Illinois State Rep Dan Brady introduces anti-rebroadcast legislation

Status
Not open for further replies.

KIKINWING

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jan 23, 2010
Messages
130
Location
NORTH OF UR-ANUS
F.Y.I. Kids, will keep you posted.....

Dara Brockmeyer to JOHN (KIKINWING)
show details 5:01 PM (2 minutes ago)

Dear John,

I wanted to let you know we received your email. I have relayed your concerns and I am getting some additional information on the legislation. I will be in touch early next week to clarify the intent of the bill and who it will impact.

Thank you,

Dara BrockmeyerDistrict Office DirectorState Representative Dan Brady, 88th District(309) 662-1100202 N. Prospect, Suite 203Bloomington, IL 61704
 

jobes

Member
Feed Provider
Joined
Mar 6, 2004
Messages
277
Location
IL
Well look at what the country has done to the Second Amendment and that's a Right. I wouldn't think it would be to difficult to shutdown a few thousand scanner listeners. I mean who the heck are we.:(

Welcome to the new world order

Good Professor,

If they criminalize scanners only criminals will have scanners!!!!!
 

KIKINWING

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jan 23, 2010
Messages
130
Location
NORTH OF UR-ANUS
"Illinois senate bars public and press from a meeting regarding the economy and the budget, possibly because they don't want voters to know how broke the state is. It's a sign of our times that government officials feel they are rulers, while the public should just stay out of the way and accept whatever their fate may be." Chicago Tribune 2010 Feb 17 (Cached)
 
D

DaveNF2G

Guest
Good Professor,

Do you or could you please provide the case that this issue was decided???

Cox Broadcasting Co. v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469 (1975).

Secondly, in your learned opinion, should we the scanner community set up a legal defense fund to take a shot via one "test" case to reverse the trend of public safety encryption?

I don't think you can set up a "legal defense fund" if there is no actual prosecution taking place. At the very least, there would have to be a realistic prospect of criminal prosecution. As this is presently only a bill under legislative consideration and not an enforceable law, there is no reasonable expectation of damage to anyone from its existence.
 

KIKINWING

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jan 23, 2010
Messages
130
Location
NORTH OF UR-ANUS

I don't think you can set up a "legal defense fund" if there is no actual prosecution taking place. At the very least, there would have to be a realistic prospect of criminal prosecution. As this is presently only a bill under legislative consideration and not an enforceable law, there is no reasonable expectation of damage to anyone from its existence.


Thank you much. As the "Legal Defense fund" Goes, My intent is that a fund should be started, pick a case/law and move on it..... Wether it is called legal defense fund or the fund to further scanner ineterests is mute at this point. I dont see the Illinois bill, if it becomes law as a proper vehicle either. The intent of the question is a general and broad one, i.e. It has become obvious that something has to be done, I beleive many if not all of us would agree. Therefore it is time to start a movement or group or "legal defense fund" to get the ball rolling.... Who knows maybe there is a legal eagle superstar whom also is a scanner enthusiast....... That said, I for one beleive it is time. We are loosing ground, or airwaves each and every day. What say you?
 

appalachianscanner

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Feb 21, 2003
Messages
374
Re:

Unfortunally if the feds want you, a proxy isn't going to hide your identity. New software installed at the internet backbone will now resolve any hidden or spoofed IP - something like 99% effective.

How do you think the feds are catching all these disgusting pedofiles? Even these creeps know about proxies and hiding, yet they are get busted left and right nowdays - THANKFUILLY!!!!

The days of hiding behind a proxy is over guys - hate to barrer of bad news....


Very True! I mean Google knows I have Wifi and where I am down to 50 yards or so because they wardrove my neighborhood? Im still wondering how they do the Google Location (computer not cell phone) thing.
 

hoser147

Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2005
Messages
4,449
Location
Grand Lake St. Marys Ohio
Interesting thread to say the least.. Our hobby has been under the guns for quite a while...Is it going to be this straw that breaks the camels back or the next one? Ive seen plenty of laws snowball from one state to the next, as most of you have also. Letters to your government reps aren't going to hurt a thing, let them hear you.
 

christenorio

Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2004
Messages
67
as a member of ARES the radio scanner is a vital tool so hams can be available to assist public safety.
Does your state rep. have any clue of the fallout this law could cause?
 
Last edited:

radiofan1

Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2009
Messages
190
It's good to hear Illinois is in such good shape that this is all the moron has to focus on, huh?
This topic puts me in a conundrum, as I distrust the fed so much that I'd like to see their power greatly diminished and given back to the states. However, it seems that some states like Illinois and Oregon are incapable of self-governing without harming their constituents...on the other hand, it is self-inflicted, as the people are who voted these pols into office.

At any rate, I believe FCC rules and regs cover everything this tard has proposed.
 

KIKINWING

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jan 23, 2010
Messages
130
Location
NORTH OF UR-ANUS
He isn't saying you cannot monitor it, only that you cannot rebroadcast it.

What is the difference? Monitor/rebroadcast? A scanner takes the modulation and rebroadcasts it to the person monitoring it, doesnt it? The Scanner is the third "person" in the mix. Dont know, sounds like they playing fast and loose with words Shelleys1..... U said you were gonna make a bunch of calls to various ilinois reps. Is that a clarification or explanation you got from the movers of this bill?
 

shelleys1

Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2004
Messages
173
Location
Ballwin, MO - We are moving to Austin, TX 1 Mar. 2
What is the difference? Monitor/rebroadcast? A scanner takes the modulation and rebroadcasts it to the person monitoring it, doesnt it? The Scanner is the third "person" in the mix. Dont know, sounds like they playing fast and loose with words Shelleys1..... U said you were gonna make a bunch of calls to various ilinois reps. Is that a clarification or explanation you got from the movers of this bill?
If you read my posts, I said I *wrote* to all of the members of the committee. Which I did. Please don't try to misconstrue what I said and what I mean! Going crazy isn't going to help. Doing things quickly but in an orderly and intelligent manner often gets the best results. How do I know this? Because I've done it this way for years. And the results, more often than not, have been good.
A scanner is a receiver, not a rebroacaster. It receives at the same time that any other receiver picks up a signal from a dispatch - be it a radio in the hands of an officer or a radio sitting on your desk or mine.

Shelley
K0SHL
 

KIKINWING

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jan 23, 2010
Messages
130
Location
NORTH OF UR-ANUS
as a member of ARES the radio scanner is a vital tool so hams can be available to assist public safety.
Does your state rep. have any clue of the fallout this law could cause?

So glad to hear from the "Hams", You folks are so much more organized and well funded than us scanner folks. Has any attempt been made via your group (ARES) to combat this erosion of our freedoms and civic duties discussed here? Does this issue ever get discussed?
 

shelleys1

Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2004
Messages
173
Location
Ballwin, MO - We are moving to Austin, TX 1 Mar. 2
Oh, and by the way, I'm a HAM too - have been for years. And yes, I work closely with law enforcement, but not in Illinois. Illinois is a beast of its own. Just because I wrote to the committee members doesn't mean they'll listen but previously, to other comittees, they have. So it's always worth a try. The problem here is that these people are not law enforcement - they're state representatives! They make the laws and sometimes don't see things from the same perspective. So, they need to hear from the people and not in rude and offensive letters - they need to hear positive and constructive reasons why this legislation won't work. That's the way to see it not come to fruition.

Shelley
K0SHL
 

K9JLR

Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2006
Messages
284
Location
McDonough County, IL
In conversations with both a current and a retired district-level employee of the ISP division of Communications Equipment Technicians, both of whom are local hams, it sounds like the STARCOM 21 system was marketed as being unique and not readily monitorable to some degree.

I'm under the assumption that when the system was originally in the analysis and discussion phases, the current crop of APCO 25 compliant scanners was not in existence. As a result, someone is obviously irked at the plethora of live streams that have arisen in the last few years. Why they would choose to target streams, as opposed to mobile scanners themselves, like other states have, is bizarre to me.

While I'm certainly no fan of the bill, and I plan to contact my local representative tomorrow, it underscores the future pushes that might be made to curtail monitoring abilities, at least on a state-by-state case. However, I think the behavior of scannists as a whole will dictate the frequency of any such legislative proposals.
 

K9JLR

Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2006
Messages
284
Location
McDonough County, IL
The problem here is that these people are not law enforcement - they're state representatives! They make the laws and sometimes don't see things from the same perspective. So, they need to hear from the people and not in rude and offensive letters - they need to hear positive and constructive reasons why this legislation won't work. That's the way to see it not come to fruition.

Shelley
K0SHL

The state legislators who propose the bill my not be active law enforcement officers themselves, but some of their constituents are.

It appears fairly likely that in this particular case, some person(s) or organized interest groups within law enforcement, or directly tied to law enforcement (i.e. radio communications), as constituents, approached this lawmaker with concerns that were ultimately addressed in the form of a bill that was introduced into the General Assembly.

I agree that any correspondence needs to be in a civil manner, utilizing non-bellicose verbiage, but it's also a good idea to try and understand what concerns the scannist community's opposition harbors, at least in order to better understand how to oppose their desire to pass this legislation.
 

KIKINWING

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jan 23, 2010
Messages
130
Location
NORTH OF UR-ANUS
If you read my posts, I said I *wrote* to all of the members of the committee. Which I did. Please don't try to misconstrue what I said and what I mean! Going crazy isn't going to help. Doing things quickly but in an orderly and intelligent manner often gets the best results. How do I know this? Because I've done it this way for years. And the results, more often than not, have been good.
A scanner is a receiver, not a rebroacaster. It receives at the same time that any other receiver picks up a signal from a dispatch - be it a radio in the hands of an officer or a radio sitting on your desk or mine.

Shelley
K0SHL

GEE SORRY!! I made no attempt to "misconstrue" anything you wrote or said. I simply asked a proper question based on what YOU wrote. But no I didnt go back to read as to wether you wrote or called. Very minor point, as least to me. Who exactly is going "CRAZY"? By the tone of your post, I dont think it is me. And you are WRONG if that is your reading. If something is broadcast to a circle of receivers whom are authorized to receive that broadcast and you then capture that broadcast outside of that circle of receivers whom are authorized to receive that broadcast you are rebroadcasting. By capturing that unauthorized broadcast and placing it through an instrument that then re-broadcasts it, because realize yu are NOT hearing it first hand, but REBROADCASTING IT!!! It is not intended for you so in order to hear it you are collecting it be it called unauthorized or illegal and rebroadcasting. You do not belong to that broadcasts circle of trust. You are the outsider that must rebroadcast to hear it. It is a simple play on words. If a third person is not rebroadcast thn when is it? Third, fourth, fifth? Why would they not have a problem with you capturing it locally on a scanner but not sending it out over the net? Doesnt make any sense. No this is for you and me, first person, as it is written. Maybe it isnt their intent but as I read it it is the law of unintended consequences?

The key (legalese) word in all of this is unauthorized.

re·broad·cast (rē-brôd'kāst')
tr.v. re·broad·cast or re·broad·cast·ed, re·broad·cast·ing, re·broad·casts
1.To repeat the broadcast of (a program).

re·peat   /rɪˈpit/ Show Spelled[ri-peet] Show IPA
–verb (used with object)
1.to say or utter again (something already said): to repeat a word for emphasis.
2.to say or utter in reproducing the words, inflections, etc., of another: to repeat a sentence after the teacher.
3.to reproduce (utterances, sounds, etc.) in the manner of an echo, a phonograph, or the like.
4.to tell (something heard) to another or others.
5.to do, make, or perform again: to repeat an action.
6.to go through or undergo again: to repeat an experience.
–verb (used without object)
7.to do or say something again.
8.to cause a slight regurgitation: The onions I ate are repeating on me.
9.to vote illegally by casting more than one vote in the same election.
–noun
10.the act of repeating.
11.something repeated; repetition.
12.a duplicate or reproduction of something.
13.a decorative pattern repeated, usually by printing, on a textile or the like.
14.Music.
a.a passage to be repeated.
b.a sign, as a vertical arrangement of dots, calling for the repetition of a passage.
15.a radio or television program that has been broadcast at least once before.
 
Last edited:

shelleys1

Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2004
Messages
173
Location
Ballwin, MO - We are moving to Austin, TX 1 Mar. 2
In conversations with both a current and a retired district-level employee of the ISP division of Communications Equipment Technicians, both of whom are local hams, it sounds like the STARCOM 21 system was marketed as being unique and not readily monitorable to some degree.

I'm under the assumption that when the system was originally in the analysis and discussion phases, the current crop of APCO 25 compliant scanners was not in existence. As a result, someone is obviously irked at the plethora of live streams that have arisen in the last few years. Why they would choose to target streams, as opposed to mobile scanners themselves, like other states have, is bizarre to me.

While I'm certainly no fan of the bill, and I plan to contact my local representative tomorrow, it underscores the future pushes that might be made to curtail monitoring abilities, at least on a state-by-state case. However, I think the behavior of scannists as a whole will dictate the frequency of any such legislative proposals.

Yes, pretty much. When Starcom 21 (APCO 25) was originally conceived on paper, the 396T (and similar) weren't out yet. But Uniden was already working on licensing the technology with Motorola and the other companies who produce similar technology (GE, etc.). Was it a surprise to people like state reps? Sure. Was it a surprise to law enforcement? Nope.

And if state reps would look at the number of "bad guys" using scanners compared to the number of hobbists, this would be a moot topic.

Shelley
K0SHL
 

K9JLR

Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2006
Messages
284
Location
McDonough County, IL
Was it a surprise to people like state reps? Sure. Was it a surprise to law enforcement? Nope.

And if state reps would look at the number of "bad guys" using scanners compared to the number of hobbists, this would be a moot topic.

Shelley
K0SHL

Though I speak only anecdotally, that's not necessarily the case. There were some troopers in this part of the state surprised to discover that scanners were on the market to monitor STARCOM 21 when it came online in 2007.

If you ever read any of the links that have been posted to scanner related threads on the LE forums, many of them essentially have little use for scanners, as they claim they "routinely" (subjective term) encounter transgressors in the possession of scanners.
 

shelleys1

Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2004
Messages
173
Location
Ballwin, MO - We are moving to Austin, TX 1 Mar. 2
GEE SORRY!! I made no attempt to "misconstrue" anything you wrote or said. I simply asked a proper question based on what YOU wrote. But no I didnt go back to read as to wether you wrote or called. Very minor point, as least to me. Who exactly is going "CRAZY"? By the tone of your post, I dont think it is me. And you are WRONG if that is your reading. If something is broadcast to a circle of receivers whom are authorized to receive that broadcast and you then capture that broadcast outside of that circle of receivers whom are authorized to receive that broadcast you are rebroadcasting. By capturing that unauthorized broadcast and placing it through an instrument that then re-broadcasts it, because realize yu are NOT hearing it first hand, but REBROADCASTING IT!!! It is not intended for you so in order to hear it you are collecting it be it called unauthorized or illegal and rebroadcasting. You do not belong to that broadcasts circle of trust. You are the outsider that must rebroadcast to hear it. It is a simple play on words. If a third person is not rebroadcast thn when is it? Third, fourth, fifth? Why would they not have a problem with you capturing it locally on a scanner but not sending it out over the net? Doesnt make any sense. No this is for you and me, first person, as it is written. Maybe it isnt their intent but as I read it it is the law of unintended consequences?

Man, this stuff can make you go CRAZY!!!!

I'm not sure how you can come up with a "rebroadcast". In order to be rebroadcast a second broadcast has to happen and that doesn't happen when you receive it on a scanner. If you're talking about receiving it illegally, then it's simply an illegal reception. If you receive it and rebroadcast it, then that's different. What Illinois wishes to do is to stop the redistribution of their broadcasts. I wrote them about that - yes. But what I was saying was that the initial reception of the broadcast from the dispatcher and subsequent intial the reception by my scanner and a police officer is not a rebroadcast.

Shelley
K0SHL
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top