Illinois State Rep Dan Brady introduces anti-rebroadcast legislation
- Thread starter blantonl
- Start date
- Status
nhscannerman
Member
A bit of history lesson here
I can NOT see as to how such a moron as Brady can come up with such a lame & retarded law as this. So let me tell you a bit of a law that some moron tried to pass.
In Popular Communications, there was a story where someone wanted a law to go into effect was to make it illegal to listen to scanners & shortwave Broadcasting. As the story went on to say that its wrong to take away the hobby of listening in which the Free Information act of 1970 was past that allows us to have access to some information that was not considered as CLASSIFIED information. Furthermore that the bill was killed on impact because of the fact is our rights is infringed of free speech and free information. Now as far as this Brady goes, I wonder what drugs was he on when he came up with this lame idea? Here in NH, we don't have such weird laws as this one that Brady came up with. OK so to also say that we the people of the United States shall not have have our rights infringed due to misleading of our law makers. Its the people for the people by the people. I say vote that loser out of office because from what I see is that all he cares about is his fame & glory So now you know what I said, its like a thief taking candy away from a baby.
PS; Radio Reference Rocks Brady drools
I can NOT see as to how such a moron as Brady can come up with such a lame & retarded law as this. So let me tell you a bit of a law that some moron tried to pass.
In Popular Communications, there was a story where someone wanted a law to go into effect was to make it illegal to listen to scanners & shortwave Broadcasting. As the story went on to say that its wrong to take away the hobby of listening in which the Free Information act of 1970 was past that allows us to have access to some information that was not considered as CLASSIFIED information. Furthermore that the bill was killed on impact because of the fact is our rights is infringed of free speech and free information. Now as far as this Brady goes, I wonder what drugs was he on when he came up with this lame idea? Here in NH, we don't have such weird laws as this one that Brady came up with. OK so to also say that we the people of the United States shall not have have our rights infringed due to misleading of our law makers. Its the people for the people by the people. I say vote that loser out of office because from what I see is that all he cares about is his fame & glory So now you know what I said, its like a thief taking candy away from a baby.
PS; Radio Reference Rocks Brady drools
Don't assume Rep. Brady came up with the Bill. He may be simply passing on what ISP and Motorola have advised him. I highly doubt he came up with the verbage in his reply posted in this thread.
ISP did the thinking to get the ball rolling per the posted reply to inquiry. Mr. B just ran with it to legalize wording etc. Now its up to the rest of the House and Senate to take it on and work it into law. This would be the first anti internet rebroadcast legislation if it does go to law. We hope it doesn't, and that ISP would be smart enough to encrypt sensitive comms. Its impossible to break encryption without it being online, much less trying to use an internet feed to do so. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dara Brockmeyer to JOHN (KIKINWING)
show details 4:01 PM (2 hours ago)
John,
I am following up to your original email with some addition information about HB 5194, which Rep. Brady is sponsoring. The idea for the legislation came from the Illinois State Police. I have attached a file with information on the bill. I hope this clarifies the legislative intent.
Dara BrockmeyerDistrict Office DirectorState Representative Dan Brady, 88th District(309) 662-1100202 N. Prospect, Suite 203Bloomington, IL 61704
nhscannerman
Member
Sorry if I came a bit strong in response to this. I was just shocked how history repeated it self again. But I think that the Bill will be killed. Again sorry for those I may of offended.
enough is enough
dan@rep-danbrady.com
Mr. Brady
I am sending you this note to express my desire that HR0007 does not prevail. Not only am I a police officer, I am a scanner hobbyist who listens all over the world via the internet.
Why would someone of your stature want to be involved with such "non important" bill as this one. Do you own stock in Motorola or are you on the board of directors. The only reason someone of your politcal clout would be involved with such rubbish politics is personal gain.
Save your "canned" response to my e-mail.
Scott
PO Box
Brockton, MA 02303
dan@rep-danbrady.com
Mr. Brady
I am sending you this note to express my desire that HR0007 does not prevail. Not only am I a police officer, I am a scanner hobbyist who listens all over the world via the internet.
Why would someone of your stature want to be involved with such "non important" bill as this one. Do you own stock in Motorola or are you on the board of directors. The only reason someone of your politcal clout would be involved with such rubbish politics is personal gain.
Save your "canned" response to my e-mail.
Scott
PO Box
Brockton, MA 02303
It's HB5194. I've typed it wrong myself!
I like your your first paragraph. Kind of iffy on the first sentence of the second paragraph. My opinion is the rest is not appropriate.
K9JLR
Member
I think the latest FAQ press release raises more questions than it answers in that regard. The text of the proposed bill reads "a person receiving public safety voice or data communication TRANSMITTED VIA THE FACILITIES OF THE STATE'S PUBLIC SAFETY RADIO SYSTEM by wire or radio shall not......rebroadcast the communication via any means....". Therefore, the actual text of the bill states that it would be applicable only to transmissions heard over the state's public safety radio system. We can assume that would be anything received on a frequency licensed to ISP, possibly including any other agencies utilizing STARCOM 21, though again it comes back to a matter of semantics. If passed as currently written, that's all it would state. Unless I am mistaken, the STARCOM system is owned and operated my Motorola for the primary intention of facilitating ISP radio traffic, which wouldn't really make the entire system infrastructure the "state's" public safety radio system per se.
However, Brady's latest HB5194.FAQ email with the PDF attachment, which contains the 'clarification' paragraph within his legal opine, befuddles the intent of the bill even further when he writes that "the scope of the bill extends beyond just STARCOM21 to include all public safety bandwidth within the state."
Assuming that he probably isn't very savvy about the exact nature of two-way police radio communications, did he mean ISP public safety frequencies, or does he essentially intend to prevent state citizens from rebroadcasting ANY licensed public safety frequency in the state of Illinois (e.g. local and county frequencies on their own independent VHF, UHF or 800 MHz systems)? If so, it appears to me that the text of the proposed bill would require modification to legally enforce the prohibition against rebroadcasting anything besides licensed ISP and STARCOM frequencies.
Last edited:
Flood his office in opposition to any kind of bill of this nature. Do it today fill up his answering machine. Everyone from every State. Do it.
“Information is the currency of democracy. “
– THOMAS JEFFERSON, 3rd President of the United States
“If I had to choose between government without newspapers, and newspapers without government, I wouldn’t hesitate to choose the latter.”
– THOMAS JEFFERSON, 3rd President of the United States
– THOMAS JEFFERSON, 3rd President of the United States
“If I had to choose between government without newspapers, and newspapers without government, I wouldn’t hesitate to choose the latter.”
– THOMAS JEFFERSON, 3rd President of the United States
Food for thought. We all know this is unenforcable and therefore can not work. When it has been established that it cant work or it is unworkable how long do you think it will be that they go to full digital encryption??? This isnt a bill. It's the genesis of a plan. Hatched by meter maids on Steroids; Your always friendly Illinois State Police.
Cant blame them they are just getting ready for Marshall Law - CITIZEN SCUM
Them damn dominos, laws of unintended consequences and the big picture. Deja vu all over again.
Cant blame them they are just getting ready for Marshall Law - CITIZEN SCUM
Them damn dominos, laws of unintended consequences and the big picture. Deja vu all over again.
Be careful certain "know it all posters" get really upset if you have the temerity to quote dead white guys!!!!!
Here's my puzzlement: If you want secure communications, make them secure. If anyone (agency or individual) doesn't want a message
to be intercepted, common sense says that you don't broadcast it over a medium that is easily intercepted. That doesn't require a new
law that creates a whole new segment of violators. It requires an easy application of a SOP or simple technology.
It makes no difference whether that message is broadcast over a radio system, or spoken loudly in a crowded room. If I shout out
state secrets, a law saying that passers-by can't listen doesn't defend my actions. The fault lies with the originator, not the listener.
I don't discuss the quarterly profit and loss over our company's business repeater system. I do so over a private medium.
Again, its simply common sense.
If we recover a body from a house fire, we advise Dispatch to send the Coroner via telephone instead of over the radio- it is
kept off the air even over our low-powered simplex incident tactical channels. This prevents Grandma, who's listening to her son's
house burning down on her scanner, from having the "big one" before her family can arrive and break the bad news in person.
And rest assured that Grandma would cheerfully break the law to listen in. Communications security in this case is simply
common sense and good policy.
You don't hear much Federal communications. Its not because they enacted legislation to prevent it and everyone complies,
its because they communicate in a manner that can't easily be intercepted.
to be intercepted, common sense says that you don't broadcast it over a medium that is easily intercepted. That doesn't require a new
law that creates a whole new segment of violators. It requires an easy application of a SOP or simple technology.
It makes no difference whether that message is broadcast over a radio system, or spoken loudly in a crowded room. If I shout out
state secrets, a law saying that passers-by can't listen doesn't defend my actions. The fault lies with the originator, not the listener.
I don't discuss the quarterly profit and loss over our company's business repeater system. I do so over a private medium.
Again, its simply common sense.
If we recover a body from a house fire, we advise Dispatch to send the Coroner via telephone instead of over the radio- it is
kept off the air even over our low-powered simplex incident tactical channels. This prevents Grandma, who's listening to her son's
house burning down on her scanner, from having the "big one" before her family can arrive and break the bad news in person.
And rest assured that Grandma would cheerfully break the law to listen in. Communications security in this case is simply
common sense and good policy.
You don't hear much Federal communications. Its not because they enacted legislation to prevent it and everyone complies,
its because they communicate in a manner that can't easily be intercepted.
Last edited:
Oh yea these bad guys
..luv em (extra big too so you can have a long hard look at our great founders of this country)
..luv em (extra big too so you can have a long hard look at our great founders of this country)
Last edited by a moderator:
N2JDS
Member
Well, at the speeds our feeds are being sent out, we practically are simulcasting, not rebroadcasting.
BTW, can that pic above be any bigger?
BTW, can that pic above be any bigger?
Not sure if I'm the Know it all, but I do see a lot happening here....
1. This legislation was only supposed to encompass the Starcom21 system
2. Then it seems that the Reps office expanded their interpretation to the ISP, and any communication they may make
3. Now, it seems they feel it applies to (or will eventually apply to) all public safety systems in Illinois.
People tell me not to be concerned about my Mass and RI feeds going through Shoutcast servers in Chicago.....well, the way the interpretations are being extrapolated by his office, it will be illegal to broadcast a public safety agency through a computer (server) that is physically located in Illinois by next week. This is what I'm getting from Dan Brady's quotes.
1. This legislation was only supposed to encompass the Starcom21 system
2. Then it seems that the Reps office expanded their interpretation to the ISP, and any communication they may make
3. Now, it seems they feel it applies to (or will eventually apply to) all public safety systems in Illinois.
People tell me not to be concerned about my Mass and RI feeds going through Shoutcast servers in Chicago.....well, the way the interpretations are being extrapolated by his office, it will be illegal to broadcast a public safety agency through a computer (server) that is physically located in Illinois by next week. This is what I'm getting from Dan Brady's quotes.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
