FCC Eavesdropping Rules.

[Artjirbal1950]

I'm just a little confused. 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.

However, it was very interesting looking into the Communications Act as amended in 1996 , it would appear that this type of activity could be illegal: Section 705 [47 U.S.C. 605]: Unauthorized Publication of Communications states:
“Except as authorized by chapter 119, title 18, United States Code ... 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.”
And Chapter 119, Title 18, §2511, (2), (g),
(ii), (II), of the United States Code (available at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+18USC2511) includes a section on listening to public safety radio communications:
“(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 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... It looks like there is a lot of shady information being passed around here... Is this what computer hacker sites are like too?

Art.

 

[wjf]

Go away.

 

[Mark]

Also driving your vehicle 56 mph in a 55 mph zone is illegal also.

You joined up here here at RR just to quote the FCC?
We are fans and hobbyists of radio! Not the enemy/criminals.
A big difference.

Mark

 

[Slyster]

What an odd FIRST post... best we never hear from him again.

Anyway... "Welcome to Radio Reference!"

 

[stevecubfan]

is it drugs, booze or both ?

 

[Sac916]

"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"

The media ( mostly local news stations ) violate this law every day. They monitor a scanner, report what they hear the police doing. Be it from the air, sky, or office - hearing a scanner (public safety) radio transmission and then commiti the sinful act of discussion - illegal. Yes, they get info from Public Information Officers, but they also get info LIVE, in progress, all from their little scanners. Now, don't get me wrong, I have no problem with this, and actually I think the media play a vital role when it comes to local news reporting, especially in-progress events.

Anyways - it's a tired topic Art. You're saying nothing unique.

 

[mikepdx]

If you're so worried about people violating federal law Art,
perhaps you can test the waters and set a legal precedent:

Drop by your local TV station and place the News Director under citizens arrest.

Report back to us after you make bail.

 

[stevecubfan]

If you're so worried about people violating federal law Art,
perhaps you can test the waters and set a legal precedent:

Drop by your local TV station and place the News Director under citizens arrest.

Report back to us after you make bail.

i thought last night '' well there goes our local news 15 minutes of weather and sports only.

 

[Slyster]

How about we worry about some larger issues? Like Iraq, nukes, illegal immigration, global warming, yada yada.. There's bigger fish to fry.

 

[spiritwolfpr]

Hello Friends:

I was thinking that it was a moral duty to inform the
autorities if you hear like people planing to put bombs,
assinations and the like...

 

[n2mdk]

Hello Friends:

I was thinking that it was a moral duty to inform the
autorities if you hear like people planing to put bombs,
assinations and the like...

Ah yes those sneaky terrorists using FRS radios to do their planning.

 

[trooperdude]

This would include not only the voice portion, but any technical information displayed by a scanning receiver.
Art.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

:roll:

 

[spiritwolfpr]

Ah yes those sneaky terrorists using FRS radios to do their planning.

The Machetteros did the armored robery in NYC using radios.
also please read "We were One" by Patrick K. O'donell(The battle of Fallujah).

 

[SCPD]

Don't be so hard on the guy! He is just wondering what many people have probably wondered when they first came across such a law. I think similar wording was contained in the Communications Act of 1934. I can even read in a sarcastic tone at the end of his post, although I could be wrong. As the gentleman who pointed out it is illegal to travel 56 in a 55 zone stated, I think this law is enforced only when the diligence of the reception becomes a problem in connection with some other issues.

The media use scanners to find not only to find out about news but they often record the traffic and broadcast it. Those of us who have been in the hobby for more than 20 years remember the Congressman from Florida or somewhere in the southeast, whose cell phone conversations were recorded and given to the media. I think it caused some problems for the Congressman in some way, however, it also led to the first version of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of, I believe, 1986. Then there was the HF phone link from Air Force one between President Reagan and Casper Weinberger while the President was somewhere over the Atlantic and it was in the clear! I think every person who heard that conversation divulged it to someone and if memory serves me correctly the content was fairly sensitive.

Art, don't get turned off to the hobby if you just got slammed here. Listening to scanners is a legitimate and legal activity and similarities to computer hackers are few and far between. We don't break into anything or manipulate some sort of defense system or firewall to do what we do. In rural areas like I live in, the number of scanner owners is very high. There might even be more scanners than dogs in my county.

 

[kb2vxa]

Hi all,

The law as written is one thing, prosecution under the law is another. Talking about something you hear is one thing, corrupting an investigation is another.

This post is copyrighted but I'm not likely to prosecute you should you quote me without permission. The bottom line is cause and effect, without adverse effect there is no probable cause.

 

[ibagli]

I've never understood the point of such a law anyways. If everyone had a scanner, and heard something, it would still be illegal to talk about it, even though it's perfectly legal to hear? Wouldn't that violate the 1st Amendment? If something is broadcasted into my home, I see no way that what I can legally be restricted from repeating something that I am legally given.

 

[Artjirbal1950]

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..

 

[Slyster]

What do you suggest? Why are you saying this? Whats your motivation? Still seems an odd first post. I would guess you don't own a scanner do you?

Oh.. and does that make my signature illegal?

 

[w0fg]

Do not feed the trolls.

 

[Sac916]

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..

Living in a metro area, on a daily basis one can hear the words uttered on live TV...

"We are hearing from police radio traffic (scanners) that the suspect may still be inside the house..." ( or insert other criminal or public safety incident )

How do you think media field units get their breaking news?
Most often its from interns or directors who hear scanner radio traffic that's then reported to the media field units. VIOLATORS!! HAHAH

Hi all,

The law as written is one thing, prosecution under the law is another. Talking about something you hear is one thing, corrupting an investigation is another.

This post is copyrighted but I'm not likely to prosecute you should you quote me without permission. The bottom line is cause and effect, without adverse effect there is no probable cause.

Sue me. HA.

"Spirit of the law"
I have no doubt this law is simply designed to enhance other criminal issues.

I've never understood the point of such a law anyways. If everyone had a scanner, and heard something, it would still be illegal to talk about it, even though it's perfectly legal to hear? Wouldn't that violate the 1st Amendment? If something is broadcasted into my home, I see no way that what I can legally be restricted from repeating something that I am legally given.

There are many laws on the books that are considered violations of Constitutional Rights.



*** now I unsubscribe to this thread, yawn ***