Question for US scanner users from a UK scanner user...

[ai8o]

Morning all.

I have a question for US scanner users from a UK scanner user who is somewhat perplexed.
My question is around what I see as a major difference between US users and UK users in particular, and non-US users in general.

So, I note that in the US in general the official radio users, such as police, fire, EMS, etc, have historically not used any sort of access control, encryption, etc and US scanner users often listen to those services. In the UK this is not permitted and emergency services radio systems are generally encrypted TETRA to secure their comms.
Is the reception of eg: police radio actually permitted and protected in some way in the US or is it officially not permitted, although tolerated provided listeners don't "misbehave?" In the UK there are two levels of criminal offence in this regard, one where unlawful interception has occurred (listening to services you are not entitled to) and another, more serious where you have passed on information about what you have heard, or acted upon it.

In the past I have heard discussions around how official comminications in the US were not permitted to be encrypted and indeed some users even provided streaming and recording facilities in an official capacity.

This makes me quite confused...how to the police prevent "ne'er-do-wells" from listening to their communications and using it to evade detection and apprehension whilst they commit crimes? Do miscreants actually do this in the US?

This is not a criticism of either approach, I am just curious as to how it works and perhaps more importantly how this has come about.

Regards

Jason G7RUX

I am oversimplifying here.

In the USA, the basic idea is that you can listen to UNencrypted communications all you want.
You cannot divulge to a THIRD party, or make use of information that you heard in communications not directed to you.
A neer do well using information they heard while scanning is in violation of the communications Act of 1934 (the basic USA communication law) and the ECPA ( electronic communication privacy act).

The problem here is that the FCC (do to a lack of resources) does little or no enforcement action, consequently many law enforcement agencies encrypt their radio.

 

[ArloG]

Mobile usage of scanning receivers have had legalities. Although some have lived with the belief that you have to be caught first. I always imagined a crook with a scanner knocking off a jewelry store in the moonlight knowing that Johnny Law was 4 blocks away. Enough time to grab a Rolex or 6.
The Beatles Taxman used to be just a song to me. Until recent I didn't even realize the Brits have TV Police. Having to pay to watch over the air TV? I kinda thought that's what TV advertising and commercials took care of.
Another thing of recent is the size limitations of satellite dishes "over there".
In another forum I frequent. A member from Britain asked if there was really anything at all on C Band satellite worth watching.
Another replied maybe. If you had at least a 2 meter dish. Here in the US 10-12 foot dishes are common. Without limitations or taxing.
The answer is yes and having a 12 foot steerable dish is a joy still.
There are certainly still intelligible analog public service frequencies as well as unencrypted digital modes.
Much like back in the day with the proper equipment. RTTY was readily printable in plain text. Not so much anymore except by Amateurs.
But most are now encrypted with secure keys as far as I know.
And even though there is no intelligible reception possible. Our cellular band frequencies are blocked on scanning receivers by regulation.

 

[SmitHans]

I guess my question was more around the general acceptance that one *should* be able to listen to the emergency services, which is something that seems really odd to many not in the US, rather than encryption and/or streaming in particular. Having had a good read around the US legislation it becomes clear that reception of services not generally intended for one's listening has generally not been prohibited in the way it is here in the UK.

"Why is there a general expectation of being able to listen to the communications of public bodies in the US?" might be a better way of wording my question. This isn't in any way critical since I would have very much liked to have this legal option in the past, perhaps even today.

Most emergency services are operated by a government - meaning they are funded by that government. That government is funded by the citizenry in the form of taxes. This means that all government officials & employees work for us, the taxpayer. As such, we the taxpayers should be able to monitor the work & performance of emergency services, including their behavior on the radio

Furthermore, since before the Communications Act of 1934, there has been the idea that the airwaves are public property, and no public or private entity can prohibit anyone else from using or accessing any portion of the radio spectrum. Even though that concept has been pretty much trashed by the gov't in recent times, it has traditionally been interpreted to mean anyone can listen to anything on the airwaves. Divulging what you've heard has been another issue however, & as emergency service communications are concerned, there are laws about making public anything you may have heard from emergency service communications.

As the country has gone more authoritarian, transparency at all levels of government has been diminishing. I believe this is the main motivator for encrypting all radio communications. The police will say they don't want people with radio scanners to be able to get away with crime by listening to the police, but every study I have ever seen on this subject has shown that the number of criminals who use radio scanners to help them commit crime is infinitely tiny, so this excuse is BS in my opinion. But that may be a discussion for another forum.

 

[mmckenna]

Furthermore, since before the Communications Act of 1934, there has been the idea that the airwaves are public property, and no public or private entity can prohibit anyone else from using or accessing any portion of the radio spectrum. Even though that concept has been pretty much trashed by the gov't in recent times, it has traditionally been interpreted to mean anyone can listen to anything on the airwaves.

Let us know when and where we can start listening in on your telephone calls, internet traffic, text messages, transactions with your bank, phone calls with your doctors office.

but every study I have ever seen on this subject has shown that the number of criminals who use radio scanners to help them commit crime is infinitely tiny, so this excuse is BS in my opinion. But that may be a discussion for another forum.

Care to share some of those studies with us?

 

[SmitHans]

Let us know when and where we can start listening in on your telephone calls, internet traffic, text messages, transactions with your bank, phone calls with your doctors office.

If those are being conducted over a radio, it should be fair game, if you believe in the idea that the airwaves are public property. If you don't believe the airwaves are public property, then I guess you have no issue with laws that restrict usage of the airwaves.

I recall a training officer issuing constant reminders to not say anything over a radio or cell phone that you wouldn't say over a loudspeaker. Seems like good advice still.

Care to share some of those studies with us?

Nope. I am going off of memory, I have no specific citations right now. Besides, people can do their own research.

 

[hp8920]

As the country has gone more authoritarian, transparency at all levels of government has been diminishing. I believe this is the main motivator for encrypting all radio communications.

I see the main motivation for encrypting radio communications has been the Internet companies and groups (Google, Apple, GNU) who've pushed encryption not only due to libertarian beliefs, but also as a way of shielding information from authorities so they don't have to respond to subpoenas, largely to stay neutral in globalized markets (Country X wants to data from users in Country Y? Too bad, we can't do it).

This webpage has far better encryption (PKI, AEAD authentication, ephemeral keys, certificate transparency logs) than anything available on a civilian LMR radio system. (Part of that is due to the architecture of current low bandwidth, broadcast-like systems)

If this webpage doesn't have sufficiently advanced encryption, modern browsers will give scary warnings, block types of cookies that could be used to serve ads, etc. However, it's created an environment where anything not strongly encrypted and authenticated, from text messages, Internet traffic, Bluetooth, webpages, even local disk storage, is seen as technically dangerous. And under this view, it becomes negligent that government LMR systems don't implement basic year 2000-level encryption.

 

[mmckenna]

If those are being conducted over a radio, it should be fair game, if you believe in the idea that the airwaves are public property. If you don't believe the airwaves are public property, then I guess you have no issue with laws that restrict usage of the airwaves.

I think the correct term is "public resource". We have rules regarding the usage of "public resources" to benefit the larger population. There are rules/laws/constitutional stuff regarding privacy. Someone getting their ID run over the radio has a certain expectation of privacy. Average Joe scanner listener has no need to hear someones private information. And I'm totally OK with encryption properly used, even for law enforcement. There are MUCH better ways to keep PD under watch than relying on random Joe scanner listener.

Like all freedoms, there are responsibilities that go with them.

I recall a training officer issuing constant reminders to not say anything over a radio or cell phone that you wouldn't say over a loudspeaker. Seems like good advice still.

Always good advice.

Nope. I am going off of memory, I have no specific citations right now. Besides, people can do their own research.

I'd prefer we read the same studies, that way we can see if we agree.

I've heard these studies mentioned by many, I have yet to have one person share a link….

 

[chrismol1]

IMO, It's kind of hard quantifying crooks using scanners. They have to get caught to get counted. If they don't get caught, it was a success. Tho I've seen bodycams of pursuits where the perp left a phone with an app open before taking off. Tho in hot pursuit it won't really help them as much when a cop is on their rear end, isn't telling them something they don't know

 

[pb_lonny]

Here in Australia, we are moving towards the police being 100% encrypted. Ambulances services are a mix and fires services are also mixed.
I listen to what I can, but don't miss the 000 services that much.

 

[Scan125]

Ignoring any country's specific legislation, which is hard to do, then I guess we have two major dividers/categories.

Public (could be licensed or unlicensed ) or Private (usually licensed if being legally used).

Anything on Shortwave/Medium Wave, Longwave, CB, and others I would deem as public in most civilised countries but possibly banned/illegal in other restrictive regimes..

Anything else could be Public or could be Private.

If the frequencies you are using are licensed then I would suggest you have a right to privacy and only you should be using that frequency in that locale. If you are not encrypting then you should not discuss personal information.

If you are a paparazzi reporter etc. then EVERYTHING is possibly deemed 'public' depending on your ethics

Of course due to almost world wide propagation advantages the country spooks use shortwave but encrypt with the likes of numbers (numbers stations) or one time pad type codes.

I wonder how people feel about this:

Taxi firm, unencrypted: "Pickup Mr Jones and 3 family members from 'address 1' going to 'address 2'.

Now if address 2 were and airport or train station then address 1 is probably going to be ripe for criminals to plunder! Maybe Mr Jones doesn't want everybody to know he lives at address 1 and has a family.

As always the devil is in the detail unless you are one the far left or far right in terms of acceptability.

 

[G7RUX]

Many thanks to all who have responded to my question, it has been interesting and thought-provoking in a number of ways.

Initially I have to say that I found the marked differences rather odd but on consideration I can see where the transparency requirement is quite reasonable...I'm not sure if anyone has noticed but here in the UK we are having a related issue with politicians where there is resistance to official communications being made available to a legal inquiry board which ahs been set up by the government themselves and this is something which has made me reevaluate how I might view the differences...

Thanks to all and 73!

 

[bob550]

The police will say they don't want people with radio scanners to be able to get away with crime by listening to the police, but every study I have ever seen on this subject has shown that the number of criminals who use radio scanners to help them commit crime is infinitely tiny, so this excuse is BS in my opinion.

The police probably don't want the public showing up to an incident and taking photos and video if it can be avoided.

 

[spacellamaman]

"Why is there a general expectation of being able to listen to the communications of public bodies in the US?" might be a better way of wording my question. This isn't in any way critical since I would have very much liked to have this legal option in the past, perhaps even today.

we don't have many hundreds of years being acclimated to submitting to "authority", kings, queens, landed gentry etc in quite the same way as those on the other side of the pond. We listen, because we pay them, because we want them to work, as opposed to the idea that these are the benefits of the protection of a benevolent upper class that runs/guides from a legacy position of inherited governance, which confers no entitlement of oversight by the proles. Thousands of caveats I could put in here, and no disrespect intended to anyone, but that is the long and short of it. Different mindset.

 

[JethrowJohnson]

Tho in hot pursuit it won't really help them as much when a cop is on their rear end, isn't telling them something they don't know

Unless they're using the main channel for the pursuit and are talking about what tactics to use. But then again, I think a phone would be hard to hear in a car at relatively high speeds with sirens behind you, and they probably would misunderstand half of what the units are really telling each other anyway unless they're used to listening.

 

[JethrowJohnson]

To put it simply, we're allowed to listen to just about any radio communication as long as it's not encrypted. If it's encrypted, then you might as well forget about trying to hear it because the only way to hear it is if you're using the same encryption key, and only authorized agencies can have access to it, otherwise it's against federal law.

There's no law saying that public safety agencies (law enforcement, fire/medical) can't encrypt certain traffic. Actually they can encrypt whatever they want to. My county sheriff's office dispatch channel is exclusively encrypted, and my city police department has an analog conventional radio system with no encryption, and they announced earlier this year that they plan on switching to our statewide radio network called MARCS (Multi-Agency Radio Communications System) which is what the sheriff's office uses already, but the police department also was planning on using exclusive encryption too. It's understandable, because a lot of repeat non-violent offenders in my county have been caught listening to them multiple times, but I hope they change their mind because there's been a few times when something happened in my neighborhood and the only way I knew about it right away was because I heard it on the scanner. The one time I even saw the person they were looking for and I called it in and they found him near the school. So I think it can be beneficial at times to let the public listen, and some LEOs here think so too. But everyone's opinion is different. I hope they decide instead to make encryption optional on the Dispatch channel and exclusive on the TAC channel, but only time will tell.

 

[LEH]

Morning all.

I have a question for US scanner users from a UK scanner user who is somewhat perplexed.
My question is around what I see as a major difference between US users and UK users in particular, and non-US users in general.

So, I note that in the US in general the official radio users, such as police, fire, EMS, etc, have historically not used any sort of access control, encryption, etc and US scanner users often listen to those services. In the UK this is not permitted and emergency services radio systems are generally encrypted TETRA to secure their comms.
Is the reception of eg: police radio actually permitted and protected in some way in the US or is it officially not permitted, although tolerated provided listeners don't "misbehave?" In the UK there are two levels of criminal offence in this regard, one where unlawful interception has occurred (listening to services you are not entitled to) and another, more serious where you have passed on information about what you have heard, or acted upon it.

In the past I have heard discussions around how official comminications in the US were not permitted to be encrypted and indeed some users even provided streaming and recording facilities in an official capacity.

This makes me quite confused...how to the police prevent "ne'er-do-wells" from listening to their communications and using it to evade detection and apprehension whilst they commit crimes? Do miscreants actually do this in the US?

This is not a criticism of either approach, I am just curious as to how it works and perhaps more importantly how this has come about.

Regards

Jason G7RUX

First, nationwide, US Federal law prohibits repeating what you hear. There is no Federal law banning citizens from listening in. That said, America has 50 states, a couple of territories and the District of Columbia. Each of these entities can pass its own legislation on who can or cannot listen to public service transmissions. A couple of States ban mobile scanners, another few ban them all together. My 'state' outlaws using a scanner in the commission of a crime.
As for encryption, many Federal, State, and local public service agencies have begun using encryption and the trend is spreading. I have read where the US government wants all such services to be encrypted using Federally supplied encryption, I am not sure how far that has gotten.
If you are confused there in the UK, imagine a Yank trying drive cross country and knowing if their scanner is legal or not.
Lynn N4LEH

 

[sallen07]

another few ban them all together.

Which state(s) ban scanners completely? AFAIK there are none. Some local jurisdictions maybe (although the laws are rarely if ever enforced), but not states. As you said, there are states that forbid mobile use, and using a scanner in the commission of a crime is illegal.

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

Which state(s) ban scanners completely? AFAIK there are none. Some local jurisdictions maybe (although the laws are rarely if ever enforced), but not states. As you said, there are states that forbid mobile use, and using a scanner in the commission of a crime is illegal.

Indiana and Florida prohibit them in vehicles and businesses. If you exclude the provision for allowing ham radio licensees to have scanners, there are many states that are restrictive.

 

[sallen07]

Indiana and Florida prohibit them in vehicles and businesses. If you exclude the provision for allowing ham radio licensees to have scanners, there are many states that are restrictive.

That wasn't the question. But thanks for playing.

I didn't ask, "What states have restrictions on scanner use?"

The question is, "What state(s) FORBID scanner use?"

Don't think there are any. If I am wrong, please educate me.

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

That wasn't the question. But thanks for playing.

I didn't ask, "What states have restrictions on scanner use?"

The question is, "What state(s) FORBID scanner use?"

Don't think there are any. If I am wrong, please educate me.

You can actually Google that yourself. I no longer provide that service for free. Minimum charge is $275 and $275 per hour thereafter. I accept PayPal and Visa. No Venmo.