• Effective immediately we will be deleting, without notice, any negative threads or posts that deal with the use of encryption and streaming of scanner audio.

    We've noticed a huge increase in rants and negative posts that revolve around agencies going to encryption due to the broadcasting of scanner audio on the internet. It's now worn out and continues to be the same recycled rants. These rants hijack the threads and derail the conversation. They no longer have a place anywhere on this forum other than in the designated threads in the Rants forum in the Tavern.

    If you violate these guidelines your post will be deleted without notice and an infraction will be issued. We are not against discussion of this issue. You just need to do it in the right place. For example:
    https://forums.radioreference.com/rants/224104-official-thread-live-audio-feeds-scanners-wait-encryption.html

Interesting Legal Case

Status
Not open for further replies.

zerg901

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
2,615
Location
Arlington MA
JOHN P. CAFARELLI, d/b/a Battle Creek Taxi, Car Service, Plaintiff ...
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
Defendant $ 30000 on the purchase price of Battle Creek Taxi, so Defendant agreed to. accept from Plaintiff ownership of a limousine service called Black ...
<http://www.cfac.org/handbook/cases/Cafarelli_v_Yancy.pdf>

2000 - Someone in Michigan was jumping taxi calls, and got sued. The Gass decision was part of the legal deliberations.

Peter Sz

keywords - openness - interception and divulgence - Communications Act of 1934
 

kb2vxa

Completely Banned for the Greater Good
Banned
Joined
Mar 22, 2005
Messages
6,126
Location
Point Pleasant Beach, N.J.
Since it's highly unlikely Congress will ever properly define "use" the precedent setting outcome of the trial will make all future claims contingent on Case Law.

Meanwhile talk all you want about what you hear on the scanner, just don't try to make money with it. Like the song by Cyndi Lauper goes, money changes everything.
 

zerg901

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
2,615
Location
Arlington MA
I have to admit, I didnt fully understand this case. It seems that the judge ruled that interception and divulgence of police and fire comms were OK, but that interception of business comms were not.

Is that what the judge actually said?

Peter Sz

PS - I have to disagree with your comment about making money. There seem to be plenty of people making money off of scanners without repercussions. (pager groups, streaming sites, etc).
 

KI4RDO

Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
66
Location
Kennesaw, GA
zerg901 if it were illegal to intersept and divulge police and fire comms then everytime any media outlet went out on a call then that would be a violation of the law but i see where the judge is coming from because the business is a private entity, even though they are useing public airways

zerg901 said:
I have to admit, I didnt fully understand this case. It seems that the judge ruled that interception and divulgence of police and fire comms were OK, but that interception of business comms were not.

Is that what the judge actually said?

Peter Sz

PS - I have to disagree with your comment about making money. There seem to be plenty of people making money off of scanners without repercussions. (pager groups, streaming sites, etc).
 

SkipSanders

Silent Key
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
1,058
No, what the judge ruled was that interception is legal, but USE (divulgence, especially for profit) is NOT, whatever type of comms it is, as long as interception is legal under ECPA.

It had been argued that the ECPA made 'use' legal along with interception. I never read the law that way, but the FCC seemed to think 'use' was legit under ECPA. Now, we have a court precident that says no, it's not legal to 'use' what you hear.

Watch news media quiver a bit.
 

jrholm

Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2006
Messages
533
Location
Big Bear
I think the main difference is not only did they profit, they denied profit to the rightful company...
 

DickH

Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2004
Messages
4,061
jrholm said:
I think the main difference is not only did they profit, they denied profit to the rightful company...
The Communications Act of 1934 is still in effect and differs from the ECPA. It says that you can not repeat what you hear to a 3rd party (anyone else) and you can not use the information for your own personal gain.

It is not strongly enforced.
 

Airdorn

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Mar 9, 2008
Messages
428
Damn. This morning I told a couple of co-workers about some exciting police comm during a chase the night before that I listened-to. involving some teens that were breaking into convenience stores. Was my comments to my co-workers illegal?
 

Don_Burke

Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2007
Messages
1,180
Location
Southeastern Virginia
Airdorn said:
Damn. This morning I told a couple of co-workers about some exciting police comm during a chase the night before that I listened-to. involving some teens that were breaking into convenience stores. Was my comments to my co-workers illegal?
Yes

Should you expect a knock on the door? No
 

kb2vxa

Completely Banned for the Greater Good
Banned
Joined
Mar 22, 2005
Messages
6,126
Location
Point Pleasant Beach, N.J.
My my, as expected the armchair lawyers think they know better and nothing is more unshakable than personal opinion. Had you read the article in it's entirety and attempted to understand it should be clear that the Wiretap Act lacking proper definition of terms muddied the waters and has led to this battle of the lawyers using it's innumerable loopholes each to their advantage... personal enrichment. It is in cases like these everybody loses and nobody gets rich but the lawyers. So who sits in Congress? LAWYERS!
 

zerg901

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
2,615
Location
Arlington MA
I was reading Page 7 of the 10 page PDF. It talks about the Wiretap Act which apparently was intended to replace the Comms Act of 1934.

The Wiretap Act apparently says that it is illegal to intentionally intercept ANY electronic communications, and it is illegal to disclose or use that intercepted material. The only exception is : it is OK to intercept (but apparently not use or disclose) material that is readily accessible to the public.

My conclusion is - it is illegal for me to talk about any TV program that I saw on my TV, unless I turned my TV on by accident.

Peter Sz
 

pappy1

Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2006
Messages
354
Location
Central Arkansas
zerg901 said:
I was reading Page 7 of the 10 page PDF. It talks about the Wiretap Act which apparently was intended to replace the Comms Act of 1934.

The Wiretap Act apparently says that it is illegal to intentionally intercept ANY electronic communications, and it is illegal to disclose or use that intercepted material. The only exception is : it is OK to intercept (but apparently not use or disclose) material that is readily accessible to the public.

My conclusion is - it is illegal for me to talk about any TV program that I saw on my TV, unless I turned my TV on by accident.

Peter Sz
Well said.
 

screenersam

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jan 29, 2006
Messages
570
Location
Somerset County, MD
zerg901 said:
I was reading Page 7 of the 10 page PDF. It talks about the Wiretap Act which apparently was intended to replace the Comms Act of 1934.

The Wiretap Act apparently says that it is illegal to intentionally intercept ANY electronic communications, and it is illegal to disclose or use that intercepted material. The only exception is : it is OK to intercept (but apparently not use or disclose) material that is readily accessible to the public.

My conclusion is - it is illegal for me to talk about any TV program that I saw on my TV, unless I turned my TV on by accident.

Peter Sz

"It was my cat's fault, your honor. She stepped on the remote and I was exposed to ____ before I could turn it off."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top