Internet Streaming Of Scanners FYI

[jack3726]

I know of site that was recently shut down. The verdict (2nd hand) was based on someone not liking the traffic being streamed over the internet(that is my take anyway). I am curious to know what others think of this, to be honest I never really gave it much thought unless there is a law to support not doing this like there are laws for not having a scanner in your car. In any event I guess if I was streaming PD/FD traffic over the web and I was told to shut it down I am not sure what I would do. To sum it up I find this to be a strange request indeed.

 

[n5ims]

It may happen at times, but generally doesn't appear to be all that common.

http://www.radioreference.com/forum...ng-re-quested-told-take-down-online-feed.html is a thread about someone that was streaming the department that they were a probationary officer for. While there didn't appear to be anything legal that they could do to get them to stop, not very vailed threats to his position with that department got it shut down.

http://www.radioreference.com/forum...0-los-angeles-will-prosecute-if-you-feed.html is a thread about the LAFD threatening to procecute folks that stream their transmissions. One post contains the text of an e-mail from the FCC which indicates that streaming would not be a violation of their rules as the LAFD indicated would be the case.

 

[Scan-Denver]

If there was any legality issue over this subject, I don't think Scan America would exist nor would Radio Reference acquire it... Full Story

 

[gpp10x]

Shouldn't this thread be in general discussions?

 

[slash]

I am curious to know what others think of this, to be honest I never really gave it much thought unless there is a law to support not doing this like there are laws for not having a scanner in your car. In any event I guess if I was streaming PD/FD traffic over the web and I was told to shut it down I am not sure what I would do. To sum it up I find this to be a strange request indeed.

As someone who has actually been charged with merely transporting a scanner in a vehicle, I know alot about this topic. Actually (and thankfully), it is no longer illegal to have a scanner in your vehicle in Michigan.

It is, however, illegal to have a scanner during the commission of any crime greater than a 93-day misdemeanor. So if you commit a felony while having a scanner in your possession, you will be also charged with another felony for having the scanner. A misdemeanor crime, same thing only you get another misdemeanor. It is now totally irrelevant whether it is in your vehicle or home.

As far as I know nobody has tested the legality of whether or not listening to an internet streaming feed, on a computer or on an iPhone, as the law states "radio" (although an iPhone is technically a radio so I guess that would count). What's also important to realize is, unlike the old law where if you were a licensed Amateur Radio operator, you could legally transport a scanner/ham radio in a vehicle, there is no such protection for ham operators anymore. As a scanner feed provider and amateur radio operator, if the police came breaking down my door, being I have an actual scanner in my residence, I could be charged if I were committing a crime of some sort if they could prove it was used in the commission of a crime.

The current law is here if you're interested:
Michigan Legislature - Section 750.508

 

[rvictor]

As someone who has actually been charged with merely transporting a scanner in a vehicle, I know alot about this topic. Actually (and thankfully), it is no longer illegal to have a scanner in your vehicle in Michigan.

It is, however, illegal to have a scanner during the commission of any crime greater than a 93-day misdemeanor. So if you commit a felony while having a scanner in your possession, you will be also charged with another felony for having the scanner. A misdemeanor crime, same thing only you get another misdemeanor. It is now totally irrelevant whether it is in your vehicle or home.

As far as I know nobody has tested the legality of whether or not listening to an internet streaming feed, on a computer or on an iPhone, as the law states "radio" (although an iPhone is technically a radio so I guess that would count). What's also important to realize is, unlike the old law where if you were a licensed Amateur Radio operator, you could legally transport a scanner/ham radio in a vehicle, there is no such protection for ham operators anymore. As a scanner feed provider and amateur radio operator, if the police came breaking down my door, being I have an actual scanner in my residence, I could be charged if I were committing a crime of some sort if they could prove it was used in the commission of a crime.

The current law is here if you're interested:
Michigan Legislature - Section 750.508

And if they can prove that you were using the scanner in the commission of a felony or a "more than 93 day misdemeanor", why shouldn't you be charged? Hardly the kind of law that impacts adversely on law abiding citizens. And as a ham radio operator, why would I expect to be exempt from that type of law? When I acquired my license I didn't expect that it would allow me to commit crimes that others couldn't.

73
Dick

 

[rvictor]

If there was any legality issue over this subject, I don't think Scan America would exist nor would Radio Reference acquire it... Full Story

Many agencies may not care that their transmissions are streamed or may not be aware of a way to prevent it. Some actually encourage it.

However, I'd be interesting in hearing the views of an intellectual property attorney on whether a police or similar agency could copyright its broadcasts and thereby prevent their rebroadcast without permission. I'm not trying to be difficult, but I don't think that speculation by non-experts would be useful on this issue. It's a legal question that would have to be determined based on an understanding of copyright law by a qualified person. If such a person reads this thread, I'd like to hear his/her views.

73
Dick

 

[Livewire3286]

I have been providing online broadcasts for about 6 years now - and with the 200 + feeds that we have probably had over those 6 years not once have we had a request to take a feed down, stop broadcasting etc... for any reason. There have been a few cases where (through investigation) we have learned that persons equipment that they were using to broadcast had been taken as evidence for possible arson investigations etc... But said equipment was returned. Now the broadcasters never really told us what happened, but through local stories etc... and public records requests, and contacts this is what we had learned.

We have had certain peoples disappear too for long periods of time - and come to the conclusion it may be related, but never any proof there of.

 

[EdmontonFireRadio]

Here in Canada we have the Radiocommunication Act. In it Section 9 says:

(2) Except as prescribed, no person shall intercept and make use of, or intercept and divulge, any radiocommunication, except as permitted by the originator of the communication or the person intended by the originator of the communication to receive it.

In our case we have obtained permission from the agency that we wanted to provide the audio for. Without getting permission we could have been shut down. However the Edmonton Fire Rescue Services were quite interested in what we wanted to do and have given full support for our website. We have been featured internally to their employees and they have told the public how they can listen during tours of the 911 dispatch center.

By working with the agency instead of trying to do things under the radar, at least in our case, has really paid off. We get over 6,000 unique listeners per month and that number is still growing.

 

[jack3726]

I thought of another scenario to this, what if it were a conflict of interests. Suppose you were a fireman or patrol officer for a department and you had equipment setup that you were streaming over the web. I don't think it would matter but did wonder about this. I do know of a fireman who had an elaborate setup at the station no less and did the streaming without anyone saying anything.

 

[Livewire3286]

My fire department wants me to stream online, then they might actually be able to hear the tone outs and calls LOL. But its our dispatch center that wont allow us to "Officially" do it. I dont really have a good location to pick up better reception so havent done it yet for that station.

When I was with the police department as a Reserve officer and full time police clerk we did stream our scanner online and had it on our website. The chief actually was the one that requested to do it.

So depends o nt he area I guess.

 

[Bote]

Bottom line: if an agency does not want to be monitored, then it should encrypt its communications.

Imagine an Army commander holding a press conference in Iraq or Afghanistan to say that "We would have pinned down the enemy, but they monitored our communications and escaped before we could move in."

He would be the laughingstock of the world! Rules? What rules?? If they communicated in the clear and it was such sensitive information, shame on them for being stupid.

These agencies that claim that someone is violating some law about monitoring their communications are living in fantasy land. If they truly did not want people to monitor, they would encrypt their communications. On digital radios this is trivial.

Jacksonville, Florida does this routinely. Some agencies encrypt their investigative talkgroups, but leave their common police and fire channels in the clear because they understand the benefit that can come from mere citizens monitoring lookout broadcasts and the like.

It is not incumbent on the listener to "avoid" hearing things, it is incumbent upon the speaker to be more careful about what he says and how he disseminates it.

 

[keithmj]

Response

Jacksonville, Florida does this routinely. Some agencies encrypt their investigative talkgroups, but leave their common police and fire channels in the clear because they understand the benefit that can come from mere citizens monitoring lookout broadcasts and the like.
QUOTE]

Here in Pinellas County the Sheriff's dept encrypts the swat but leaves the others as said before, clear. Also if you think about it the Fire depts and Police depts are not funded with private monies but from the public, so to me if it isn't something like a swat action then we should be able to listen as we pay for it. If they have anything that is private to say then they can either encrypt or use cell phones..Cheers..Keithmj

 

[N_Jay]

IF,
it is illegal to disclose the contents of an intercepted communication.
AND,
It is illegal to re-broadcast an intercepted transmission,
THEN,
why is it legal to "re-broadcast" it on the Internet, or to "disclose" it to third parties on the Internet?

The current status of the law makes no sense (but is the law, for now).

 

[keithmj]

My take on that question is and the only reason that I can think of is..Have you ever listened to your own scanner being streamed online? There is usually a 3 to 6 second delay. Say you are listening about swat surrounding a house and you hear that they just arrived, by the time you hear it they have already entered the house and have the people in handcuffs so the people inside the house, if they are listening to a scanner, which I don't think so, are still captured. They never heard about swat until it was to late..Stupid is as stupid does I guess..What other reason is there? Cheers..keithmj

 

[N_Jay]

My take on that question is and the only reason that I can think of is..Have you ever listened to your own scanner being streamed online? There is usually a 3 to 6 second delay. Say you are listening about swat surrounding a house and you hear that they just arrived, by the time you hear it they have already entered the house and have the people in handcuffs so the people inside the house, if they are listening to a scanner, which I don't think so, are still captured. They never heard about swat until it was to late..Stupid is as stupid does I guess..What other reason is there? Cheers..keithmj

EXCEPT > > >

It takes a lot more the 6 seconds to set up the swat team.

In reality, you are WAY over thanking this.

The reason it is legal is because the FCC is working hard to keep themselves out of regulating Internet content of any kind, and no one has pushed hard enough to overcome the inertia.

 

[zerg901]

NJay - Gass decision - it is not illegal to intercept and divulge. Peter Sz

 

[keithmj]

Aahh..Another one..I know that it takes more that 6 seconds..Duh..But by the time they (the Crooks, listening with a scanner, due to delay) would hear the words "GO" or what ever they use, they (SWAT) are all ready moving in..Just adding some humor around here..There is no good reason except that our so called leaders don't know what they are doing when it comes to radio scanners..Cheers..Keithmj

 

[N_Jay]

So they listen to the whole 2 hour set up, and then wait for "GO" to be 6 seconds late?

You are really stretching here.

Like I said, you are thinking this 1000 times deeper than those making the rules.

 

[keithmj]

OK..Why not..I'll play along..They're dumb enought already to have swat surround the house so yes they would be that dumb..Just wondering..Do you have a Medicare card? Just a survey..Cheers..Keithmj