Ocala fl upgrading?

[wrngnmbr6]

Free country to do what you want, but FB pages like that and streaming scanner feeds so any joe blow can listen on his prepaid phone are a big part of why everyone is going encrypted. (Isn't it illegal to tell others what you've heard?)

Scanner listeners that show up to scenes (AKA Squirrels) just get in the way according to 100% of my LEO/EMS friends.

I'll keep scanning and keep what I hear to myself until Alachua County goes ENC.

It is not illegal at all to tell people what I've heard. Out of a 24 hour period I'm live maybe like 4 hours of that time. You do realize that there is a live feed on broadcastify for Marion County Sheriff and Marion County Fire so the criminals can listen on their phones without my help. I've been scanning a real long time and I do agree with you somewhat. The 24/7 live feeds and apps are what made a lot of agencies go ENC. It became too easy now for criminals to listen. Its not a couple hundred dollar hobby anymore like it once was.

 

[SCPD]

There are quite a few scanner apps that you can listen to local PD, and such around Central FL. The app ActScrnPRO has quite a few good feeds. I listen to them from time to time. Here is a photo of the list for my county.

And it has pretty well every county, if not all of them. Not to stir anything. Rather informing that there are scanner apps, no live feed needed from a personal device if you chose not to.

 

[whooey]

It is not illegal at all to tell people what I've heard.

Taken from: RTDNA

Section 705 of the Communications Act provides that:

No person not being authorized by the sender shall intercept any radio communication and divulge or publish the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of such intercepted communication to any person. 47 U.S.C. § 605(a). The penalties for violating this section are severe: a fine of not more than $2000, imprisonment, or both or, where such violation is “willfull[] and for purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage or private financial gain,” a fine of up to $50,000 and imprisonment of not more than two years for the first such conviction and up to $100,000 and five years for subsequent convictions. In addition, the statute provides for a private civil remedy to any person aggrieved by a violation of this section. The FCC regulations implementing this section more specifically provide that messages originated by “privately-owned non-broadcast stations . . . may be broadcast only upon receipt of prior permission from the non-broadcast licensee.”

 

[dave3825]

Thanks bro, I was looking for exactly that. You beat me to it.

 

[whooey]

Thanks bro, I was looking for exactly that. You beat me to it.

Honestly can't see them going after anyone for that, but you never know.

 

[tampabaynews]

Honestly can't see them going after anyone for that, but you never know.

You want to know why?

Taken from: RTDNA

You didn't read the entire document. Read past the Section 705 text.

The Supreme Court in Bartnicki v. Vopper determined that the divulgence of illegally intercepted communications that are a matter of public interest is protected by the First Amendment.

I ain't a justice, lawmaker, or lawyer but logic says that because public safety communications are a matter of public interest, the divulgence of those communications is also protected by the First Amendment.

Now is it a good idea to blabber about everything you hear off your scanner? Probably not. Illegal? Case law says no.

 

[whooey]

You want to know why?



You didn't read the entire document.

The Supreme Court in Bartnicki v. Vopper determined that the divulgence of illegally intercepted communications that are a matter of public interest is protected by the First Amendment.

Logic says that because public safety communications are a matter of public interest, the divulgence of those communications are also protected by the First Amendment.

Ah gotcha, I had read that law several years ago. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[wrngnmbr6]

Taken from: RTDNA

Section 705 of the Communications Act provides that:

No person not being authorized by the sender shall intercept any radio communication and divulge or publish the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of such intercepted communication to any person. 47 U.S.C. § 605(a). The penalties for violating this section are severe: a fine of not more than $2000, imprisonment, or both or, where such violation is “willfull[] and for purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage or private financial gain,” a fine of up to $50,000 and imprisonment of not more than two years for the first such conviction and up to $100,000 and five years for subsequent convictions. In addition, the statute provides for a private civil remedy to any person aggrieved by a violation of this section. The FCC regulations implementing this section more specifically provide that messages originated by “privately-owned non-broadcast stations . . . may be broadcast only upon receipt of prior permission from the non-broadcast licensee.”

What I do and what millions of other Facebook Pages do is not illegal. Posting information from police scanners, even if not verified, is not illegal. Anybody can have a scanner, so once it hits the airwaves, it’s public information. Sometimes sharing information like vehicle accidents to these social media sites can benefit the community. In instances of wanted persons or kidnappings, posting pictures can help solve cases.

 

[wrngnmbr6]

You want to know why?



You didn't read the entire document. Read past the Section 705 text.

The Supreme Court in Bartnicki v. Vopper determined that the divulgence of illegally intercepted communications that are a matter of public interest is protected by the First Amendment.

I ain't a justice, lawmaker, or lawyer but logic says that because public safety communications are a matter of public interest, the divulgence of those communications is also protected by the First Amendment.

Now is it a good idea to blabber about everything you hear off your scanner? Probably not. Illegal? Case law says no.

Thank you