RadioReference receives a letter demanding removal of Mobile Relay Associates SMR

[northzone]

Support RR!

 

[jclarkr6]

I'm rooting for RadioReference!

I hope that RadioReference fights Mobile Relay Associates SMR on this issue and I hope that RadioReference prevails. There is no reason to restrict access to the frequencies in question.

 

[hotdjdave]

Key Sentence - No Way to Prove; Burden of Proof; Libel

Here is the key sentence in the letter:

"Due to your illegal actions, MRA’s customers are now being harassed by unknown persons who are using the codes to transmit to customers’ vehicular units and interfere with the lawful transmissions of the customers’ own dispatchers and other units!"

​

There is no way to make such a connection. Aside from the fact that nothing RR has done is "illegal" and the listing of this data is perfectly legal, there is no way to make a correlation between the posted data (not transmitted communications) and the fact that "unknown persons" are transmitting illegally on SMR's radio systems. Anyone could be transmitting on SMR's radio systems and it probably has nothing to do with the data on RadioReference.com, nor can they prove it did unless they catch the person who did it and they can prove that person got the data from RR.com (even though it is posted on the site within the limitations of the law, LEGALLY).

I say POUND SAND to this attorney group -- they have NOTHING. The burden of proof lies with the accuser, and never more so clear in this case. These assertions are simply unfounded and tantamount to false accusation, harassment, and libel (e.g. "your illegal actions", etc.).

 

[cpuerror]

For all of you disputing the validity of this letter, put yourself in Lindsay's position. You just received some legal nasty gram threatning to sue you. You can fight it and spend thousands of dollars, and possibly lose and spend thousands more, or just delete this one system from the database.

 

[hotdjdave]

Spurious Transmissions

Just as we have spurious transmissions in the radio community, these accusations are spurious, as well.

 

[hotdjdave]

Monkey See, Monkey Do

For all of you disputing the validity of this letter, put yourself in Lindsay's position. You just received some legal nasty gram threatning to sue you. You can fight it and spend thousands of dollars, and possibly lose and spend thousands more, or just delete this one system from the database.

In theory, I agree. Just a few phrases in response:

"Slippery slope"
"Open the floodgates"
"Domino effect"
"Foot in the door"
"Give them an inch..."
"Camel's nose"
"De Long Wang Shu"

Note: these are my personal thoughts and not that of RR.

 

[cpuerror]

To everyone who says Lindsay should fight this, are you willing to pay the lawyer(s)? It's a hobby vs real money (and time spent in court). Now I agree that the letter is hogwash, but that is something that would have to be proven and therein lies the problem.

 

[MTS2000des]

This attorney must be fresh out of law school.

To accuse RR of being a party to alleged criminal conduct of another unidentified party without proof to backup the allegations is pure horse****.

If MRA is so concerned about unauthorized access, they should devote their resources to securing their system (upgrade to Passport!) or send their letter writing idiots to the FCC Enforcement Bureau to find the responsible party and prosecute them for such offenses.

The information posted is widely available from the FCC ULS, and talkgroup and system user mapping can be easily identified by listening. Don't like it MRA? Go iDEN, NXDN, P25 with encryption, but even then since you use PUBLIC airwaves, you have no right to protect your license data and system use that is observed from the PUBLIC internet.

What a bunch of tools.

What concerns me is the precedent this may set for other turd blossom lawyers from SMR owners operating such outdated and unsecured systems from coming forward and threatening RR or any other entity with such crap.

Aside, this case would have to be brought against you in Texas, does MRA plan to pay these clowns their bill rate per hour, travel expenses, filing costs, et al to get it before a court of competent jurisdiction? Why would they not devote those resources to finding those individuals tampering with their system?

They might be amazed it's likely alot closer to home (think: disgruntled former employees, other competitors in the area, etc.) than someone using the Internet to get LCN and talkgroup information on their analog unsecured LTR system.

Anyone can threaten to sue anyone. Those who send letters and make vague threats are puffing hot air. If it was a real concern you would have been served. I'd say blow it off and put the information back up. Their issue is not with RadioReference, their issue is with the perpetrators penetrating their system. They need to be demanding such "compliance" from the FCC EB and local field office not you.

 

[burner50]

I would like to make a few things clear from a strictly legal standpoint... Get rid of some of the misinformation here... Guess its my turn to play devils advocate...

They're not even talking about receiving the transmissions, they're talking about divulging and publishing the "private and confidential" information that you received from the transmission. The fact that they are claiming that any of this is private information is ludicrous and speaks to this guys knowledge base and / or experience level...

Lindsay, I do not see anything in the quoted law that allows publishing the information that your company received. It specifically allows reception, but not publishing / divulging.

Our laws are difficult to read, and not really meant for the average person. Here is a breif summary of the important part of 47 U.S.C. 605

Except as authorized by chapter 119, title 18, no person receiving,
assisting in receiving, transmitting, or assisting in transmitting, any
interstate or foreign communication by wire or radio shall divulge or
publish the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning
thereof to any person other than the addressee, his agent, or
attorney,

Here is the exceptions in Chapter 119 title 18, As quoted previously Its kinda hard to follow properly.

(g) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter or chapter 121 of 
this title for any person--
        (1) to intercept or access an electronic communication made 
    through an electronic communication system that is configured so 
    that such electronic communication is readily accessible to the 
    general public;
        (2) to intercept any radio communication which is transmitted--
            (A) by any station for the use of the general public, or 
        that relates to ships, aircraft, vehicles, or persons in 
        distress;
            (B) by any governmental, law enforcement, civil defense, 
        private land mobile, or public safety communications system, 
        including police and fire, readily accessible to the general 
        public;
            (C) by a station operating on an authorized frequency 
        within the bands allocated to the amateur, citizens band, or 
        general mobile radio services; or
            (D) by any marine or aeronautical communications system;

        (3) to engage in any conduct which--
            (A) is prohibited by section 633 of the Communications Act 
        of 1934; or
            (B) is excepted from the application of section 705(a) of 
        the Communications Act of 1934 by section 705(b) of that Act;

        (4) to intercept any wire or electronic communication the 
    transmission of which is causing harmful interference to any 
    lawfully operating station or consumer electronic equipment, to the 
    extent necessary to identify the source of such interference; or
        (5) for other users of the same frequency to intercept any radio 
    communication made through a system that utilizes frequencies

No exception for publishing or divulging. Please show me where.

Do they have a legal foot to stand on? So far as I have seen, yes.

I certainly hope you contact your lawyer regarding this matter.

I believe that what they want out of this is 2 things... The data removed, and monetary compensation for the reprogramming all of the units of the involved customers in order to change the customer codes

 

[eorange]

"Due to your illegal actions, MRA’s customers are now being harassed by unknown persons who are using the codes to transmit to customers’ vehicular units and interfere with the lawful transmissions...

Never occurred to be before, but would intercepting and divulging (publishing) trunk IDs violate the law, similar to intercepting and divulging SS numbers you might hear on a traffic stop? What's the difference?

 

[unitcharlie]

Seems to me freqs and talk group ids are kinda like fone numbers and addresses.... easy to find and not hidden. I believe the "private" matter being discussed has to do with the content of the transmissions--which is why distress communications are exempt from the rule.... these shysters better get a big court room to start suing more than just rr.com.... If memory serves me the last time I was told to remove freq info because of interference caused by it's availability on rr.com someone from the same department quickly discovered many of their fire fighters were dead-keying to see how far from homeplate they could hit their new repeater with their new HTs....

 

[KE4ZNR]

To everyone who says Lindsay should fight this, are you willing to pay the lawyer(s)? It's a hobby vs real money (and time spent in court). Now I agree that the letter is hogwash, but that is something that would have to be proven and therein lies the problem.

Assaf,
I agree 100% however Lindsay has stated repeatedly
in the past that he will fight tooth and nail to maintain the
integrity of RR.com and the database. I have a good feeling
that the system removal is only temporary until Lindsay
has a few well informed "friends" on his side look over
everything with a fine tooth comb. I also have a strong
feeling we will see this system back in the database pretty
soon as Lindsay & RR.com has done nothing wrong.
Just reassuring you that Lindsay has always stated he will not
bow to the frivolous requests of uninformed parties.
Marshall KE4ZNR

 

[loumaag]

Jason makes a good point; that is finding something in the law that supports publishing the data. However, I think that this was litigated in the past here in Texas in regard to the publishing of the TG information in regard to (then named) STARNet system. I know that Lindsay is aware of this litigation and I am sure that upon review of that case and any more recent case law, he and the site's legal representative(s) will do whatever is appropriate.

 

[eorange]

Seems to me freqs and talk group ids are kinda like fone numbers and addresses

Most reasonable people would assume this, yes. But we're talking about THE LAW here :roll:

...quickly discovered many of their fire fighters were dead-keying to see how far from homeplate they could hit their new repeater with their new HTs....

lol, just like me, ahem, I mean hams in general

 

[cousinkix1953]

This is really a bunch of BS. Last I checked, this type of information is in the public domain. Any LTR scanner can decode the LTR talkgroups and LCN. The newest scanners out there can map an LTR system with just the frequencies. So even if RR removes the information from the database, anyone can still acquire the information for the system by simply finding the frequencies and letting the scanner map the system. Shows you how people who don't know what they're talking about think they can just use fancy legal language to make a change. Plus MRA is the one at a loss cause they are the ones spending the money on reprogramming subscriber radios and pursuing legal action. This stuff makes me sick.

And they're shelling out thousands of $$$ in fines after getting busted by the FCC for running illegal power.

I do not see any transscripts of their conversations here either and that commercial SMR stuff is boring any way. There are no live feeds of their system on RR and I'll bet that would really tick off this stupid lawyer. FCC license data is a public record. Go pound sand if you don't like it.

Encrypt the system and SHUT UP. They have no real case until they do, and nobody would be stupid enough to it an post the details here. Does anybody really care? Police and fire depts don't even use LTR systems; so I don't even program them in my scanners...

 

[SCPD]

Wow, this thread has really grown, and has quite a few interesting comments, which leads me to wonder, how many of you complaining about this issue, are directly impacted by this request to remove the information?

Some of the comments just slay me, like "the FCC makes this information available." Yes, the FCC makes frequency information and licensee information available, but looking around fcc.gov I am unable to find talkgroup configuration information, so in a sense the statement about FCC isn't quite accurate.

While I am bummed that RR received this letter, Lindsey really had no choice but to comply. Yeah, you folks saying he should fight it, if you feel that strongly, why not throw Lindsey a few thousand dollars so he can hire an attorney? It's easy to say "fight it" but I bet a retainer to hire a lawyer would be in the neighborhood of about $10K, yes that much!

This request doesn't affect me as I am not in the listening area, nor do I bother listening to LTR systems as I find them quite boring compared to listening to PD or FD broadcasts. I also wonder how often the law firm is checking this very thread for reactions to their action/requests, not to mention laughing and taking note of some of the more than childish responses in this thread. Some comments have been quite amusing, as well as petty.

Just my thoughts on the issue.

 

[blantonl]

Lindsay, I do not see anything in the quoted law that allows publishing the information that your company received. It specifically allows reception, but not publishing / divulging.

Jason, make sure you read 47 USC 605 very very carefully:

(a) Practices prohibited

Except as authorized by chapter 119, Title 18, no person receiving, assisting in receiving, transmitting, or assisting in transmitting, any interstate or foreign communication by wire or radio shall divulge or publish the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning thereof, except through authorized channels of transmission or reception, (1) to any person other than the addressee, his agent, or attorney, (2) to a person employed or authorized to forward such communication to its destination, (3) to proper accounting or distributing officers of the various communicating centers over which the communication may be passed, (4) to the master of a ship under whom he is serving, (5) in response to a subpena issued by a court of competent jurisdiction, or (6) on demand of other lawful authority. 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. No person not being entitled thereto shall receive or assist in receiving any interstate or foreign communication by radio and use such communication (or any information therein contained) for his own benefit or for the benefit of another not entitled thereto. No person having received any intercepted radio communication or having become acquainted with the contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of such communication (or any part thereof) knowing that such communication was intercepted, shall divulge or publish the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of such communication (or any part thereof) or use such communication (or any information therein contained) for his own benefit or for the benefit of another not entitled thereto. This section shall not apply to the receiving, divulging, publishing, or utilizing the contents of any radio communication which is transmitted by any station for the use of the general public, which relates to ships, aircraft, vehicles, or persons in distress, or which is transmitted by an amateur radio station operator or by a citizens band radio operator.

We've been through the exceptions in chapter 119, Title 18 already.

By law, Part 90 licenses are defined as "for the use of the general public."

47 USC 605, by law, allows RadioReference to publish the information.

 

[bezking]

To everyone who says Lindsay should fight this, are you willing to pay the lawyer(s)? It's a hobby vs real money (and time spent in court). Now I agree that the letter is hogwash, but that is something that would have to be proven and therein lies the problem.

CPUerror what you seem to fail to realize is that RR.Com is an LLC, and (I believe) Lindsay's sole source of income. Therefore, he must do everything in his power to maintain it, including retaining an attorney if necessary. In terms of $$, where did you think all of our premium subscription payments go?

 

[KE0SKN]

To ask the main question. Is the site own going to keep the information off the for good, or is he asking his lawer what to do next?

 

[KE4ZNR]

Wow, this thread has really grown, and has quite a few interesting comments, which leads me to wonder, how many of you complaining about this issue, are directly impacted by this request to remove the information?

I agree. Since I am not in California I will just stand aside and let MRA's crappy lawyer have his way and have the info removed from the database.
Heck, lets not stop there. The next time some uniformed lawyer sends Lindsay a take-down notice for another system (even if it is nowhere near me) let's just go ahead and let it be removed without our input. And the next one, the next one. Oh wait, there goes the database.
Sorry Dak48: I will stand up and defend RR.com and Lindsay anytime this type of situation comes up no matter where the actual radio system is located. You can sit on the sidelines and be a passive observer but I will stand behind Lindsay and RR.com each and every time something like this happens.
Marshall KE4ZNR