Los Angeles will prosecute if you feed????

[APSN556]

I got this from LAFD - Live Audio from the Los Angeles Fire Department

interesting...

Q: Why can't I monitor authentic LAFD audio live on the Internet?

A: There is no official live audio source on-line at this time.

Q: Why don't you let someone do it un-officially?

A: The LAFD will not permit commercial or amateur rebroadcast of its audio without formal permission. Because of the potential harm from corrupt audio (intentional or otherwise), we insist that any audio be up to our technical standard and come directly from the consoles at our Dispatch Center.

We firmly believe any re-broadcast of LAFD radio signals without formal permission to be a violation of Federal Law. If you are aware of any person or organization that may be doing so, please notify them of our sincere concern. We suggest you report any suspected violation of this law to both our City Attorney and the Department of Justice via e-mail.

Q: What is the benefit from using only an official LAFD audio source?

A: Our Dispatch Center can provide an authentic digital quality signal directly to a dedicated high-capacity webserver in real-time. With the use of a supervised and secure webserver, there is lesser chance that our listeners will experience the many technical and listening problems that routinely plague amateur sites using unattended scanner radios. We also won't play pranks, charge a subscription fee, subject you to annoying advertisements or violate your privacy.

 

[durango5550]

sounds like a bunch of bs to me, It doesnt make a difference where the source comes from , a scanner is not going to cause interference with their precious radio system. :roll:

 

[jmm346]

We firmly believe any re-broadcast of LAFD radio signals without formal permission to be a violation of Federal Law. If you are aware of any person or organization that may be doing so, please notify them of our sincere concern. We suggest you report any suspected violation of this law to both our City Attorney and the Department of Justice via e-mail.

Either no one has tested their belief in a court of law, or it has been tested and they refuse to acknowledge that their belief is wrong.

If it were truly known to be a violation, I don't think they wouldn't be saying its their belief. Instead they would say they "know".

Anyone know of any agencies that attempted to get their feeds shut down via the courts due to "Federal Law"?

 

[prcguy]

I suggest you send the LA City attorney and CA DOJ an email stating your intentions, include the BS note from LAFD and ask them to please point you toward the specific law. Otherwise you will proceed with taking off air feeds and stream them to the Internet.
You can also send the LAFD BS note to the FCC and ask if it would violate any rules.
prcguy

 

[brandon]

On a similar note, somebody used to feed Palm Springs Police Dept and was requested by the city to take it down. He complied, so it's hard to say what would have happened otherwise. I also believe the UK it is illegal to stream police communications on the Internet.

 

[tampabaynews]

I like how it says there is no official source of LAFD audio in the first Q & A, then in the last paragraph it says they COULD provide it themselves........

I think if they did they'd only let you hear what they wanted you to hear.

 

[RolnCode3]

This is old, busted, and been discussed before.

Just because the FD believes it is a violation does not mean anyone would be prosecuted, even if the DA's office became aware of it.

As has been discussed in many threads, the consensus is that providing an internet feed does not qualify as "rebroadcasting" by the legal definition. I am not up on all of the ins/outs, so I won't even attempt to further support that statement. Those running feeds and having read other threads know what has been discussed.

 

[N_Jay]

. . . It doesnt make a difference where the source comes from , a scanner is not going to cause interference with their precious radio system. :roll:

That was not what was said.:roll:

 

[sc800]

I agree that is BS, and written by someone who, if they are even a lawyer, probably failed the bar the first ten times.

Not to mention, if someone wants to sign up for another site, and take the risks with viruses, ad and spamware, etc. It should not be the LAFD's spot to stop them.

 

[N_Jay]

I think that is the point. If there is a recording out there, they don't want it from an unofficial source that could be incorrect accidentally or selectively edited.

It all seems clear to me.

As for the legality, I think that may be an open issue, as I can not understand how distribution via the Internet is NOT the same as retransmission and/or divulging the contents.

But I am not a lawyer, and patiently wait for a case to get to and through court.

 

[mtindor]

I think that is the point. If there is a recording out there, they don't want it from an unofficial source that could be incorrect accidentally or selectively edited.

Or, something like direct audio injection into the stream from the computer, something like "We preempt your listening to present you with blahblah blah." I had thought about doing that before on the rare occasion that I had 15+ people listening to my stream - I was going to tell them all to go to my website and sign up rofl.

I didn't But of course, anybody's feed could be modified in a hundred different ways to include whatever propoganda they wanted. I guess that's where the LAFD comes off with that.

mike

 

[Skud]

I suggest you send the LA City attorney and CA DOJ an email stating your intentions, include the BS note from LAFD and ask them to please point you toward the specific law. Otherwise you will proceed with taking off air feeds and stream them to the Internet.
You can also send the LAFD BS note to the FCC and ask if it would violate any rules.
prcguy

Since it is not encrypted, I wonder if the freedom of information act would allow streaming.

 

[N_Jay]

Since it is not encrypted, I wonder if the freedom of information act would allow streaming.

Let me think about that . . . . Ahhhhh . . . . . No!:roll:

 

[SkipSanders]

The FCC will say (has said) it doesn't care.

The FCC isn't your problem. Your problem, if any, is the local DA/US Attorney.

You wouldn't be prosecuted for violation of the FCC regulations, you'd be prosecuted for the violation of the US law the regulations are a copy of.

If the local prosecutor reads the law, and considers you to be in violation of it, he will (if he chooses) prosecute, and you'll end up in court, with ruinous legal fees to pay, EVEN IF YOU WIN.

Whether or not you'll win is a crap shoot. If I were on a jury, I'd say yes, you broke the clearly stated law against disclosing communications contents to anyone but the parties involved. You are allowed to listen under the ECPA. The ECPA does NOT remove the 'no disclosure' law, as I read it. It only specifies what you are allowed to personally listen to (and what you are NOT allowed to listen to, of course).

 

[morfis]

On a similar note, somebody used to feed Palm Springs Police Dept and was requested by the city to take it down. He complied, so it's hard to say what would have happened otherwise. I also believe the UK it is illegal to stream police communications on the Internet.

In the UK it is illegal to monitor EMS comms and therefore illegal to stream them. Wouldn't be much point now as the police are using Airwave. Ambulance services will be on Airwave by the end of this year (probably). Fire & Rescue are dragging their feet but will also have to move to Airwave before too long (though their 'fireground' handsets and helmet radios will remain analogue).

The laws in the UK prohibit monitoring most things but they aren't actually enforced to any great extent so there are plenty of live scanner feeds /internet-controllable radios in the UK

 

[RKG]

The FCC will say (has said) it doesn't care.

The FCC isn't your problem. Your problem, if any, is the local DA/US Attorney.

You wouldn't be prosecuted for violation of the FCC regulations, you'd be prosecuted for the violation of the US law the regulations are a copy of.

If the local prosecutor reads the law, and considers you to be in violation of it, he will (if he chooses) prosecute, and you'll end up in court, with ruinous legal fees to pay, EVEN IF YOU WIN.

Whether or not you'll win is a crap shoot. If I were on a jury, I'd say yes, you broke the clearly stated law against disclosing communications contents to anyone but the parties involved. You are allowed to listen under the ECPA. The ECPA does NOT remove the 'no disclosure' law, as I read it. It only specifies what you are allowed to personally listen to (and what you are NOT allowed to listen to, of course).

ECPA has nothing to do with it. Relevant law is section 2511 of the Safe Streets Act, which repeals section 305 of the FCA with respect to a class of Part 90 communications. In general, all public safety radio comms that are not encrypted are within the class of communications that section 2511 puts in the public domain.

 

[N_Jay]

. . . .Relevant law is section 2511 of the Safe Streets Act, which repeals section 305 of the FCA with respect to a class of Part 90 communications. In general, all public safety radio comms that are not encrypted are within the class of communications that section 2511 puts in the public domain.

Do you have a link?

 

[SkipSanders]

Section 2511 found here:

US CODE: Title 18,2511. Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited

again states that you may INTERCEPT the communications. (Listen).

It does NOT state you may divulge those communications to others, and thus does not repeal the provisions of the communications act making such divulging illegal.

 

[N_Jay]

Section 2511 found here:

US CODE: Title 18,2511. Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited

again states that you may INTERCEPT the communications. (Listen).

It does NOT state you may divulge those communications to others, and thus does not repeal the provisions of the communications act making such divulging illegal.

Thanks.

We are in agreement.

 

[AZScanner]

Section 2511 found here:

US CODE: Title 18,2511. Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited

again states that you may INTERCEPT the communications. (Listen).

It does NOT state you may divulge those communications to others, and thus does not repeal the provisions of the communications act making such divulging illegal.

Jeez, could this legislation be any more vague? Can someone please translate this into plain english?

Specifically, I want clarification on this:

(b) Conduct otherwise an offense under this subsection that consists of or relates to the interception of a satellite transmission that is not encrypted or scrambled and that is transmitted—
(i) to a broadcasting station for purposes of retransmission to the general public; or
(ii) as an audio subcarrier intended for redistribution to facilities open to the public, but not including data transmissions or telephone calls,
is not an offense under this subsection unless the conduct is for the purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage or private financial gain.

So if I took FTA satellite video and streamed it to the internet, that's not illegal, but streaming scanner audio is? That seems ridiculous. Why the distinction?

Who can we ask for a definitive answer? The FCC doesn't have an opinion on it, which doesn't say it's legal or illegal to stream. Who would know? If anyone has any ideas I'll ask around. I want to get to the bottom of this.

-AZ