 824-869 just for the purpose of having an "unblocked" scanner.

Backwards, I think. Blocking part of a contiguous frequency band is what adds complexity and cost.

 

[Jay911]

Actually, since this article is Canadian in nature, the Communications Act of 1934 has no standing. It's the Radiocommunication Act that has force.

For the record, this is what section 9 (2) states:

(2) Except as prescribed, no person shall intercept and make use of, or intercept and divulge, any radiocommunication, except as permitted by the originator of the communication or the person intended by the originator of the communication to receive it.

"intercept and divulge" is the term and though IANAL, yes, I would believe it would cover tweeting, posting on a forum, or even just live-streaming. If I recall, RadioReference had to take a good look at this section when Canadian officials raised issues about audio feeds a year or three back. That's one of the reasons my feed is now "official", because as the originator of the radiocommunications on my feed, my agency is obviously permitted to retransmit ("divulge") them.

 

[DaveNF2G]

Jay is correct about the fact that this thread originated based on a Canadian issue and the Radiocommunication Act is the proper standard. However, most participants in the thread are in the USA and have intermixed comments from that perspective. Boston, MA, for example, would fall under the Communications Act.

People need to remember that this is an international forum.

The wording of the two laws is very similar. The FCC has taken the view that live streaming does not contravene the Communications Act. Industry Canada might interpret their own law differently.

 

[gaburbano]

Incorrect..

"cheating"? Oh, please... The recorded Gingrich call was from 1997.

Florida Couple Say They Recorded Gingrich's Call - Los Angeles Times

The Electronic Communications Privacy Act passed in 1986!

Incorrect, the ginrich call was in 1993, and the ECPA was ammended in 1994 to prohibit scanners from receiving the lower 800mhz band which was primarily used by cell phones. That call was intercepted by a reporter and published in early 1993 in florida. This infuriated ginrich and other congressmen, who were panicking that they would be caught on their cellphones. That couple claimed that they had the call in LA, but it actually happened in florida.

The ammendment to the ECPA of 1986 was to include cell phones and other "radio type" transmissions..

George

 

[gaburbano]

The first ammendment prohibited scanners from receiving the band. The ammendment was then ammended again to include scanners from being able to be modified from receiving cell bands.

Thats why the radio shack models which were 800 mhz blocked were easily modifiable by in most cases simply removing a diode. After the ammendment to the ammendment passed, scanners that could be modified in this way would not be legally sold in the US.

You can go to canada and purchase these easily.

George

 

[Jay911]

You can go to canada and purchase these easily.

You can? Where? Certainly not in any retailer I've dealt with in the past 10 years.

 

[gaburbano]

I bought one...

You can? Where? Certainly not in any retailer I've dealt with in the past 10 years.

email me direct and I'll tell you.


I bought an aor 8600mkII in canada. You cant buy one and get it shipped cause you always run the risk of customs stopping it. But if you travel to canada on business or pleasure you can stop at several retailers and purchase 1. I called ahead sent a deposit and it was waiting for me when I got there.

george

 

[gaburbano]

Im going to italy this year to visit family and am purchasing an 8200mk3.. I couldnt care less about cellphones plus they are all digital transmissions now anyway.. But I just rather have a radio that isnt blocked due to some political nonsense.

George

 

[nunyax]

Incorrect, the ginrich call was in 1993, and the ECPA was ammended in 1994 to prohibit scanners from receiving the lower 800mhz band which was primarily used by cell phones. That call was intercepted by a reporter and published in early 1993 in florida. This infuriated ginrich and other congressmen, who were panicking that they would be caught on their cellphones. That couple claimed that they had the call in LA, but it actually happened in florida.

The ammendment to the ECPA of 1986 was to include cell phones and other "radio type" transmissions..

George

The call took place on December 21,1996.

AllPolitics - The Tale Of The Tape - Jan. 13, 1997