Legalities of the recorded transmissions from a PSR-800....

Status
Not open for further replies.

Keith_W7KEW

Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2011
Messages
156
Location
California
What are the legalities for sharing transmissions that are recorded with your PSR-800?

Is it legal to "share" these?
You would need to consult a lawyer to see what the law says in the jurisdiction you live in. Federal, State and local laws regarding recordings will apply. You need to check civil and criminal laws.
 

rdale

Completely Banned for the Greater Good
Joined
Feb 3, 2001
Messages
11,380
Location
Lansing, MI
You're fine. It is no different than the archives available here.
 

jim202

Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2002
Messages
2,591
Location
New Orleans region
What are the legalities for sharing transmissions that are recorded with your PSR-800?

Is it legal to "share" these?

I think you will find that the National Telecommunications Act covers what your intending to do. It would be best if you read through that information to see if you inside or outside what it says.
 

jhooten

Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2004
Messages
1,397
Location
Paige, Republic of Texas
"Electronic Communications Privacy Act

The Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) sets out the provisions for access, use, disclosure, interception and privacy protections of electronic communications. The law was enacted in 1986 and covers various forms of wire and electronic communications. According to the U.S. Code, electronic communications "means any transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photo electronic or photo optical system that affects interstate or foreign commerce." ECPA prohibits unlawful access and certain disclosures of communication contents. Additionally, the law prevents government entities from requiring disclosure of electronic communications from a provider without proper procedure. The Legal Institute provides Title 18 of the U.S. Code, which encompasses ECPA."

Clear as mud eh? Ok. if that is not enough there is this from the Communications act of 1934

UNAUTHORIZED PUBLICATION OF COMMUNICATIONS

'SEC. 605. No person receiving or assisting in receiving, or 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, except through authorized channels of transmission or reception, to any person other than the addressee, his agent, or attorney, or to a person employed or authorized to forward such communication to its destination, or to proper accounting or distributing officers of the various communicating centers over which the communication may be passed, or to the master of a ship under whom he is serving, or in response to a subpoena issued by a court of competent jurisdiction, or on demand of other lawful authority; and no person not being authorized by the sender shall intercept any communication and divulge or publish the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of such intercepted communication to any person; and no person not being entitled thereto shall receive or assist in receiving any interstate or foreign communication by wire or radio and use the same or any information therein contained for his own benefit or for the benefit of another not entitled thereto; and no person having received such intercepted communication or having become acquainted with the contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of the same or any part thereof, or use the same or any information therein contained for his own benefit or for the benefit of another not entitled thereto: Provided, That this section shall not apply to the receiving, divulging, publishing, or utilizing the contents of any radio communication broadcast, or transmitted by amateurs or others for the use of the general public, or relating to ships in distress."
 
Last edited:

RKG

Member
Joined
May 23, 2005
Messages
1,090
"Electronic Communications Privacy Act

The Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) sets out the provisions for access, use, disclosure, interception and privacy protections of electronic communications. The law was enacted in 1986 and covers various forms of wire and electronic communications. According to the U.S. Code, electronic communications "means any transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photo electronic or photo optical system that affects interstate or foreign commerce." ECPA prohibits unlawful access and certain disclosures of communication contents. Additionally, the law prevents government entities from requiring disclosure of electronic communications from a provider without proper procedure. The Legal Institute provides Title 18 of the U.S. Code, which encompasses ECPA."

Clear as mud eh? Ok. if that is not enough there is this from the Communications act of 1934

UNAUTHORIZED PUBLICATION OF COMMUNICATIONS

'SEC. 605. No person receiving or assisting in receiving, or 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, except through authorized channels of transmission or reception, to any person other than the addressee, his agent, or attorney, or to a person employed or authorized to forward such communication to its destination, or to proper accounting or distributing officers of the various communicating centers over which the communication may be passed, or to the master of a ship under whom he is serving, or in response to a subpoena issued by a court of competent jurisdiction, or on demand of other lawful authority; and no person not being authorized by the sender shall intercept any communication and divulge or publish the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of such intercepted communication to any person; and no person not being entitled thereto shall receive or assist in receiving any interstate or foreign communication by wire or radio and use the same or any information therein contained for his own benefit or for the benefit of another not entitled thereto; and no person having received such intercepted communication or having become acquainted with the contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of the same or any part thereof, or use the same or any information therein contained for his own benefit or for the benefit of another not entitled thereto: Provided, That this section shall not apply to the receiving, divulging, publishing, or utilizing the contents of any radio communication broadcast, or transmitted by amateurs or others for the use of the general public, or relating to ships in distress."
Section 605 has been partially repealed insofar as it might have applied to radio transmissions that are by a Part 90 licensee (i.e., not a common carrier), analog FM, and not encrypted by section 2511 of the Safe Street Act. See United States v. Rose, 669 F.2d 23 (1st Cir. 1982). Probably also applies to unencrypted digital voice transmissions by same. In general, such broadcasts are in the public domain.
 

RIG

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
156
Location
Northern New Jersey
My take on it is, you heard it through a legal means that is available to the general public who buys a scanner you're not giving away any confidential information. It's not like you unscrambled encrypted information. Any lay person who reads a legal document can't make heads or tails out of a statute as they don't read it as a skilled legal professional would, so the above statute just takes up space and answers nothing and only raises more questions.

Rob
 

Citywide173

Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2005
Messages
1,751
Location
Attleboro, MA
It doesn't (or isn't very noticeable). Why not give an honest answer instead of referencing the manual?
That is an honest answer. If the manufacturer put it in, and there were legalities involved, they are obligated to make the end user aware of them. Since I don't own one, I couldn't reference it myself.
 

KK5VN

Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2010
Messages
18
Location
Spring TX
The long and short of it is, that it depends on what state you live in. I am not familiar with Illinois laws, even though I have lived there.
When I lived in Fla. ,, I heard a robbery planned on a 49 Mhz phone. I was reluctant to report it because sharing information that I heard on that frequency was illegal. Crazy huh??
Generally included in most scanner manuals,, is a statement that you are free to listen to transmissions, but cannot profit from what you heard, and cannot share the information with others. That in itself makes every wrecker in my area breaking the law.
Who chooses what to enforce at what time?? I myself, would not upload a youtube vid with scanner audio, but that's me.
This page might help Mobile Scanner & RADAR Detector Laws In The U.S.
 

austijc

Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2006
Messages
7
This is what the manual says on page 8:

"It is legal to listen to almost every transmission your scanner can receive. However, it is illegal to divulge the contents of any transmissions you receive to a third party and there are some transmissions you should never intentionally listen to."

The "never listen to" are listed as telephone conversations, paging, and unscrambling encrypted transmissions.

Farther down it says you can divulge the contents with the consent of one of the parties. I wonder if things like EMS and Police would have an implied consent because they are public operations.
 

N1SQB

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2003
Messages
2,401
Location
Somewhere On Earth
As a general rule, what I hear, I keep to myself. Now, you did not say whom you wanted to share this with. I have a few close, trustworthy friends that if a major event took place, I would have no problem sharing information heard to keep us all in the loop. By major events I mean like 9/11, earthquakes, ect.. Again, big things that would benefit my friends and their families. But regular day to day stuff, I just keep what I hear to myself. It's safer that way! Just my 2 cents worth!

Manny
 

Jake68111

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2010
Messages
407
Location
Morris, IL. (Grundy County)
As a general rule, what I hear, I keep to myself. Now, you did not say whom you wanted to share this with. I have a few close, trustworthy friends that if a major event took place, I would have no problem sharing information heard to keep us all in the loop. By major events I mean like 9/11, earthquakes, ect.. Again, big things that would benefit my friends and their families. But regular day to day stuff, I just keep what I hear to myself. It's safer that way! Just my 2 cents worth!

Manny
You know, I think the same way. However, if someone came up to me and said, "Hey, did you hear about the crash that killed so and so?" I would have the opportunity to say, "Yes if fact I did and it was crazy, check this out." Now who is going to go run off to the FCC and say that they heard radio traffic about a peticular(SP?) event and when would the "Men In Black" come banging down my door?

I can understand the seriousness of the offense but it would be their burden to prove it and I'd smile when holding up my scanner and asking those "Men In Black" why the FCC would approve a scanner that can independently record transmissions. Do they think i'm going to continuously sit around and listen to re-runs of the same transmissions? I'm just saying, two sides to the same coin.
 

N1SQB

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2003
Messages
2,401
Location
Somewhere On Earth
You know, I think the same way. However, if someone came up to me and said, "Hey, did you hear about the crash that killed so and so?" I would have the opportunity to say, "Yes if fact I did and it was crazy, check this out." Now who is going to go run off to the FCC and say that they heard radio traffic about a peticular(SP?) event and when would the "Men In Black" come banging down my door?

I can understand the seriousness of the offense but it would be their burden to prove it and I'd smile when holding up my scanner and asking those "Men In Black" why the FCC would approve a scanner that can independently record transmissions. Do they think i'm going to continuously sit around and listen to re-runs of the same transmissions? I'm just saying, two sides to the same coin.
Jake, casual talk about an event is a lot different than someone going to the level of recording conversations or two way radio transmissions then replaying them or sharing them with others. Becoming known as someone who routinely records and shares transmissions with others, well, that is not the reputation I want for myself personally, that's all I'm saying.....

Manny
 

GTR8000

NYS Database Guy
Database Admin
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
8,055
Location
BEE00
Except if all that were true, RR and the individual feed providers would've been shut down a long time ago by the FCC for sharing and archiving the live feeds on a massive scale. There is absolutely no difference, it's still a digital recording of transmissions received on a scanner, same as the PSR-800 files. Some of you are making a mountain out of a molehill, honestly.
 

Jake68111

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2010
Messages
407
Location
Morris, IL. (Grundy County)
Jake, casual talk about an event is a lot different than someone going to the level of recording conversations or two way radio transmissions then replaying them or sharing them with others. Becoming known as someone who routinely records and shares transmissions with others, well, that is not the reputation I want for myself personally, that's all I'm saying.....

Manny
No, it definately wouldn't be a habitual practice. The question pertains to the off beat chance that you coincidentally had recorded the transmissions and shared them. Sharing them routinely would just be wrong. But illegal is illegal right? Thats what I'm trying to figure out. I'm sure the extent to which these were shared would be considered before any sort of charges were raised..... kind of like a police officer dropping the speed limit to which you were caught down to save you money but still issuing the ticket. Wishy washy documentation for a wishy washy subject just like the wishy washy reason they would put a feature like this on a scanner if they didn't intend for you to use it.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top