FCC Eavesdropping Rules.

[Slyster]

"Don't feed the troll"....

How true.. I should remember.... when someone brings up something very abrasive.. on their FIRST post... it is a troll.. no doubt.

He will post a couple more times then we will never hear from him again.

 

[SCPD]

I'm just a little confused.

Posting to this forum is certain to add to your confusion. You do realize you're being incredibly offensive, right?

I see lots of posts on here that divulge the details of radio conversations, even providing quotes. I thought that wasn't legal to do, you could listen - but not tell the information to others for any reason. I always thought this was part of Federal law, or at least FCC Regs.

You're half right. You'll need to do some diligence to figure out which half.

Here's a portion of the code you cited:

“(g) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter or chapter 121 of this title for any person— “(ii) to intercept any radio communication
which is transmitted—“I. by any station for the use of the general public, or that relates to ships, aircraft, vehicles, or persons in distress; “II. by any governmental, law enforcement, civil defense, private land mobile, or public safety communications system, including police and fire, readily accessible to the general public.”

Notice the bold text above? Okay ... let's go ...

Notice that only the term intercept is used. The law clearly states that the interception or reception of communications over the radio is permissible, but the language indicates that to divulge or publish the contents of intercepted communications is likely unlawful. This would include not only the voice portion, but any technical information displayed by a scanning receiver.

So you're saying that if I hear someone say "Mayday" on the VHF air band or "SOS" on a marine channel - that I am prohibited from disclosing what I heard. Is that right?

So... It looks like there is a lot of shady information being passed around here...

Only when viewed with shady eyes. Did I mention your post was offensive?

Is this what computer hacker sites are like too?

One of the biggest "hacker" websites I know is Consumer Reports. They tear things apart to verify that they are safe. You know - thinks like exploding cars or toys that could choke a toddler. Most important - they share the information. This is exactly what hacker conscious site securityfocus does for computer and network security.

Let me guess ... you're a college student and this is the topic for your essay?

Seriously ... do some more searching ... and reading. The federal laws are relatively easy. Figuring out all of the different state and local laws is the real hassle.

-rick

 

[ibagli]

The comparison between the news media and the scanner types is not a valid one.. The media will listen to a scanner, then a reporter is sent to find out what actually happened through interviews, etc., then they write the news piece. I don't think I've ever seen a direct quote of off the air conversations from a legitimate media outlet. Media use of scanners is very responsible - they know and understand Federal law.
When you hear radio audio in a news story, it's from a recording provided by the originating agency.
So... my original point is still valid..

I've never seen a direct quote, but my local newspaper puts up "breaking news" stories all the time that would have to have been taken off of a scanner. The level of detail is low enough, and it's typically within 15 minutes.

 

[gmclam]

No personal gain; don't endanger anyone

Definitely an interesting first post/question. What I've always believed is that we are not allowed to divulge what we hear either for personal gain or if will endanger someone. For example, I listen in on undercover operations most nights. That is something I would never divulge (while it is happening) and I don't think you'll find that stuff posted here. However, when there is something going on like a vehicle persuit or a major crime that just took place, we are going to post it so that others can be aware and/or be on the lookout for a suspect.

 

[Artjirbal1950]

Offensive? Just pointing out some facts.. Abrasive? Not even close to some of the rants and tirades I've seen on here..
And, yes I did read the part about "in distress".. Notifying the authorities if one overhears a distress call is not the issue. Posting detailed contents of radio conversations is the part that seems illegal.. One has nothing to do with the other (unless I missed the sinking ship and crashing airplane part of the forum). Especially posting information about undercover work, no matter how long after the fact. Why make it even a little easier on the bad guys? After all, they know about scanners and the internet too.

 

[SCPD]

Offensive? Just pointing out some facts.. Abrasive? Not even close to some of the rants and tirades I've seen on here.

You labeled the information here as "shady". That's offensive ... and not just to me.

Go do some research. Find a citation where the law was applied in the way you claim.

Here's a hint of what you may find ...

A point of concern has been made about police, fire and other
emergency service communications, and I do believe that the assistance
of the emergency service personnel should not be interrupted. It is my
understanding that language in the committee report will explain that
nothing in the bill is intended to interfere with the lawful reception
of these emergency communications.

The above statement was made by congress critter Linder of Georgia on the House floor.

Here is a link for more on HR514.

-rick