Live Scanner feeds on the internet and the law, questions.

Status
Not open for further replies.

JPM-ARG

Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2009
Messages
9
Lexxx, very interesting link talking about recording of the streamed audio in Canada. Thanks for posting.

Considering that the police regularly identify people by full name, home address and description along with a description of their vehicles including the licence plate... I'm thinking the Privacy Act cited in the disclaimer isn't going to trump the Radiocommunication Act.

It's a nice disclaimer, but I hope they consulted a lawyer or got permission from the police before making the stream available.
 

Lexxx

Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2004
Messages
221
Location
Kitchener, Canada
JPM-ARG

The link is from my site, and I took a lot of it directly from a judicial ruling stemming from a case between Nav Canada and several agencies of the Canadian media. Bottom line was that in this case, Nav Canada (Air Traffic Controller employer) could not withhold or prevent recorded or captured transmissions from being released publicly.

After this case, Canada moved much closer to what goes on in the States, which is a more relaxed view than what was previously thought to exist in Canada.

I think the bottom line is, do you know of any situation where anyone streaming police or air traffic control transmissions, similar to what is broadcast through this site (RadioReference), have been taken to court, fined, or imprisoned for their actions.

I've been doing it for four or five years and nobody has ever approached me to pull the plug. I've run across several members of the police at neighborhood parties and the like, and they are all well aware of my site.

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
 
Last edited:

Helion

Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
21
Location
Toronto, Canada
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.
 

JPM-ARG

Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2009
Messages
9
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

Oh, no doubt. I listen to Halton from time to time, because my radio (not a scanner) is compatible with their system. Listen long enough and you'll hear that at least SOME of the police transmissions are encrypted... and they talk about 'Telus', so I assume they have digital cellular. I don't know how easy it is to intercept and decrypt Telus cell conversations, and I'm sure the computers would be whole orders of magnitude more complicated to listen in on.
 

JPM-ARG

Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2009
Messages
9
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.
 

gary123

Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2002
Messages
2,562
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.

Nice idea, but unfortunatly my experiance has been that law enforcment does NOT want anyone listening to thier traffic,encrypted or not. What I would like to see is live streaming (just like proposed in this thread) with the source being the police dept themselves. 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.

Tellus uses IDEN and sofar there is nothing available to monitor this format.

MDTs seem to be a whole section that has been neglected probably because there are so many different data formats available. I would love to monitor MDTs myself but so far I have found nothing that
even starts to try to work.
 

markab

Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2005
Messages
100
Location
Cambridge, Ontario, Canada
Seems pretty clear to me

You must have missed a section - what part in there refers to Internet rebroadcasts?

As JPM quoted "(1.1) Except as prescribed, no person shall make use of or divulge a radio-based telephone communication"

Whether you "divulge" the transmission(s) you've received orally or electronically you're still sharing that information with others. The intend behind the law is pretty clear. Don't share what you've heard with others.

Mark
 

rdale

Completely Banned for the Greater Good
Joined
Feb 3, 2001
Messages
11,380
Location
Lansing, MI
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.

I'm not sure I get the connection?

As JPM quoted "(1.1) Except as prescribed, no person shall make use of or divulge a radio-based telephone communication"

No, you aren't divulging it any more than your neighbor buying a scanner. You aren't giving out any secret information.

Again - I'm glad we have a bunch of amateur lawyers here. But at least in the states, it's been legally upheld. I've not seen anyone bring up court cases from Canadian prosecution.
 

mciupa

Canadian DB Admin
Moderator
Joined
Nov 5, 2002
Messages
8,628
Location
I'm here a lot
I've not seen anyone bring up court cases from Canadian prosecution.

I guess Canadians are clever enough to avoid getting themselves into trouble in the first place.
fing02.gif
 

ibagli

Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2006
Messages
983
Location
Ohio
As JPM quoted "(1.1) Except as prescribed, no person shall make use of or divulge a radio-based telephone communication"

I don't think 9(1.1) is the relevant section. It's about "radiocommunication that is made over apparatus that is used primarily for connection to a public switched telephone network."

I think 9(2) is more likely to do it if it's illegal. ("Except as prescribed, no person shall intercept and make use of, or intercept and divulge, any radiocommunication, except as permitted by the originator of the communication or the person intended by the originator of the communication to receive it.")
 
Last edited:

JoeyC

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
3,523
Location
San Diego, CA
We need a new forum in the tavern. Internet Lawyers Lounge - for all the "is this legal" threads and their opinions.
 

markab

Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2005
Messages
100
Location
Cambridge, Ontario, Canada
You can't devulge what you've heard

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.

If my neighbour was to buy a scanner they would be receiving the transmissions directly -first hand-. By streaming a feed you are divulging what you have received and retransmitting it online. The nature of the transmission is irrelevant ( "secret" or not).

Mark
 

Lexxx

Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2004
Messages
221
Location
Kitchener, Canada
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.
 

JPM-ARG

Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2009
Messages
9
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. The dispatcher will respond back with whatever the police databases have on that person, including their home address. That's a & b. I dunno about c.

Thank you, BTW, for actually citing something useful. I was getting a bit tired of RDale's "I'm right and you're wrong" routine. 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.
 

rdale

Completely Banned for the Greater Good
Joined
Feb 3, 2001
Messages
11,380
Location
Lansing, MI
A typical police transmission will be a traffic stop, where the driver is identified by full name and date of birth.

That typically happens on a separate channel (called LEIN down here.) I guess if you dedicate a feed to that, you might have an issue.

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.

Exactly. There are dozens of threads with case links and legal references already on this forum. Why not search through those first and then ask for more info, instead of jumping on and expecting everyone to hit the "search" button for you?
 

markab

Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2005
Messages
100
Location
Cambridge, Ontario, Canada
Hmmm...

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.

.

Lexxx,
Based on what lpm stated earlier in this thread:

"(1.1) Except as prescribed, no person shall make use of or divulge a radio-based telephone communication
(a) if the originator of the communication or the person intended by the originator of the communication to receive it was in Canada when the communication was made; and

(b) unless the originator, or the person intended by the originator to receive the communication consents to the use or divulgence.

Idem

(2) Except as prescribed, no person shall intercept and make use of, or intercept and divulge, any radiocommunication, except as permitted by the originator of the communication or the person intended by the originator of the communication to receive it."

There is no mention of the Privacy Act? Based on the above quote it is a clear violation to retransmit police transmissions in Canada.

Mark
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top