Legality of RadioReference Live Audio Broadcasts and Archives

[slash]

The beast that has been created

Definitions for the scope of this post:

computer device : Any smart phone, tablet, laptop, netbook, music player, game system, or anything that can output sound with a processor and memory capable of sending and receiving packets over a network, especially wirelessly

An individual (and feed provider) on this forum proudly boasted about contacting his Michigan state senator about the issue of criminals using smart phones to stream public safety internet feeds to commit crimes, and according to this person, his senator apparently intends to take action in January to broaden the definition of "radio receiving sets" in the scanner law to include smart phones (his words, not the senator's). I've heard of other states looking to do the similar things, so this post is possibly relevant to everyone which is why I'm posting here and sounding the alarm, so to speak.

My problem with this is I have zero doubts it will ultimately end up including any computer device.

Instead of legislation to put restrictions on the feed providers (or anyone anywhere who connects a public safety scanner and streams it to the internet), now the wheels are in motion for misguided efforts that will put every innocent citizen with a computer device simply in the wrong place at the wrong time at risk of an unwarranted invasion of privacy.

Let me be very clear: While I have no issues with patching loopholes in laws to prosecute criminals who use public safety internet scanner feeds to their advantage to commit crimes, here are the consequences that might not be so apparent or necessarily intended:

• It puts any innocent person with a computer device in the vicinity of a crime, possibly subject to have the it confiscated and searched if the police have any reasonable suspicion (not proof) that the person could have theoretically have aided a criminal. Imagine being in the vicinity of where a robbery, stabbing or murder occurs, or at a large party or gathering where someone else has and uses drugs, etc. and the police think that maybe you could have aided them or participated in some way by merely having a device in your possession capable of listening to public safety radio traffic.
  
  These are just a few examples of endless scenarios where a completely innocent person could be swept up in having their privacy needlessly violated by merely having a computer device on their person confiscated and searched. I put this point first because I am an ordinary citizen, not a criminal (and am no longer a feed provider).
  
  Keep in mind, these computer devices can contain an incredible amount of personal and private information and it's akin to a digital cavity search: user names, passwords, browsing history, music, books, movies, medical information, hints to a person's personal interests or lifestyle, personal documents, financial information, address books, contact lists, e-mails, photo albums, calls sent and received, text messages, etc. I don't want to hear "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear". You can check that Nazi-esque argument at the door, it's not relevant here.
  

• Feed providers, tread very carefully if your state passes or introduces legislation to add smart phones or computer devices. that have anything to do with monitoring internet streams of public safety if they aren't already covered under any relevant statutes of using scanners to commit crimes. It puts you in the cross hairs for becoming a criminal for aiding and abetting, and at least in Michigan, you end up getting charged with whatever crime the criminal committed. What sounds better: being charged for murder when a feed listener commits murder, or having laws changed to mandate, say, 15-minute delays on public safety feeds to make it of very little use to a criminal?
  
  I am also fully aware that this will not solve the problem with people using traditional scanners to receive real-time radio traffic. Feed providers, don't point fingers and try to rationalize your real-time public safety feed by pointing to people with traditional scanners who commit crimes. The fact is that it never has been an issue of epic proportions before powerful yet small computer devices with internet access just about anywhere were widely available. Most criminals are too stupid to program scanners, but they can install an app in seconds.

As for my two cents and taking a jab at the person(s) who set policies on by far the most popular public safety feed site anywhere that is utilized by countless applications which are utilized by countless criminals, this is what happens when an environment is created that does not mandate significant delays for public safety feeds to make it of no practical use to law breakers in the commission of a crime. You've unquestionably helped set the stage for any innocent person with a computer device at the wrong place and the wrong time to have their privacy needlessly violated, and are putting the feed providers who generate revenue for your site at substantial risk of becoming criminals themselves.

Please, take action, before more crimes are needlessly aided, more legislation is introduced, and the first domino falls and it's too late to reverse course.

 

[RolnCode3]

"reasonable suspicion" is an articulable set of facts leading a reasonable officer to believe the person committed, is committing, or is about to a criminal act.

Simply being in possession of a device that could aid criminal activity creates no more reasonable suspicion than possessing such a device would for possessing child pornography or making terrorist threats - the device makes both possible, but there's no facts leading to a reasonable conclusion that's what was occurring.

 

[slash]

Simply being in possession of a device that could aid criminal activity creates no more reasonable suspicion than possessing such a device would for possessing child pornography or making terrorist threats - the device makes both possible, but there's no facts leading to a reasonable conclusion that's what was occurring.

Point taken, and you're absolutely correct!

But that's not what happens when an innocent person is wrongfully arrested, has their device searched and they suddenly found to have a "Police Scanner" application. At least in Michigan, if you have a "scanner" in your possession in the commission of a crime, your charges are immediately doubled.

Consequently, that innocent person now has to post a higher bond and negotiate a higher retainer fee with a lawyer with that additional criminal charge. It just makes an unfortunate situation so much worse. While innocent people getting arrested is relatively rare, it still happens.

Sorry I didn't make that clear enough.

 

[Tweekerbob]

Most criminals are too stupid to program scanners, but they can install an app in seconds.

So they are too stupid to program a scanner, but smart enough to install an app? My six year old niece can install an app. Can she she tell me verbatim what is being said on the police channels? Nope, but she's smart enough to install an app and steal a pair of sneakers!

Almost all your criminals are not sitting around learning a new language - PS comm speak, for one. Give it a rest; and slash, put you manifesto to good use...kindling.

 

[slash]

Nearly 9 hours before a whargarbl post of juvenile hostilty and name calling! Wow, I'm impressed.

 

[Tweekerbob]

In an act of juvenile hostility, I inadvertently printed out your delusional manifesto and accidentally set it on fire in the name of the Fourth Amendment. Was going to save it for New Years...sorry.

 

[slash]

Great, be sure to use the Fifth Amendment and Sixth Amendment when you end up in jail.
Unless you have anything productive or an intelligent rebuttal like RolnCode3 so eloquently did, I have nothing more to say to you.

 

[Tweekerbob]

I understand reasonable suspicion and probable cause. They are different, and many times the difference involves a judge to issue a search warrant (this is how we often obtain PC). The point that innocent people being taken under arrest and summarily stripped of their right to such and seizure to further implicate them in a crime they may not have committed, is duly noted.

If PC is determined, they are subject to search and seizure. In this, I understand your point. Unfortunately, if this is made law, the point is, that they are in possession of a "scanner" and may find increased penalties.

While I think I believe my foremost reply is correct, I further assert that this point should be made to your representatives and also your local authorities. Make THEM see their errors of their ways. As much as both of us would like to ***** about this on a forum, it doesn't do any of us any good.

Having said this though, I still believe strongly that criminals are not all that bright and therefore, not a major issue when it comes to scanners, streams, etc. Speak loudly towards the legislature.

 

[slash]

I understand reasonable suspicion and probable cause. They are different, and many times the difference involves a judge to issue a search warrant (this is how we often obtain PC). The point that innocent people being taken under arrest and summarily stripped of their right to such and seizure to further implicate them in a crime they may not have committed, is duly noted.

If PC is determined, they are subject to search and seizure. In this, I understand your point. Unfortunately, if this is made law, the point is, that they are in possession of a "scanner" and may find increased penalties.

Replying to your redacted point, the only thing worth citing here is federal court decisions as they are universally applied. Everything else in the individual states is a train wreck.

Fourth amendment interpretations among the states are not at all the same, and there's not much guidance on the federal level yet. But, if you want a taste of the current mess the different states are dealing with, have a read.

I'm not going to go through and post the various interpretations of the fourth amendment when applied to cell phones in all 50 states, but I'll at least give you what Cali has to say about warrantless searches of cell phones. Here's a direct link to the court opinion if you wish: People v. Diaz, 51 Cal. 4th 84 - Cal: Supreme Court 2011

While I think I believe my foremost reply is correct, I further assert that this point should be made to your representatives and also your local authorities. Make THEM see their errors of their ways. As much as both of us would like to ***** about this on a forum, it doesn't do any of us any good.

Thank you for that. I agree, it needs to be taken to the state legislators. I happen to have connections to the ACLU and their lobbyists are on alert in the state capital. But right now, there isn't much arguing in Michigan lately. We've got solid single-party majorities in the house, senate, governor's office, attorney general and supreme court which can be a bad thing if arguments fall upon deaf ears and ideology gets in the way. I'll keep everyone posted the moment the legislation is introduced.

My biggest fear is if RR will not immediately take the initiative to self-police themselves and minimize the compelling need for states to intervene, it will just make things worse, and as I said, depending on where you live, could put the feed providers at legal risk as well.

Having said this though, I still believe strongly that criminals are not all that bright and therefore, not a major issue when it comes to scanners, streams, etc. Speak loudly towards the legislature.

Remember that not all agencies use ten-codes or signal codes. Some simply use plain english whenever possible (this was especially encouraged by the DHS after 9/11 for inter agency communication in an emergency but some agencies are downright stubborn). Criminals have Google at their disposal to search and some of the County wikis on this site contain a wealth of information on codes, maps, etc... It's not that hard to find anymore.

 

[rdale]

Just to clarify, slash has gone off the deep end in his conspiracy theories. The revised Michigan law, if passed, will simply open up the definition of a police radio to include scanner apps when used to commit a major crime.

 

[Bellingham_Scanner]

Wouldn't it be easier to just have RR put a minute or two delay on the public feeds?

That would absolve them and make their feeds pretty much useless for criminal activity.

 

[kendrik578]

Wouldn't it be easier to just have RR put a minute or two delay on the public feeds?

That would absolve them and make their feeds pretty much useless for criminal activity.

http://forums.radioreference.com/st...delay-first-responder-safety.html#post1603305

 

[Bellingham_Scanner]

http://forums.radioreference.com/st...delay-first-responder-safety.html#post1603305

I realize there is already an inherent delay, even my live feed locally has a precessing delay from when it is heard on the scanner to when it is sent to RR. When I use my backup system (233Mhz AMD-Geode based single board computer) the delay is easily a minute or more just to encode the audio and stream the feed to RR. I don't think there is a lot that can be done about it except for using a really over powered computer just to do the streaming.

Since RR has decided they would not institute a mandatory delay maybe they should remind listeners that the audio is only as "live" as it can be due to the processing and streaming time. Noting that there could be a minute or so delay and that this service should not be used by public safety responders due to the uncontrollable delay. This could also discourage criminals from using smartphone apps and put a lot of this nonsense to rest.

 

[rdale]

It won't discourage anyone. PS responders are aware of the delay (they usually play around with it right next to a real radio.) And criminals can still take advantage of the delay, if a cop says he is stationed at 1st & Main, odds are he will still be there in a minute.

 

[slash]

Wouldn't it be easier to just have RR put a minute or two delay on the public feeds?

That would absolve them and make their feeds pretty much useless for criminal activity.

In my opinion I think 15 minutes is sufficient. Even in a rural county, that's plenty enough time for law enforcement to respond to any serious crime. Two minutes just isn't enough in some areas.

Another positive aspect is when I was a feed provider, I noticed a trend that most people would tune 5-10 minutes in after a major incident happened. With a delay like that, it does get people caught up to speed, and still offers a valuable service to the public while giving public safety time to act.

 

[slash]

http://forums.radioreference.com/st...delay-first-responder-safety.html#post1603305

I concur that any buffering delay should be done on the broadcaster's end, and leave it up to the listeners (and law enforcement) to report any non compliance. There is already plenty of multi platform, open source streaming broadcast software that could be modified to accomplish this, if there isn't something that already exists. I'd bet it wouldn't be hard to find coders to donate their time to work on this for free if it meant saving lives.

 

[Tweekerbob]

'm not going to go through and post the various interpretations of the fourth amendment when applied to cell phones in all 50 states, but I'll at least give you what Cali has to say about warrantless searches of cell phones. Here's a direct link to the court opinion if you wish: People v. Diaz, 51 Cal. 4th 84 - Cal: Supreme Court 2011

This man was arrested, for probable cause, and after Supreme Court review, was found impervious to his fourth Amendment rights, as stated in my above posts. You need to be arrested under probable cause in order to be searched (unless on parole/probation, in which your rights are waived upon consideration of your release). The Supreme Court cited this was a lawful arrest. This was not some Joe Blow walking down the street minding his own business. It is further assumed that police had reasonable suspicion to stop him in the first place, if not probable cause. Both of your cited cases show someone who was lawfully arrested and then subsequently subjected to search and seizure. Anything discovered should lawfully be admitted into evidence for trial (another right they have).

My biggest fear is if RR will not immediately take the initiative to self-police themselves and minimize the compelling need for states to intervene, it will just make things worse, and as I said, depending on where you live, could put the feed providers at legal risk as well.

They have - with their TOS. The main point is that they don't want to put first responders in jeopardy. SWAT and TAC channels, just for one, are banned. Sure, can major incidents be heard? Positively. It happens. But I don't think that RR and the community as a whole are trying to put first responders in harm's way. We try to police ourselves the best we can. Are we perfect? No. Go find a Congressman who is!

I still try to ram into peoples' heads that criminals are stupid. Not all of them; just darn near all. Irregardless of the few agencies (especially) LE that use "plain code", VERY MANY still use brevity codes religiously. The county to the south of me has actually stepped up their use of codes...now they are very hard to understand. Yes, so despite the DHS movement to plain language we can see a backlash. Also, there was a federal mandate for everyone (PS) to be on narrow band (hopefully digital) by 2010. Still waiting...

 

[Tweekerbob]

on this for free if it meant saving lives.

Where is the proof?

 

[slash]

This man was arrested, for probable cause, and after Supreme Court review, was found impervious to his fourth Amendment rights, as stated in my above posts. You need to be arrested under probable cause in order to be searched (unless on parole/probation, in which your rights are waived upon consideration of your release). The Supreme Court cited this was a lawful arrest.

OK, you're entitled to your opinion that a person upon arrest is guilty until proven innocent and should have every aspect of their personal lives that is contained in their smart phone open to a complete, warrantless search with no scope, regardless of whether it had any relevancy to the alleged crime, by LEOs. If you're content with people being charged (read about Kentucky Guy) for merely having an application on their smart phone with no proof that it was used in the commission of a crime, so be it.

However, if you'd like to turn your opinion into facts that innocent people never get arrested or convicted (and sometimes later exonerated), the burden of proof is on you.

As I mentioned in my earlier post, I'm only concerned with innocent people. I don't care if they are arrested or not.

SWAT and TAC channels, just for one, are banned. Sure, can major incidents be heard? Positively. It happens. But I don't think that RR and the community as a whole are trying to put first responders in harm's way.

I realize you're not trying, I don't think anyone here is trying to put public safety in harm's way, but ultimately you are still giving to aid some criminals and thus jeopardizing people's safety. As is stands, you are required to broadcast live.

• Your justification is akin to the same line of thinking of a meth dealer who morally justifies providing to their perceived mostly-responsible user-base (people who aren't arrested) by claiming it isn't the dealer or manufacturer's fault if a user uses the product irresponsibly, or puts someone's life in jeopardy, but the users who should be punished if they do wrong.
  
  In the real world, keeping with my analogy, we all know that any dealers are treated much more harshly than the users. Both end up paying the price for breaking the law. It's only a matter of time before you, or any other provider (dealer) gets thrown under the bus given the legal climate surrounding this issue around the nation.

• If what you are doing is completely morally or legally justifiable, why are broadcasters given the option of anonymity (see your feed administration page) to the public to hide their status as a feed provider if they choose?

I still try to ram into peoples' heads that criminals are stupid. Not all of them; just darn near all. Irregardless of the few agencies (especially) LE that use "plain code", VERY MANY still use brevity codes religiously.

• If criminals were all dumb, they wouldn't be listening to police feeds in the commission of a crime. Criminals would be dumb not to take advantage of a smart phone feed. You don't have to be a computer or radio nerd to be a smart phone streaming criminal.

• It took me all of 20 seconds of listening to your feed earlier today before I heard police dispatched to a street address. That's all a criminal needs to know, even if it's remotely near to where a crime is being committed, to feel the heat and flee the scene to avoid capture. No codes needed. Also, your agencies use a communication/code system similar to agencies on the feed I ran - thanks for putting the codes right on your feed page for feed listeners to see.

 

[DaveNF2G]

You are in the minority here, both on RR and in the radio hobbies. Your apparently pro-cop stance is actually anti-public safety (small p.s.). There are plenty of police agencies in the USA that encourage the general public to listen in so they can be extra eyes and ears.

Whatever your opinion, publishing frequencies, codes, and other info, and running live radio feeds, are all perfectly legal in the United States.

Whatever your opinion, Supreme Court interpretations (and other appellate decisions left unreviewed) of the Bill of Rights are the law of the land.

The debate you are having appears to be meaningless in that context.

[NOTE to Mods: I think the "scanner app" discussion would best be split into its own thread.]