Legality of RadioReference Live Audio Broadcasts and Archives

[SCPD]

...

Off topic warning: I'm surprised we haven't seen a crowd source distributed smart phone app for reporting speed traps with GPS precision.

Doesn't Trapster do this?

 

[SCPD]

And a Phone app can't stop and hold on a specific channel ... RadioReference.com just air's the scanner traffic to the phone. I guess I'd be most curious then to know that If said app was being used in the commission of a crime if the same penalty would be given as in using a scanner in the commission of a crime?

I would hope Radioreference.com never had to face this issue, but it would be interesting to know if the use of the app could be tried like the use of a device.

If nothing else, it would be good info for the Next Generation in Radio scanners/Scanning.

 

[juskorfus]

Actually most or all are?

with use of online "re-broadcasting", most people do listen and ALL feeds are re-transmitted" across state lines! Now, me, I could care less, I say it is a shame this forum subject even exists. But after talking to a good friend who is an attorney that has delt with radio laws (and is a ham operator), he said his understanding is ALL re-transmitting broadcast are in violation, and for the state of FL it is definately a crime, but no one really is woried about enforcing that law, so that is why no FL feeds have been shut down (that I know of).
Comments and input on this thread is very welcome, as I am really considering setting up a feed soon myself if no one is going to enforce this law here.
I want to set up a feed of local Military and commercial Air freqs. As well as other local Military freqs, such as Bombers, AC-130's, and close air support to rangers training in the Eglin AFB area. I am so close I have great rx even when simplex is used, I am on a hill overlooking the main ranges.

Walter

of interstate or foreign communications. Unless you are listening to communications across state lines or from foreign countries, it doesn't apply.

Mike

 

[DaveNF2G]

If using the Internet met the technical and legal definition of "rebroadcasting" then there might be an issue. It doesn't, so there isn't.

 

[KE0SKN]

What the difference. Most all police retransmit the coms on the i-net all the time. Dispatch> I-net> Tower> to the police officers. Its called voice over ip. Hams do it all the time. Its all legal. The "WEB" is cast all over the world. Once any data is sent to the web, it transmitted all over the world. So if rebroadcasting was illegal. Then all Police, Fire, EMS, Local & Federal Government would all be charged with a crime.

 

[KE0SKN]

Nothing over the I-net should ever be considered 100% private. what you post can be read by any one.

 

[bear105]

It would also be helpful to those making "Terms of Service" complaints against a feed to be specific about channels, talkgroups or frequencies. Feed providers can't know whats broadcast on every channel, all the time. I assume noble intent to abide by the Terms of Service, but there are unexpected events in communications. So providing more that just a vague complaint is not helpful, and might only result in the entire feed being removed.

 

[CoolCat]

RadioReference still stands by it's position.

Please note that the K&L Gates letter and opinion has nothing to do with this issue - that related to the MRA issue with publishing LTR talkgroups and LCNs.

However, some further position information. In addition to beginning of 47 USC 605:

Except as authorized by chapter 119, Title 18, 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, except through authorized channels of transmission or reception,

the law also includes the following exemption:

This section shall not apply to the receiving, divulging, publishing, or utilizing the contents of any radio communication which is transmitted by any station for the use of the general public, which relates to ships, aircraft, vehicles, or persons in distress, or which is transmitted by an amateur radio station operator or by a citizens band radio operator.

My emphasis added.

47 USC 605 does not explicitly define the definition of "for the use of the general public," however the law referenced (Chapter 119, Title 18 § 2510) does explicitly define it as:

(16) "readily accessible to the general public" means, with respect to a radio communication, that such communication is not--

(A) scrambled or encrypted;

(B) transmitted using modulation techniques whose essential parameters have been withheld from the public with the intention of preserving the privacy of such communication;

(C) carried on a subcarrier or other signal subsidiary to a radio transmission;

(D) transmitted over a communication system provided by a common carrier, unless the communication is a tone only paging system communication; or

(E) transmitted on frequencies allocated under part 25, subpart D, E, or F of part 74, or part 94 of the Rules of the Federal Communications Commission, unless, in the case of a communication transmitted on a frequency allocated under part 74 that is not exclusively allocated to broadcast auxiliary services, the communication is a two-way voice communication by radio;

For purposes that involve us, Chapter 119, Title 18 § 2510 defines Part 90 FCC licenses (most public safety FCC licenses) as for the use of the general public. 47 USC 605 exempts those stations.

Furthermore, one could argue that public safety communications relate to "persons in distress" which are also exempted by 47 USC 605.

"for use by the general public" and "accessible by the general public" are not the same thing.

Anything that is defined as "for use by the general public" is by definition also "accessible by the general public", but that automatic inclusion does not apply the other way around. "for use by the general public" means that the general public IS the intended user. "accessible by the general public" just means that the general public is not blocked from receiving it; It does NOT mean or imply that they are the intended user. As an example; while local police 'broadcasts' are receivable by the general public, only members of that specific police department are the intended users.

I'm not claiming that it makes anything legal or illegal, just saying that you shouldn't use the definition of one clearly stated section to define the missing definition of another. As with almost every other law out there, there are sections which are not clearly defined. It will remain undefined until it is challenged in court, in which case the judges ruling then becomes "case law".

 

[blantonl]

Well, in this case let's just go with the persons in distress argument and call it a day.

 

[joetnymedic]

The only thing I remember being illegal was putting this stuff out there for personal gain but I read that many moons ago.

 

[MikeSD]

I'll play devil's advocate, and point out that:
1. 47 USC 605 generally prohibits divulging or publishing contents of received communications.
2. 47 USC 605 has an exception for "as authorized by chapter 119, Title 18".
3. Lindsay's quoted Chapter 119, Title 18, § 2511 says nothing about divulging or publishing - it only refers to interception.

What we really need is something in Chapter 119, Title 18 that specifies some authorization to divulge or publish.

(EDIT: my (1) and (2) above only refer to the part of 47 USC 605 quoted by Lindsay above, not to the entire chapter.)

In my opinion most laws that "give" (or authorize) us something (by the government) are bad laws. When the governent "gives" you something, anything not "given" isn't generally not allowed. It's the way government can take away, without specifically mentioning something. Future governments can jump to that conclusion by saying, "since we gave you some things, the fact we didn't give you this, means we didn't want you to have it". Bogus, I know, but that's the way government works.

I prefer to assume we "have" everything and demand that government itemize those things they wish to "take away". That way, there is no doubt about what has been taken by government.

 

[K6CDO]

What the difference. Most all police retransmit the coms on the i-net all the time. Dispatch> I-net> Tower> to the police officers. Its called voice over ip. Hams do it all the time. Its all legal. The "WEB" is cast all over the world. Once any data is sent to the web, it transmitted all over the world. So if rebroadcasting was illegal. Then all Police, Fire, EMS, Local & Federal Government would all be charged with a crime.

Not quite. Dispatch > Private Network (microwave or leased carrier T1 line) > Tower > field units. Even with IP technologies, there are no public internet links involved.

 

[brueger]

I have had to take down one of my feeds - Newport News Fire Department , Newport News, VA.

 

[burner50]

I have had to take down one of my feeds - Newport News Fire Department , Newport News, VA.

Why did you have to take it down?

 

[brueger]

Nnfd

I was using a digital capable scanner to send NNFD, but they are analog. I was using a conventional scanner to send Hampton Fire's "simulcast." They are having trouble with the audio quality on the simulcast and I was getting a lot of inquiries as to why it was so bad. It wasn't my fault! So, since I also depend on my own feed with I am out and about, I took the digital capable scanner over on Hampton Fire. When and if they get the audio problem fixed, I will put NNFD back up. Until then, I was thinking of using the conventional scanner to send two local counties that are not trunked.

Hope this make sense.

 

[N0BDW]

Not quite. Dispatch > Private Network (microwave or leased carrier T1 line) > Tower > field units. Even with IP technologies, there are no public internet links involved.

This.
VoIP =/= Internet. VoIP can be carried over the publicly routed internet ("The Internet") or it can be carried on an internal network. Just like you can have a mini-phone system in your office (PBX - private branch exchange) where some calls never leave the building, and that may or may not connect to the PSTN (publicly switched telephone network).

 

[DaveNF2G]

What does poor audio quality have to do with the legality of a feed?

 

[KK6PD]

If your going to retransmit something, at least have good audio, why waste your listeners time and eardrums on BAD AUDIO. If it's worth doing, it's worth doing right!

 

[MississippiPI]

I am a former photog/assignment editor for TV station; we didn't "air" the whole scanner converstion but we would air up to ten secinds off the top at the beginning of the story to grab the viewers attention--we were told by our legal dept it was legal---we chose what we aired very carefully.


Be safe

 

[nitnub]

Although I am not a legal eagle, I have a great deal of research on the legalities of providing local feeds to rr or similar sites. My discovery is that rebroadcasting our feeds over the airwaves would not be lawful and is a clear FCC violation.

However with this said, providing a feed via the internet by a volunteer provider would not be a violation. The providing of the feed by rr is another matter. It clearly depends on how they provide the feed to mobile service providers. So longs as feed remains either on the internet or wired it is lawful. Actually the violation occurs at the moment when it is rebroadcst from the cell tower to a cell phone. The loop hole or confusion in this issue arrises from an unclarity in the data stream. Is it internet or is it only date until the data is converted by the smartphone?

Also at issue is the generation of revenue. rr does not appear to receive revenue by providing free live feeds, but rather a membership in a web group that provides various useful services to scanning enthusiasts.

In short, if and when the long arm of the law decides to attempt passing out violations, they most assuredly will start with the deepest pockets first because litigation of this type would very extremely expensive. The FCC is desperetely trying to get control of the internet.