Illinois State Rep Dan Brady introduces anti-rebroadcast legislation

[AZScanner]

Just for a moment, let's assume you are correct. Do you have the funds and time to fight this in court?

See my next post. I seriously doubt you'd ever have to.

The way bad laws get in to the main stream is piece meal. They enact something that seems "harmless" or that some people pass on thinking it is no big deal. Then the next year they add more restrictions/etc. It is best to not let this steamroller gain speed.

I agree with you there. However, it's best to prepare for the inevitable. Due to the relatively small number of people this impacts compared to the much larger uninformed members of the public who think the only people who would want to listen to the cops is a criminal and who are all paranoid about terrorists and such, I'd say this bill is a lock. Prepare for it's passage (and subsequent selective enforcement).

-AZ

 

[ILMRadioMan]

I agree with you there. However, it's best to prepare for the inevitable. Due to the relatively small number of people this impacts compared to the much larger uninformed members of the public who think the only people who would want to listen to the cops is a criminal and who are all paranoid about terrorists and such, I'd say this bill is a lock. Prepare for it's passage (and subsequent selective enforcement).

-AZ

Dang, couldnt have said it better myself.

For those delusional enough to think that a handful of hobbyists writing letters will stop this, you are in for a shock.

 

[AZScanner]

And if you dont think people will add encryption in the face of people using scanners for illegal purposes, I would be happy to use the Wilmington, NC police department as an example.

It's going to eventually happen anyway. We're one successful terrorist attack away from checkpoints on the streets and all public safety communications encrypted by federal law and/or executive order. Why do you think I've gotten into RC helicopters? Gonna need something to do when all the scanners go silent.

-AZ

 

[ILMRadioMan]

Oh and one last point:

While "reasonable doubt" is most certainly a crux of court proceedings, this notion that as soon as you think that your logic has proven a "reasonable doubt" that you win, is a stretched fallacy created by Law and Order and the like.

Thinking you will walk in and:

A) Get a state official WITH authority in these matters to come in and shoot themself in the foot by stating what is and isnt intended for the public. (Ya know, cause they have attorneys too)

B) Then once that miracle has fallen your way, to convince the jury that their is some public use for this.

is just a stretch of the imagination.

 

[ILMRadioMan]

It's going to eventually happen anyway. We're one successful terrorist attack away from checkpoints on the streets and all public safety communications encrypted by federal law and/or executive order. Why do you think I've gotten into RC helicopters? Gonna need something to do when all the scanners go silent.

-AZ

True, but its not helping if people either sue the state to listen, or try to manipulate legalese for their benefit when the intent is perfectly clear.

 

[RoninJoliet]

Cook County ILL="ENC", Dupage County ILL=testing on SCOM at this time and sources tell me ="ENC", Aurora ILL and Naperville ILL="Harris System" -"ENC" system to go on line 6/1/2010 and to be inter-operable with "Dupage Co ILL="ENC" Starcom System....End of story, end of scanning....

 

[KIKINWING]

Just to be clear, I didnt say that.

Just perhaps, instead of invoking the spirit of patriotism by quoting famous people and our constitution, you could think about the things you are discussing a bit deeper.

I understand your emotion, however nothing frustrates me more than conjuring up the words of presidents, etc.. to make a cyclical argument in your favor, rather than studying historical legal proceedings, and other standards that apply to the topic you desire to discuss.

Gee, Maybe my High School guidance counselor was right?

 

[kd8ati]

I totally disagree with this statement. The live audio feeds have served to bring awareness of the scanning hobby to a completely new audience of people, many of whom are not familiar with scanning in general. We've actually seen an opposite behavior - that being many new individuals are coming into the hobby that otherwise would have never participated.

The live audio feeds effectively give listeners a "taste" of what they can experience by actually purchasing, owning, and learning to use a radio.

That is a very good point that I really did not think about. Be it as it may, that point still does not invalidate my statement. We still have a lot of people who listen to the streams because why would you buy a $500 scanner when you can listen to what you want/need for free? If the streams go away then they have no choice but to buy or go without.

Maybe the two groups would cancel each other out?

 

[Squad10]

Cook County ILL="ENC", Dupage County ILL=testing on SCOM at this time and sources tell me ="ENC", Aurora ILL and Naperville ILL="Harris System" -"ENC" system to go on line 6/1/2010 and to be inter-operable with "Dupage Co ILL="ENC" Starcom System....End of story, end of scanning....

Yup, either from a radio or via internet.

 

[AZScanner]

Oh and one last point:

While "reasonable doubt" is most certainly a crux of court proceedings, this notion that as soon as you think that your logic has proven a "reasonable doubt" that you win, is a stretched fallacy created by Law and Order and the like.

Thinking you will walk in and:

A) Get a state official WITH authority in these matters to come in and shoot themself in the foot by stating what is and isnt intended for the public. (Ya know, cause they have attorneys too)

B) Then once that miracle has fallen your way, to convince the jury that their is some public use for this.

is just a stretch of the imagination.

I disagree. The issue isn't whether the transmissions are "useful" for the public. The state would try to say that it isn't which is irrelevant. The issue is that the law itself is poorly worded and provides a plausible loophole. You can't approach this like average joe who reads something and extrapolates what it means. You approach it like an attorney would when representing a client - is there a way to get my client off the hook? Yes? Then exploit the crap out of it.

As for getting a state official to say what you want, it's all in the questioning. You have the right to call anyone up onto that stand, place them under oath, and question them. So use it. Subpoena the director of the communications system. Ask if the system employs encryption. Then ask if all communications are encrypted. Then clarify their statement. "So, just to clarify, if a channel carries sensitive information, such as surveillance or SWAT activity, your policy is to encrypt that, but not normal routine stuff, like a public works engineer repairing a sewer pipe or a police officer responding to a shoplifter. Is that correct?" Yes. "OK, so if a communication is not encrypted, it is permissible for any member of the general public to monitor that communication?" And so on. If you ask the right questions, you can get them to say they always wanted a little white pony for their birthday, if that's what you need them to admit to prove your case.

Again, it's a stretch, but I think a good attorney could pull it off.

-AZ

 

[Citywide173]

Yes, there could be those unintended consequences but it is a risk we must take. All it takes for "evil" to spread is for good men to do nothing...... (Another good quote from a guy who's been dead a lot longer than the first dead guy I quoted!!)

Actually, your statement is innaccurate...."conservatism is the antidote to tyranny" is a statement by very much alive radio host Mark R. Levin. No where have I seen it used to refer to transparent government.

The second quote, is "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." and is by a dead guy.....Edmund Burke (my namesake and a very distant great-great-etc uncle according to genealogy paperwork I have) 1729-1797

A much lesser known quote that I think would be more accurate here is:

Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny. -Edmund Burke

 

[KIKINWING]

The second quote, is "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." and is by a dead guy.....Edmund Burke (my namesake and a very distant great-great-etc uncle according to genealogy paperwork I have) 1729-1797

"The apple doesnt fall far from the tree" Dead old white apple farmer? (lol)

P.S. Ed, do you hail from Quincy originally? (My dad was friendly with a Burke from Quincy years ago)

 

[DaveNF2G]

Federal preemption is part of the answer here. Illinois is attempting to regulate what may be sent via the Internet (interstate commerce). They are also attempting to render communications that are "readily accessible to the general public" according to federal law inaccessible by fiat.

As for the in-court proceedings, it is unlikely that any charges against a hobbyist will be settled by a jury trial. 97% of all criminal cases are settled by plea bargain. In this case, the prosecution and the defense will probably agree to convince the defendant that forcing a trial is too risky and expensive given the minor nature of the infraction and the offer of some non-punishment to satisfy the system.

The only thing that needs to be proven in most criminal cases is that the defendant's odds of acquittal are not good enough to force a trial.

One other thing. In a previous posting I asserted something that was based on only seeing half of the proposed bill. Thanks to KIKINWING for pointing it out, and to whoever it was (can't go back and look) who reposted the link to the complete text. Internet rebroadcasting is in fact the whole point of the first half of the bill.

 

[radioman2001]

I wonder if this law would have any power if you monitored from out of state and then put the feed up from there?

 

[ILMRadioMan]

Re-read this thread in its entirety and you will find some discussion on that very topic.

 

[gmclam]

For those delusional enough to think that a handful of hobbyists writing letters will stop this, you are in for a shock.

I've seen it happen. If "a handful of hobbyists" just happen to be people who VOTE for an official who either authored this bill or supports it, and there is enough of them, it can influence decisions. I don't see this as a bill with big money on the other side.

If you think you can't, you won't. If you think you can, you might.

 

[Squad10]

I don't see this as a bill with big money on the other side.

Could you elaborate on what you mean?

 

[ILMRadioMan]

I've seen it happen. If "a handful of hobbyists" just happen to be people who VOTE for an official who either authored this bill or supports it, and there is enough of them, it can influence decisions. I don't see this as a bill with big money on the other side.

If you think you can't, you won't. If you think you can, you might.

Sure.

Not trying, is failing. I get it.

But I just cant possibly imagine there being enough people.

50? 100?

I have seen petitions with thousands of signatures barely ripple the waters.

 

[stlouisx50]

I just don't get it. Crooks will get what they want when they want it. If they want a police radio to monitor they will do what they can to monitor it. It makes no difference if they ban communications or not.


They have had fines in place for years when it comes to the do's and don'ts of scanning, now they want to add another block to a listiner.


My thoughts are the government has something to hide and they will do all they can to hide it. With that said, I believe if a system goes encrypted, all cell phones should be stripped from every officer and money can be saved.

Enough is enough!

 

[ILMRadioMan]

all cell phones should be stripped from every officer and money can be saved.

Enough is enough!

Cause radios never fail.