Peel Region Live Feed Gone...

[Chrome69]

My live feed is now offline as per requested by Peel Regional Police....

 

[Chrome69]

I will explain it to you guys here as it was discussed to me...
" Its not illegal to listen on a scanner , but to rebroadcast transmissions is!" Its the same as television and radio act where their broadcasts are protected and "rebroadcasting or retransmissions without their written consent is prohibited"... The guys that came buy today from Peel police where also their on behalf of Mississauga Fire as well...

I hope that will clear things up.... Not many where listening anyways...

 

[steve2004]

I will explain it to you guys here as it was discussed to me...
" Its not illegal to listen on a scanner , but to rebroadcast transmissions is!" Its the same as television and radio act where their broadcasts are protected and "rebroadcasting or retransmissions without their written consent is prohibited"... The guys that came buy today from Peel police where also their on behalf of Mississauga Fire as well...

I hope that will clear things up.... Not many where listening anyways...

First time I hear that one... they are "tons" of broadcast like that one...
(I guess someone fron their Dept had nothing better to do that day!) or got demoted and need to bite somebody back!

 

[jellotor]

Brian, sorry to hear about your run-in with the PRP. You did the right thing by shutting it down and I suspect the decision was a difficult one.

Unfortunately you are now the chief example of an agency flexing its muscles trying to shut down a live stream. Those who thought before that the local PD or FD aren't concerned about live feeds are now proven to be wrong.

 

[Chrome69]

well some one else brought up the point to me... The real problem is we can't censor the feed and at times they give out information about the victim which in my eyes shouldn't be.. I am sure a sexual assault victim doesn't want all of us to know where she lives and all. Mississauga Fire didn't like us listening and went to Peel Police... They were very nice about it, so it wasn't that hard of a decision. Its being debated on ScanOnt about the Laws and honestly i don't care if they were in the wrong or right to ask me to remove it... End result i killed the feed...

 

[jellotor]

Well, they can afford to be nice about it, can't they? You probably don't have a legal team at your disposal, do you?

Although this topic is getting pretty well dead, allow me one final recap: if you rebroadcast radio traffic you are in violation of the spirit, if not the letter, of the law. If you advertise what you're doing, you run the risk of attracting the attention of 'interested parties.'

For example, if you happened to live near enough to a TV station to pick up the wireless IFB signals with a scanner and rebroadcast them over the Intarweb, you should not be surprised if the station would want you to shut it down. Regardless of the nature of the traffic, over-the-air communications are sensitive to whomever is involved.

In the case of the TV station, perhaps lives aren't on the line but the competition could easily listen in...or someone looking to boost cameras out of the back of news trucks to be put to work in the adult film industry down south...

All anyone is asking of those who set up scanner feeds, I believe, is some common sense and discretion.

 

[motomeso]

You can't say you didn't warn him Graeme.

Are you asking if you should expect a visit from the men in the black SUVs? Seriously, the infamous rule 'discrete is elite' applies yet again. Kind of difficult if you want people to listen in, but one must make sacrifices if one wants to protect one's behind.

Personally, I can't understand why any police service would have a problem with scanner listeners, online or not, listening in on regular ops traffic. Surveillance and super-seekrit stuff I can understand, but anything that helps the public understand your job helps you do your job.

...I hear black helicopters...

 

[daleduke17]

Here's the thing: If people aren't allowed to put these things on the internet, then why do companies like Uniden make scanners that can do that?

Yes, I know it is like saying "If it is illegal to shoot someone in the leg, then why do companies like Smith & Wesson make guns that will do that?"

*shrugs*

 

[JRichard]

It's a great option for the owner of the radio to broadcast it online for listening at the office or something like that...privately.

 

[Chrome69]

its funny everybody has an opinion for a feed that was barly listened too....

 

[scnnr]

its funny everybody has an opinion for a feed that was barly listened too....

Hey, I listened to your Easystream feed Brian It sounded really good to.

 

[jellotor]

And why shouldn't we have our opinions about your scanner feed which you advertised in your signature on these forums? Seriously, man...your mistake was the publicity you sought and now you're hoping no one is gonna have anything to say about it?

Here's the thing: If people aren't allowed to put these things on the internet, then why do companies like Uniden make scanners that can do that?

Yes, I know it is like saying "If it is illegal to shoot someone in the leg, then why do companies like Smith & Wesson make guns that will do that?"

*shrugs*

That's the thing...companies manufacture items that constantly allow people to maim, kill, harass, threaten and steal from others without any undue legal implications...so why in the hell should Uniden care if you use that brand new BC396T to stream audio on the Internet or, for that matter, club someone over the head and steal their wallet?

Answer: Uniden didn't FORCE you to break the law with that scanner, it was YOUR choice.

Aw, hell, never mind...let's ban scanners, guns and any blade sharper than a steak knife...

 

[pathalogical]

Chrome,

How did they know about your online feed ?

 

[scnnr]

Chrome,

How did they know about your online feed ?

Probably the same way you just found out about it. Public Safety Agencies, Federal , Civic, whatever, probably all have heard or been online somewhere down the line and came across these types of forums. In this day and age with the wonderful world of the Internet, nothing is hard to find.

Some folks will argue for some against. I personally don't agree with the streaming, although I do indeed listen in myself. I think that most of us scanner enthusiast's, worry that it brings maybe just a little to much attention to our hobby.

 

[richster]

Well that is sad to hear. It seems heavy handed, since you can listen to them with a scanner anyway.

Next they will be requesting all the info on their respective agencies be removed from the database.

Regards,
Richster.

 

[Jay911]

Well that is sad to hear. It seems heavy handed, since you can listen to them with a scanner anyway.

The issue has to do with rebroadcasting the audio. Canadian law allows you to use it for your own entertainment but not to make use of it for any other purpose and that includes rebroadcasting it, sadly.

Don't ask me how the media agencies (that don't get radios issued/sold to them by the agency they're listening to) get around that.

Next they will be requesting all the info on their respective agencies be removed from the database.

From what I understand of Lindsay's policy, he won't agree to that. And I believe that his policy is pretty well-researched and gone thru with a lawyer (though I'm not 100% sure on that). Only federal/military data gets dropped; local authority fire/EMS/etc doesn't get taken out.

 

[jellotor]

Don't ask me how the media agencies (that don't get radios issued/sold to them by the agency they're listening to) get around that.

Strictly speaking, the media doesn't rebroadcast anything heard over a scanner. We may hear a given incident via scanner but the information is *always* confirmed with a phone call at least...or a person on scene such as a reporter or shooter. Kind of a grey area, perhaps, but we generally make damn sure we don't go recording bits of radio traffic and putting it to air.

...which is not to say that we haven't done it...it's been done, and I cringe on the rare occaisions that it occurs.

 

[Jay911]

Strictly speaking, the media doesn't rebroadcast anything heard over a scanner. We may hear a given incident via scanner but the information is *always* confirmed with a phone call at least...or a person on scene such as a reporter or shooter. Kind of a grey area, perhaps, but we generally make damn sure we don't go recording bits of radio traffic and putting it to air.

...which is not to say that we haven't done it...it's been done, and I cringe on the rare occaisions that it occurs.

Oh, don't get me wrong - I know that media does things by the book 99% of the time - my brother-in-law worked for one of the Calgary papers for a number of years. My comment was referring to the clause in the law which implies you cannot use the information heard on a scanner "for personal gain" ... which IMO could be interpreted as selling newspapers.

 

[jellotor]

...which, in the end is a matter of interpretation of the law. There's always a balance for police or other agencies to keep between secrecy for the purpose of protecting an investigation or officers and the public's right to know...via the media.

If an agency was ever to attempt some sort of legal action against a media outlet for 'profiting' from information recieved over a scanner you can safely assume the civil liberties folks (helloooo Clay Ruby) not to mention the newsroom legal staff will fight tooth and nail. However, if you're just a scanner listener breaking the same law, well, you can't assume to count on much for your legal defense other than what's in your bank account. And it won't be enough.

 

[bluesman905]

Chrome,

How did they know about your online feed ?

well? you did ask them didn't you?