Laws regarding police/law enforcement TAC channels

[consys]

Years (many...) ago I bought a book called "The Listeners Law Book" that listed the then in effect scanner laws by state. The common theme, and law in CA where I live was "you can listen but you cannot disclose or interfere in any way. That said, I have on two occasions called PD when I saw what they were looking for after hearing it on the scanner. Both times they quickly asked "how I knew that", and wanted me to ID myself. Cooperating fully seemed to help credibility. I have posted on the "funny / odd things heard" forum and enjoy it, but I believe discretion is in the best interest of our hobby.

 

[dave3825]

I'm not sure if that comment was toward me or someone else... Because I would never tell someone they don't know what they're talking about.. So I apologize if I somehow came off that way.

Pretty sure the beginning of the, well the whole comment was directed at you.

The Whole Comment Said:
I don't care if it's months after the fact. If you are considering posting information from sensitive communications of any sorts....don't. The officers and personnel involved in them don't do just one surveillance and call it a career. You could conceivably compromise their safety by doing so.

The very idea of doing so is absurd and dangerous, and I'm 200% on board with the encryption comments. Oh, and I also worked for a PD for just under 34 years so don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about.

 

[Shae_Clark]

Pretty sure the beginning of the, well the whole comment was directed at you.

Okay got it. No need to be a jerk.

 

[Shae_Clark]

Years (many...) ago I bought a book called "The Listeners Law Book" that listed the then in effect scanner laws by state. The common theme, and law in CA where I live was "you can listen but you cannot disclose or interfere in any way. That said, I have on two occasions called PD when I saw what they were looking for after hearing it on the scanner. Both times they quickly asked "how I knew that", and wanted me to ID myself. Cooperating fully seemed to help credibility. I have posted on the "funny / odd things heard" forum and enjoy it, but I believe discretion is in the best interest of our hobby.

Thank you so much for sharing! I'll have to check out that book & see if there are any updated versions.

 

[KC1UA]

Let me be blunt. The "jerk factor" pertains to anyone that, for any reason, would compromise the safety and well being of public safety employees that put their lives on the line to try to reduce such crime. To consider publicly posting their operations, voices, events, tactics, etc., you are potentially placing them, their families, and the general public in peril. Covert activities exist for a reason, and it's no small wonder why much of it is encrypted. It should be. For that you do hear in the clear, listen and enjoy that you can, but for God's sake don't plaster it all over the internet.

You asked. We answered. I'm reporting this post at the conclusion of my typing. Let the moderators decide whether to allow it to continue. The very idea of it reeks of a stench of absolute lack of common sense. Good day.

 

[Shae_Clark]

Well, let me be blunt too. It seems you've jumped to some pretty hasty conclusions here. You have no idea what I do, don't do, or even think about when it comes to posting. I'm sorry that you assume I would include any and all audio from any of the scanner feeds, without editing it down or redacting certain audio. I don't nor would I include ANYTHING that would put anyone's life at risk, or even identify anyone. (Unless of course, a suspect(s) &/or victim(s) name is already released publicly.) As you already know, not everything said over the radio is a matter of life or death or something that would jeopardize their operations.

Also, I haven't gotten any real answers when it comes to the legality of those feeds, which is what I asked.
I'm sorry, I didn't think that my seeking answers on a forum/site about scanner audio would make anyone so angry or would be against the rules.

 

[Shae_Clark]

It's not an issue of law. It's an issue of judgement, and what the reaction may be.

I am wanting to know what the laws are though.

Even though let me be clear I have never, & will never post or include ANYTHING whether that is audio or even information wise that would jeopardize anyone's life or anything that would identify someone. (unless their name is already released by official sources)

I personally would just like to know the laws regarding those channels/feeds.

I apologize me wanting to find that information has upset so many people. I did not expect or intend for my post to do that.

 

[KD8FSJ]

Even though let me be clear I have never, & will never post or include ANYTHING whether that is audio or even information wise that would jeopardize anyone's life or anything that would identify someone. (unless their name is already released by official sources)

I would resist. You may have the best intentions, but you could accidently hurt an investigation by letting out info that you thought was insignificant. Even months later.

 

[DS506]

I am wanting to know what the laws are though.

Look up the law then.


"...no person receiving, assisting in receiving, transmitting, or assisting in transmitting, any interstate or foreign communication by wire or radio shall divulge or publish the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning thereof, ..."

47 U.S.C. § 605(a).


I am no lawyer; this is what I found from a respectable site in less time than reading this thread.

 

[KC1UA]

Well, let me be blunt too. It seems you've jumped to some pretty hasty conclusions here. You have no idea what I do, don't do, or even think about when it comes to posting. I'm sorry that you assume I would include any and all audio from any of the scanner feeds, without editing it down or redacting certain audio. I don't nor would I include ANYTHING that would put anyone's life at risk, or even identify anyone. (Unless of course, a suspect(s) &/or victim(s) name is already released publicly.) As you already know, not everything said over the radio is a matter of life or death or something that would jeopardize their operations.

Also, I haven't gotten any real answers when it comes to the legality of those feeds, which is what I asked.
I'm sorry, I didn't think that my seeking answers on a forum/site about scanner audio would make anyone so angry or would be against the rules.

I don't think I'm jumping to any hasty conclusions at all. Posts 1 and 3 in this thread, both by you, indicate consideration of posting sensitive information to two social media platforms. Post #13 adds YouTube into the mix.

I believe you have read the opinions of many responders to your inquiry. As mentioned in one thread, it really is not a matter of law, but instead a matter of common sense. I won't waste my, yours, or anyone else's time by repeating the reasons why.

 

[mikewazowski]

Since this is a question about Facebook and Twitter policies, the OP can ask them.