Illinois State Rep Dan Brady introduces anti-rebroadcast legislation

[N_Jay]

What happens when 49 more states pass this legislation in 2011?

I would guess we get 49 times the whining here?

A "right to scan" could be based on -

The well established rights to eavesdrop and peep, I would assume.

1. the need for situational awareness for self protection during emergencies

1) Not a need.
2) Not a right.

2. the need for citizens to monitor government activities (police, fire, ambulance, public works, etc)

1) Not a need.
2) Not a right.

Do you want open access to phone lines and in-room conversations also?

Maybe we just force all our government officials to use open forum systems instead of email for all electronic communications?

3. the utility of having citizens assist the government and their neighbors during emergencies - https://sites.google.com/site/scannerstorys/home

If this were as strong an argument as some here believe, I would think you would hear more about it from the Public Safety professionals side of the discussion.

4. encourages the public to seek careers in public safety and government

Stretch that any further and the one thin rubber band of logic you are using is going to break.

reduces "what is going on?" calls to 911

And there it goes, SNAP!

 

[ILMRadioMan]

Do you want open access to phone lines and in-room conversations also?

Maybe we just force all our government officials to use open forum systems instead of email for all electronic communications?

Be wary of what you ask for...

There are many that would have just that.

 

[ILMRadioMan]

What happens when 49 more states pass this legislation in 2011?

A "right to scan" could be based on -

1. the need for situational awareness for self protection during emergencies

2. the need for citizens to monitor government activities (police, fire, ambulance, public works, etc)

3. the utility of having citizens assist the government and their neighbors during emergencies - https://sites.google.com/site/scannerstorys/home

4. encourages the public to seek careers in public safety and government

5. reduces "what is going on?" calls to 911

6. more?

Ok, lets think about this for a second.

I think its fair to generalize and say that MOST public safety radio transmissions have been scannable since the beginning of scanners (hence why they have been a successful market). And yet, I cannot remember the last time an emergency of any scale happened, and people that were listening on the scanner were a) encouraged to come assist, or b) actually did come assist.

And what self protection will you gain under emergencies?

The VHF WX feeds arent encrypting any time soon . So we can count weather emergencies out.

Criminal emergencies? Are you going to go help the police take down the next school shooter as its happening?

I mean, you can talk platitudes, but those "needs" have long been debunked as simply a means for those to gain access to something that they had no RIGHT to hear in the first place.

You have a RIGHT to public records, and you have a RIGHT to receive frequencies out of the air.

However you DONT have the RIGHT to be able to comprehend what is being transmitted.


What would you say if I was the police chief, and I came up with some kooky language that only my officers and I could decipher?

Is that not the same as encryption? Sure you can still receive the signal, but you have no possible way to understand what it is I am communicating. Do you think you have the right to my super secret decoder ring that allows me to understand what is being said?

No, you dont.


Now again, you can come after the fact, and formally request information as to what happened, to which certain sections of my department could give you the formal report. But again, you have no RIGHT to understand it as it happens, it is simply a LUXURY that has been afforded to you all this time.

 

[Squad10]

Since Illinois' MO is Pay to Play, maybe a sizeable financial contribution (wnk wink) will get you a State issued StarCom radio with all the features you want (wink wink). I'll bet the State will even give you creds to be a hobby cop.

What's the Illinois make StarCom scanning legal defense fund up to in dollars?

 

[blantonl]

With reguards to earlier posts...
I think the scanner makers would like this bill if anything. Think about folks. If there are no free online streams, then people have no choice but to go buy their own scanner if they wish to hear what is going on. More money for the scanner makers. Didn't the RIAA go through the same thing when music started being rebroadcast over the internet?

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.

 

[KIKINWING]

You have a RIGHT to public records, and you have a RIGHT to receive frequencies out of the air.
However you DONT have the RIGHT to be able to comprehend what is being transmitted.

That very well may be an accurate statement . But I suggest the question that is bound for the courts is do THEY have the right to make those transmissions incomprehensible in the first place? Given your first quote I am betting they dont support your last.

So what if bad guys have scanners, that is a price you pay to live in a free society. Total transparency is the only antedote to tyranny.

One of those really smart dead old white guys in a wig once said (I am paraphrasing so professor dont grade me if I am in minor error)

"An informed society is the only truly free society" dead guy

 

[N_Jay]

That very well may be an accurate statement.

Yes.

But I suggest the question that is bound for the courts is do THEY have the right to make those transmissions incomprehensible in the first place?

It does not (and probably won't) go to the courts, because YES, they definitely have the right to do so.

Given your first quote I am betting they dont support your last.

??

So what if bad guys have scanners, that is a price you pay to live in a free society.

Yes, and why encryption is allowed and why some (many) states have tried to restrict receivers.

Total transparency is the only antedote to tyranny.

Maybe so, but not a legal right.

 

[ILMRadioMan]

Let me go one step further and correct myself.

I would go so far as to say you DONT have the RIGHT to rx. Its just that the agencies DONT have the RIGHT / AUTHORITY to stop you.

So its more of a negative on them, rather than a positive on you.

I know for most that wont make sense, but there is a difference. By establishing regs like this, govt has the future possibility to deny your ability to rx, should a situation ever arise.

So again, its not your RIGHT, its that agencies are specifically prohibited from stopping you.

 

[KIKINWING]

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

My own Journey will attest to this statement. I will assume the manufacturers who are following this thread are banding together and each budgeting legal monies to help in the good fight?

 

[ILMRadioMan]

My own Journey will attest to this statement. I will assume the manufacturers who are following this thread are banding together and each budgeting legal monies to help in the good fight?

Possible, but doubtful.

This only affects 1 system in 1 state.

It says nothing about any other illinois system, or any system in any other state.

As I said earlier, really this is not much different from the MRA situation that happened here a few months back.

I highly doubt that any manufacturer will sue the state over this 1 system (and yes I recognize the size of the system)

 

[N_Jay]

Some people seem to feel this little cult hobby is way more important that it really is.

 

[KIKINWING]

I know for most that wont make sense, but there is a difference. By establishing regs like this, govt has the future possibility to deny your ability to rx, should a situation ever arise.

So again, its not your RIGHT, its that agencies are specifically prohibited from stopping you.

If I may this is why we have three branches of Govt. (Executive, Legislative and Judicial) Just because one says something doesnt make it is right, constitutional. Checks and balances was our framers intent. Any agreived citizen may seek redress through Judicial relief. Every law, every interpitation should earn a means test. This is one that needs to be vetted if I ever saw one.

Lawyer up!!!

 

[KIKINWING]

Possible, but doubtful.

This only affects 1 system in 1 state.

It says nothing about any other illinois system, or any system in any other state.

As I said earlier, really this is not much different from the MRA situation that happened here a few months back.

I highly doubt that any manufacturer will sue the state over this 1 system (and yes I recognize the size of the system)

Yes you are right. But this is the one we are talking about. There will be many, many more. As I said earlier what needs to happen is to pick a case in the right state and use it as a vehicle to get th whole situation reversed. Strategize.

 

[KIKINWING]

Some people seem to feel this little cult hobby is way more important that it really is.

Remind me when it is time to drink my Kool Aid!!!!!

 

[ILMRadioMan]

Yes you are right. But this is the one we are talking about. There will be many, many more. As I said earlier what needs to happen is to pick a case in the right state and use it as a vehicle to get th whole situation reversed. Strategize.

Again, thats possible.

But even so, there are years of federal processes and legal findings that back up the use of encryption.

So again, just remember you get what you ask for.

In the HIGHLY UNLIKELY event that the prohibition of rebroadcasting this system is overturned, dont be surprised when everybody encrypts everything.

 

[ILMRadioMan]

And let me also remind you kikin, that no where was the prohibition of scanning.

Its all about rebroadcasting.

Dont get yourself into a tizzy over something minute.

So why would the manufacturers even care?

You can still buy the scanners and listen to the system.

 

[KIKINWING]

Again, thats possible.

But even so, there are years of federal processes and legal findings that back up the use of encryption.

So again, just remember you get what you ask for.

In the HIGHLY UNLIKELY event that the prohibition of rebroadcasting this system is overturned, dont be surprised when everybody encrypts everything.

Yes, there are and I would venture a guess that less than one half of one one hundredth have been ajudicated; TRAGEDY!!

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!!)

 

[KIKINWING]

And let me also remind you kikin, that no where was the prohibition of scanning.

Its all about rebroadcasting.

Dont get yourself into a tizzy over something minute.

So why would the manufacturers even care?

You can still buy the scanners and listen to the system.

Tizzy?? Did I miss something? I dunno I guess I can see the BIG picture, always could.

Suffice it to say, while this is minute, and tomorrows may also be. But as time progresses one plus one equals two, then four then eight and pretty soon it aint so minute. We are already there. If they could they would put us both out of a hobby. Every government regulation, Law, thought should, and must, be challenged. As IKE said, we must guard against unwarrented influence in the military industrial complex; KIKINWING says "Government as a whole" That's my tizzy.......

Kool Aid please!!!!!...................

 

[Squad10]

HB5194 Engrossed - 2 - LRB096 17146 RLC 32476 b

(20 ILCS 2615/12 new)

Use of public safety radio system by unauthorized radios.

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 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 by cloning.

Unauthorized access to the State's radio system in violation of this Section is a Class A misdemeanor.

Effective date. This Act takes effect upon becoming law.

 

[ILMRadioMan]

Tizzy?? Did I miss something? I dunno I guess I can see the BIG picture, always could.

Suffice it to say, while this is minute, and tomorrows may also be. But as time progresses one plus one equals two, then four then eight and pretty soon it aint so minute. We are already there. If they could they would put us both out of a hobby. Every government regulation, Law, thought should, and must, be challenged. As IKE said, we must guard against unwarrented influence in the military industrial complex; KIKINWING says "Government as a whole" That's my tizzy.......

Kool Aid please!!!!!...................

Thats fine to be for "100% transparency"

However, your points here seem to all be flawed.

KIKIN Point 1) Although the bill clearly states rebroadcast, you seem to think that it has something to do with listening to the inital broadcast.

Answer 1) No. The inherent definition of the two make them different. You can listen to the inital broadcast, but to take that modulation and repeat it, would be illegal.


KIKIN Point 2) Discussing this amongst ourselves is futile

Answer 2) Then why are you?


KP3) Trash haulers sued to dump trash wherever

A3) But were there years of proceedings backing up the former decision?


KP4 [And 1]) Sound coming from a speaker is rebroadcasting

A4 [And 1 again]) Incorrect. You cannot hear RF with your bare ears. I.E. without a radio you cannot hear what is modulated. Therefore your scanner and the radios that use the system are simply hearing the modulation. There has been no rebroadcast. From person generating signal to person hearing signal is considered 1 broadcast.

Hence why they call it "broadcast television" not "rebroadcast television". This argument would fall apart in court with the blink of an eye.


KP5) Radio waves are not a natural feature.

A5) There are a few folks at SETI and other space programs that might disagree with that.


KP6) Law enforcement will abuse this law with broad interpretation of the word "rebroadcast".

A6) And yet the definition of the word rebroadcast is inherently opposite of the point you are trying to make


KP7) Your hobby is on the line

A7) As was stated this has nothing to do with the scanning of the system. Rather taking what you scan and rebroadcasting it elsewhere for others to hear.


KP8) So what if bad guys have scanners

A8) I wonder how you will feel when a crime is commited on you that goes unpunished due to a criminal using a scanner.


KP9) Scanner manufacturers are likely banding together to fight this bill

A9) No where does the bill attempt to make it illegal to scan. What are they fighting.


KP10) Every assumed infraction should go to the judicial system

A10) You arent by chance one of the people that also feels our system is inundated with trivial cases?


KP11) This will snowball into every one blocking your hobby.

A11) Assuming your hobby is scanning, then I reference A9.