radact
Member
Yes, let me consult with legal minds of Dewey,Screwum and Howe.:lol:
![]()
Maybe Hewey, Dewey & Louie
Yes, let me consult with legal minds of Dewey,Screwum and Howe.:lol:
![]()
Lexxx, very interesting link talking about recording of the streamed audio in Canada. Thanks for posting.
So, Helion , I guess you have nothing to worry about according to our American friend.
We have a fire feed for Toronto on-line, you want to be our guinea pig for a law enforcement feed?
If the police really feel what is heard over these scanned frequencies might in some way have an impact on the behavior of non police personnel, I'm sure they would encrypt the signal. I suspect they feel that nothing said over the radio is really that sensitive anyway. Anything sensitive I’m sure is done by phone or via those computers in their vehicles.
If I’m ever told to cease and desist, I’ll let you know.
Peter
Not wanting to add more fuel to this heated discussion, but...
I used to have a "Scanner Page" a long time ago. Because of lack of bandwidth at that time I didn't provide
LIVE feeds. How ever, I had previously recorded (archived?) scanner activity .mp3 files. I wonder what the law is on old communications material being available to the public. After all, recordings played after the fact would not be considered disruptive to police operations, etc.
Two things -
First, if this is a 'heated discussion' I think I'll like this board.
Second, I've often thought the police themselves should have a 24 delayed stream available of their encrypted traffic for transparency without risking officers. Well, maybe longer for some things. I assume from time to time they're watching people for months, and letting them know a day after surveillance starts would be kind of counterproductive.
You must have missed a section - what part in there refers to Internet rebroadcasts?
They can controll access by monitoring the IP logging in and they can do a simple background check to verify a persons legitimacy to monitor the comms.
As JPM quoted "(1.1) Except as prescribed, no person shall make use of or divulge a radio-based telephone communication"
I've not seen anyone bring up court cases from Canadian prosecution.
As JPM quoted "(1.1) Except as prescribed, no person shall make use of or divulge a radio-based telephone communication"
I'm not sure I get the connection?
No, you aren't divulging it any more than your neighbor buying a scanner. You aren't giving out any secret information.
The nature of the transmission is irrelevant ( "secret" or not).
Wrong!
In Canada the distribution of scanned frequncies is permitted so long as you comply with the Privacy Act. If you do, those in authority will not say or do anything.
Partial transcript from a case taken to the Federal Court of Appeal:
...............The court first stated that there are three criteria for meeting the definition of personal information: a) the information must be "about" an individual; b) the individual must be identifiable; and c) the information must be recorded...........
If anyone distributing, or re-distributing scanned frequency over the internet in Canada complies with the view of the Federal Court of Appeal you have nothing to worry about. Period.
Until those that feel it is illegal can point to court case, it's just a lot of conjecture and speculation.
Show me the court case, or come to terms with the reality in Canada.
A typical police transmission will be a traffic stop, where the driver is identified by full name and date of birth.
It'd have been perfect if you'd been able to link to the case, or provide a reference to follow... but hell, this is an Internet forum and not a class or court room.
Wrong!
In Canada the distribution of scanned frequncies is permitted so long as you comply with the Privacy Act. If you do, those in authority will not say or do anything.
.