Legality of RadioReference Live Audio Broadcasts and Archives

[SCPD]

I do agree .. that RR is fine in doing what it is doing. I am sure that Lindsay knows that he is fine as far as legalities are concerned.

Don't get me wrong .. if anyone is the get into trouble with the law here in Canada, it will be the hobbyist that is providing the scanner feed that is based in Canada.

I personally wouldn't want to be streaming RCMP transmissions as they are likely to get a not so nice knock on the door in the middle of the night.

The internet is far reaching and very hard to police .. but it is the persons doing the streaming that are the ones to be hit with the possible long arm of the law.

 

[DonS]

Lindsay: Chapter 119, Title 18 § 2510 that you quoted does not define "for the use of the general public". It specifically defines "readily accessible to the general public".

You seem to be saying that the two terms mean the same thing within the context of the statutes (specifically: within the last sentence of 47 USC 605(a)).

I don't believe this is a valid logical inference. They're substantially different words with significantly different meanings (i.e. just because something is "readily accessible" to me does not mean that the thing is "for my use"). It would be interesting to see some some citation or legal opinion that supports the "sameness" of the meanings. If it's a legal opinion from an attorney, it would be interesting to see citations of case law that support the position.

EDIT: "Readily accessible to" implies action or ability only on the part of the "interceptor", while "for the use of" implies intent on the part ot the person making the transmission. Entirely different ideas.

 

[DonS]

As far as the fact that we haven't [necessarily] seen a bunch of feeds shut down: This does not imply that the feeds are "legal". Similarly, the fact that I've never heard of anyone receiving a traffic citation for driving at 66MPH on Interstate 880 through San Jose, CA does not imply that 66MPH is "legal" on that stretch of highway.

Instead, we might look to this text for a possible answer:

Section 605(a) of Title 47 prohibits persons who transmit or receive wire or radio communications from divulging such communications except to authorized persons. According to the legislative history, the provision "is designed to regulate the conduct of communications personnel." S.Rep. No. 1098, 90th Cong., 2d Sess. 108 (1968).

The nature of radio communications is such that there is the potential for a multitude of petty 47 U.S.C. § 605 violations which do not warrant the initiation of federal prosecutions. Consequently, the proper use of federal law enforcement resources usually requires that investigation and prosecution of 47 U.S.C. § 605 violations be reserved for those cases in which there is a continuing, repeated, and flagrant violation of the law despite the application of lesser measures. (emphasis added)​

Criminal Resource Manual 1066 Interception of Radio Communications -- 47 U.S.C. §*605

RadioReference and the actual "streamers" are probably safe from prosecution, though such safety does not, in and of itself, mean that the acts are "legal".

EDIT: I'll point out that criminal prosecution is not the only potential concern. 47 USC 605(e) also allows for civil actions. If a "streamer" loses, he'll be paying his own counsel plus the "aggrieved party's" costs. If the court finds that the violation was willful and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, there's the potential for $100,000 in damages for each violation.

No thanks.

 

[PeterGV]

Folks...

There are a lot of points of law that are unsettled, and nobody wants to take the issue to court to get a ruling because they could discover that they're on the wrong side of the argument.

For example, this was the case for MANY years (and might STILL be the case, I don't know) regarding the enforceability of "break the seal software licenses" -- there was no case law whatsoever that said these licenses were enforceable. That didn't stop most software manufacturers from CLAIMING they were enforceable... They had an interpretation of the "black letter law" that wasn't unreasonable, so they had a supportable position that these licenses were valid.

But nobody ultimately wanted to litigate the point, because there were good and supportable positions each way.

I suspect it's the same thing in terms of forwarding scanner feeds on the internet. Lindsay (on behalf of RR) has a reasonable position based on his reading of the relevant law that supports what we're doing as legal. That's almost certainly enough to demonstrate that he's no willfully or maliciously disregarding the law.

Now, if somebody comes along and decides to sue over the issue, that would force a decision. I suspect nobody in their right mind really wants that, so any such case would settle pretty quickly.

Now, maybe I'm a bit more conservative (in terms of business practice, not politically) than Lindsay. I'd want a legal opinion from counsel in my files that supports what I'm doing. Once I have that, I *know* I'm good to go.

I stopped trying to be an amateur lawyer many years ago, at about the same time I decided that lawyers shouldn't try to write their own computer operating system. I figure, I'll do what I know I'm expert at doing (operating system software development)... and I'll let my lawyers do what THEY're expert at.

Peter
K1PGV

 

[Citywide173]

It's way too broad of a spectrum that the law attempts to address. By being so broad and trying to cover everything, it in effect, covers nothing. There is plenty of case law on other laws of this type.

By literal definition, every media outlet that uses a scanner in it's newsroom to get insight into incidents is in violation. I, personally, am in violation for every fire scene photo that I have sold to a magazine or that was included in my book. The law hampers basic civil rights, as for some, it impairs their right to earn a living in their legally (as in the job isn't against the law) chosen profession, and blocks certain businesses from maintaining a competitive edge. There's too much open to interpretation, and I don't see any court saying no, you can't do this because the people that are broadcasting don't like it. There are alternatives (cell phone, encryption, carrier pigeon) that are readily available to discourage the practice, and the courts would hopefully rule that since these methods are so readily available, the claim is baseless.

 

[DonS]

since RR is a US based company (both in incorporation and in server location)

Nitpick: RadioReference.com LLC is not "incorporated". It's not a corporation. It's a "Limited Liability Company".

Perhaps (and this is, of course, just a wild-ass guess, with no intended offense to Lindsay) this LLC designation has something to do with RR's intransitive position on the subject. In Texas, Lindsay should be pretty-well shielded from personal liability for nearly all of the LLC's acts. Note that Lindsay has NOT recommended, anywhere in this thread, that any individual "streamers" are OK - he's only referred to RR's position with regard to RR's acts. EDIT: Lindsay has also not said that it is his personal position - just the position of the LLC.

 

[Citywide173]

LLC's and incorported companies share the same fact that they have to be filed with the secretary of state for the state in which it's being organized. I used the term incorporation, as "Articles of Organization" just seemed too much to type, and I'm not sure everyone would understand what I was referring to.

 

[firescannerbob]

A whole lot of people saying that they're not lawyers, and then promptly saying that the lawyers cited are wrong. Go figure.
I agree with the opinion that if streaming were illegal, SOMEONE would have heard about it from the FCC by now. Maybe it is legal after all (my guess). or they're too busy to worry about it. Maybe someone at the FCC actually BELIEVES in "transparent government". No one else seems to.
And finally, I wish DonS had devoted as much time to fixing the problems I had with the software I bought from him as he has arguing this subject. All I got on that topic was ignored.

 

[DaveNF2G]

"Someone" has already contacted the FCC about the issue of alerting non-monitors to incidents that become known via radio interception, and one FCC official responded that he did not believe the Commission would act against such alerting. Whether or not this is the "official" position of the FCC remains to be seen. Whether or not it even applies to streaming audio also remains to be seen. (I mention it only because it has already been brought up in the thread.)

As Lindsay says, one could argue that "persons in distress" refers to those who need public safety services whose situations are streamed from scanners. However, such an argument is likely to fail as this phrasing has traditionally applied to interception and divulgence of calls for assistance directly from someone in distress, which it would be foolish to prohibit.

 

[zerg901]

From the Criminal Resource Manual -

Section 605(a) of Title 47 prohibits persons who transmit or receive wire or radio communications from divulging such communications except to authorized persons. According to the legislative history, the provision "is designed to regulate the conduct of communications personnel." S.Rep. No. 1098, 90th Cong., 2d Sess. 108 (1968).

====================

Thats what I thought all along. The Act of 1934 was to protect radio telegrams and Western Union. Interstate comms on shortwave. It really has nothing to do with scanners and public safety agencies. Peter Sz

 

[jerry092975]

Rules And Regulations

Wireless Communications Bureau

FCC: Wireless Telecommunications Bureau: Rules and Regulations

 

[st3v3o]

Confused

I was just sent a email from rr pertaining to following
Dear Feed Provider,

Recently, we have had a number of cases where feed providers are violating our terms of service by broadcasting content that is prohibited by the feed provider terms of service. This has resulted in safety issues for public safety officials and negative press for RadioReference.com and our broadcast platform.

Please remember that it is against our terms of service for any feed provider to broadcast the following:

* SWAT type operations if on dedicated channels or talkgroups
* Narcotics / CID / Investigations or other tactical law enforcement operations
* Dedicated channels or talkgroups for Ambulance to Hospital Communications
* Dedicated Federal Government or Military Communications (exceptions include any fire fighting or EMS operations, space shuttle communications, park ranger operations)
* Any commercial service broadcast (FM/AM/TV etc)
* Music or talk show of any kind (commercial or non-commercial)
* DJ or other type of similar activity (commercial or non-commercial)
* Open Microphones
* Schools/School Buses
* Citizens Band (CB)
* GMRS or FRS (either simplex or repeaters)
* NOAA Weather Radio

It is critical that feed providers do not violate these terms of service. When we are notified of any violations, we will immediately terminate the feed pending resolution.

I feed New Jersey State Police. and it just so happens that today the day I recieved the email a Officer was shot in the head in his Patrol car and died. Can a radio refference staff member PLEASE get back to me and tell me what im doing wrong? I DO NOT WANT TO BREAK THE LAW!
I just want to provide a service.

 

[jerry092975]

I was just sent a email from rr pertaining to following
Dear Feed Provider,

Recently, we have had a number of cases where feed providers are violating our terms of service by broadcasting content that is prohibited by the feed provider terms of service. This has resulted in safety issues for public safety officials and negative press for RadioReference.com and our broadcast platform.

Please remember that it is against our terms of service for any feed provider to broadcast the following:

* SWAT type operations if on dedicated channels or talkgroups
* Narcotics / CID / Investigations or other tactical law enforcement operations
* Dedicated channels or talkgroups for Ambulance to Hospital Communications
* Dedicated Federal Government or Military Communications (exceptions include any fire fighting or EMS operations, space shuttle communications, park ranger operations)
* Any commercial service broadcast (FM/AM/TV etc)
* Music or talk show of any kind (commercial or non-commercial)
* DJ or other type of similar activity (commercial or non-commercial)
* Open Microphones
* Schools/School Buses
* Citizens Band (CB)
* GMRS or FRS (either simplex or repeaters)
* NOAA Weather Radio

It is critical that feed providers do not violate these terms of service. When we are notified of any violations, we will immediately terminate the feed pending resolution.

I feed New Jersey State Police. and it just so happens that today the day I recieved the email a Officer was shot in the head in his Patrol car and died. Can a radio refference staff member PLEASE get back to me and tell me what im doing wrong? I DO NOT WANT TO BREAK THE LAW!
I just want to provide a service.

We (Feed Providers)All Got The Same E Mail

 

[kendrik578]

I was just sent a email from rr pertaining to following
Dear Feed Provider,

Recently, we have had a number of cases where feed providers are violating our terms of service by broadcasting content that is prohibited by the feed provider terms of service. This has resulted in safety issues for public safety officials and negative press for RadioReference.com and our broadcast platform.

Please remember that it is against our terms of service for any feed provider to broadcast the following:

* SWAT type operations if on dedicated channels or talkgroups
* Narcotics / CID / Investigations or other tactical law enforcement operations
* Dedicated channels or talkgroups for Ambulance to Hospital Communications
* Dedicated Federal Government or Military Communications (exceptions include any fire fighting or EMS operations, space shuttle communications, park ranger operations)
* Any commercial service broadcast (FM/AM/TV etc)
* Music or talk show of any kind (commercial or non-commercial)
* DJ or other type of similar activity (commercial or non-commercial)
* Open Microphones
* Schools/School Buses
* Citizens Band (CB)
* GMRS or FRS (either simplex or repeaters)
* NOAA Weather Radio

It is critical that feed providers do not violate these terms of service. When we are notified of any violations, we will immediately terminate the feed pending resolution.

I feed New Jersey State Police. and it just so happens that today the day I recieved the email a Officer was shot in the head in his Patrol car and died. Can a radio refference staff member PLEASE get back to me and tell me what im doing wrong? I DO NOT WANT TO BREAK THE LAW!
I just want to provide a service.

This was sent to ALL providers. This was not aimed towards any individual. We just needed to remind our providers of the terms of service as we have had some issues recently regarding the TOS.

 

[st3v3o]

Wow

What a Coincidence that the email came today!!!!
Got a little Nervous. lol

Thanks for the Quick Replie!

St3v3o

 

[datainmotion]

A good time for all feed providers to review exactly what channels / TGs they are streaming I'd say.

 

[Bullmax]

I just hope this site never goes down. I love this site and I love being able to stream my scanner on here. Thanks RR!

 

[DaveNF2G]

Are feed providers really required to shut down if some idiot sits on his portable radio for a while?

 

[DaveNF2G]

Thats what I thought all along. The Act of 1934 was to protect radio telegrams and Western Union. Interstate comms on shortwave. It really has nothing to do with scanners and public safety agencies. Peter Sz

Unfortunately for that argument, individuals not involved in commercial communications have been prosecuted for violating s.605.

[EDIT] OBTW, all electronic communications are "interstate" for purposes of federal jurisdiction. It has to do with the Commerce Clause of the U. S. Constitution, not the laws of physics.

 

[zerg901]

Thanks Dave S for the info. Crazy me - I thought you could not be charged with breaking a law that does not exist. I also understand that not everything is black and white in this world - or even red and green. Peter Sz