Il hb5194 letter to rep.brady - others

[kc9ltw]

Today I mailed out a letter to Representative Dan Brady and 17 others, in HB5194 he attempts to block reception of ISP communications, (Starcom21) if you read the bill it states "a person" who receives the transmission. What defines a person, Police Officers, non-sworn support such as dispatchers, the Fire, EMS and related fields all staffed by persons.
What about news reporters? A reporter is a person.

My pdf. file of 202.0 KB bytes exceeds the forum's limit of 195.3 KB for this file type.
please email me at firecomm@ctitech.com and I will send you a copy of the pdf file
and you can review it, add your name and mail it to Representative Brady
I will also email you directly with an replies I receive from the 17 others that got
copies.

 

[acepilot340]

I was under the impression he was trying to ban the rebroadcast of SC21 online? Making reception illegal is another story... Either way another useless congressman for our wonderful broke blue state.

 

[werinshades]

I thought the same. Rebroadcast via the internet is what I read was the main objective of the bill. Keep pushing back and they'll make all communications encrypted. Leave well enough alone..

 

[usswood]

I thought the same. Rebroadcast via the internet is what I read was the main objective of the bill. Keep pushing back and they'll make all communications encrypted. Leave well enough alone..

Encrypt all you want, and when you do, STOP ASKING THE PUBLIC TO CALL CRIME STOPPERS AND HELP YOU SOLVE YOUR CRIMES....scanners help officers in REAL TIME...crimestoppers is a way to put neighbor against neighbor...go spy and tell us if u seen something strange 4 months ago, we now need your help. Just another way of asking, have you heard your neighbor or friend say something incriminating lately, call us and will pay you for it

 

[mrkelso]

Today I mailed out a letter to Representative Dan Brady and 17 others, in HB5194 he attempts to block reception of ISP communications, (Starcom21) if you read the bill it states "a person" who receives the transmission. What defines a person, Police Officers, non-sworn support such as dispatchers, the Fire, EMS and related fields all staffed by persons.
What about news reporters? A reporter is a person.

My pdf. file of 202.0 KB bytes exceeds the forum's limit of 195.3 KB for this file type.
please email me at firecomm@ctitech.com and I will send you a copy of the pdf file
and you can review it, add your name and mail it to Representative Brady
I will also email you directly with an replies I receive from the 17 others that got
copies.

File requested

 

[werinshades]

Encrypt all you want, and when you do, STOP ASKING THE PUBLIC TO CALL CRIME STOPPERS AND HELP YOU SOLVE YOUR CRIMES....scanners help officers in REAL TIME...crimestoppers is a way to put neighbor against neighbor...go spy and tell us if u seen something strange 4 months ago, we now need your help. Just another way of asking, have you heard your neighbor or friend say something incriminating lately, call us and will pay you for it

I don't think that will happen. We as scanner hobbyists are a unique breed. The public will continue to call in crime despite a few that happen to own scanners. I have read the bill excerpts, and I think banning internet feeds is not that much of an issue to most of us. The bill isn't asking everyone to turn in their scanner or face prosecution, it's asking that feed providers ask permission of the broadcasters before they provide the feeds. You cannot rebroadcast a radio stations signal "without the express written permission of the content provider", so what makes Starcom or any other police or fire department any different? If this bill is rejected, then maybe the next bill will include encryption as a mandate for police and fire communications? Let's not push the envelope...

 

[Squad10]

Better start hoarding DFE, just like people are hoarding guns. DF of input and simplex frequencies are soon going to be the only way to know where public safety officers are when there is not an event occuring with lights and sirens, just like the days before scanners.

 

[KSJ745]

Keep pushing back and they'll make all communications encrypted. Leave well enough alone..

 

[N9JIG]

I spoke to Representative Brady's office as well as my local representative's office several times over the last 2 weeks and made them aware of the CARMA stance on the issue. Both offices were very welcoming of our calls and letters.

Today the bill was amended and the entire section regarding rebroadcasting of communications was stricken and the section regarding radio access was tightened up considerably. The bill as it stands right now (3-10-2010, 1645 Hrs) reads:

Illinois General Assembly - Bill Status for HB5194

Use of public safety radio system by unauthorized radios.
a) Radio access to the public safety radio system within the State may only be accomplished upon receipt of written authorization granted by the appropriately licensed authority. No person shall gain access to, or the ability to transmit on, a public safety radio system (i) by changing, or causing to be changed, the hardware, firmware, or software of a radio unit causing it to duplicate the identity of a radio unit operating on the system with proper authority or (ii) by cloning. (b) Unauthorized access to the State's radio system in violation of this Section is a Class A misdemeanor.
Section 99. Effective date. This Act takes effect upon becoming law.

This bill is fine for scannists, it means to keep unauthorized people from transmitting on the system.

If this is the final wording of the bill that makes it into law then the scanning community has nothing to worry about.

While I don't know yet if it was the scanning community that prompted the change in the reading of the bill, I do know our voices were heard.

If I hear from Rep. Brady or my local rep I will let you know.

 

[kc9ltw]

I spoke to Representative Brady's office as well as my local representative's office several times over the last 2 weeks and made them aware of the CARMA stance on the issue. Both offices were very welcoming of our calls and letters.

Today the bill was amended and the entire section regarding rebroadcasting of communications was stricken and the section regarding radio access was tightened up considerably. The bill as it stands right now (3-10-2010, 1645 Hrs) reads:

Illinois General Assembly - Bill Status for HB5194

Use of public safety radio system by unauthorized radios.
a) Radio access to the public safety radio system within the State may only be accomplished upon receipt of written authorization granted by the appropriately licensed authority. No person shall gain access to, or the ability to transmit on, a public safety radio system (i) by changing, or causing to be changed, the hardware, firmware, or software of a radio unit causing it to duplicate the identity of a radio unit operating on the system with proper authority or (ii) by cloning. (b) Unauthorized access to the State's radio system in violation of this Section is a Class A misdemeanor.
Section 99. Effective date. This Act takes effect upon becoming law.

This bill is fine for scannists, it means to keep unauthorized people from transmitting on the system.

If this is the final wording of the bill that makes it into law then the scanning community has nothing to worry about.

While I don't know yet if it was the scanning community that prompted the change in the reading of the bill, I do know our voices were heard.

If I hear from Rep. Brady or my local rep I will let you know.

Thank you for the update! When I addressed the proposed HB my objection was that it read "any Person" intercept transmissions, I sent copies to IL Press Association and IL Broadcasters Assn. and to the Associated Firefighters of Illinois, as the first version stated "any person" that has a far reach.

 

[RADIOUSER5]

It looks like this is pretty close to the final bill wording that passed the House. Thanks, N9JIG.

Illinois General Assembly - Full Text of HB5194

 

[kurtatkars]

Concerened about wording

Still the wording "no person shall gain access to, OR transmit" appears to me that gaining access to and transmitting could be considered different "offenses". Anyone else read it this way?? Kurt

 

[RADIOUSER5]

"Gain access" is different from receiving or listening - it involves actually transmitting on the state radio system. This already violates federal rules unless you have written permission from the license holder. A scanner does not transmit a radio i.d. and register with a site on the system and thus causes no interference. Federal fines for transmitting without a license on public safety frequencies (or amateur radio frequencies for that matter) can run $10,000 per day or occurence.

 

[kurtatkars]

OK, OK, i understand the differences between transmit & receive, i had a commercial license before cell phones, been a scannist for many years, just recently got my first digital scanner and really feel like i've broken the "code" by progamming the darn thing. I've read too many legal docs and the word "OR" in the bill does'nt differentiate between listening & transmitting?? Just my humble opinion. I'm glad organizations like this exist for the freedoms we all enjoy. Hope this explains my position better.