RadioReference receives a letter demanding removal of Mobile Relay Associates SMR

[hotdjdave]

IMPORTANT: Main Point

I still want to point out that the main point and the basis of their argument is that "unknown persons" accessed their system and they contend that this was possible based solely on the data contained here on radioreference.com's database.

There is no way for them to make that connection. There is no way for them to know (or prove) that the person or persons who infiltrated their system was/were able to do so because of any data that is displayed on radioreference.com. They have no basis for any lawsuit or case.

Furthermore, there is no way to prove that the data contained on the radioreference.com database regarding the MRA data was obtained through the reception of a radio transmission, thus making their claim baseless. Who says the data on the radioreference.com database regarding the MRA data in question was obtained from a "radio transmission?"

The fact is that the data contained on radioreference.com and the infiltration of MRA's radio system have nothing to do with each other. An analogy, based on their claim, would be a hardware store selling hammers in a particular town needs to stop selling hammers because a grocery store was robbed by "unknown persons" using a hammer; there is no way to make this connection, the robber(s) could have gotten the hammers anywhere.


THEY HAVE NO PROOF. THEY HAVE NO CASE. Their assertions are baseless, and should be construed as harassment and libel.

 

[burner50]

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



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.

Yep, There it is.

Good to know! I was focusing on the exceptions.

They dont have a case. I would say ignore them.

 

[riccom]

i will make this short and sweet, no example or no case was stated, if you want the truth any system is not 100% hack proof, none of them!
I figured a Motorola trunk system way before radio reference.
he is just bored and needs to have some kinda fun Messing with a site
hey lindsay do me a favor sir
if he sues you let him know its a OPEN SOURCE system.
This is like the wily coyote and the road runner, gets close never makes the catch

 

[T-Santon]

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!

I just LOVE the exclamation point....Real professional.




Personally, I think there's a good chance that Mr. Kaufman received his law degree from a box of Fruit Loops.

 

[riccom]

I just LOVE the exclamation point....Real professional.




Personally, I think there's a good chance that Mr. Kaufman received his law degree from a box of Fruit Loops.

I wonder if i wrote him a letter would it cause any problems?

 

[N0YFE]

Not a leg to stand on

I also believe that company sent out the "cease and desist" letter as a scare tactic and did not include any valid claims that the trunking information and codes are private data.

They were trying to make a link between the address portions and the content of the transmission. The problem is there is no privacy or content issues in the "header" of the transmission. One of the things we can do is compare a radio transmission to an E-mail message to demonstrate the application of the Communications law.

As we all know with the governments E-mail survalance they argued that the header information in E-mails was not private since it contained basic information of who it is from, who it is to, where to route it and that is the same information in the "header" transmission on a trucked radio system.

The above information only reinforces RR's position and also lays down precident for the claim that the header information is not private or protected.

I am sure RR is having their lawyers write up the response and wait to see what they say after they get a well worded letter that will force them to clarify their statements. One of the reasons we are not going to hear from RR on the issues in the forums is the lawyer and the company are surely monitoring this thread for any hints of what may come their way.

 

[EngineerZ]

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.

By virtue of developing any major web site with a high profile, you are going to run the risk of upsetting someone who doesn't like what you are doing and has money to initiate some level of legal action against you, whether it be a simple C&D letter from an attorney or a full-blown law suit. Regardless of how little basis there is for such challenges, the fact is they will come and you will need legal support to deal with them. It's not a matter of hobby vs. real money, this kind operation *requires* real money.

Furthermore, capitulating to a lawyer's demands doesn't guarantee Lindsay that he will be left alone. Suppose Lindsay keeps the information off of RR. MRA could next assert that by doing so, Lindsay was admitting guilt and send him a $2,000 bill for reprogramming customer radios. Should he just pay that bill? After all, $2000 is cheaper than the legal bills he would incur to defend himself should MRA turn around sue for non payment. If he did pay the bill, what would keep MRA from sending another bill? At some point you have to stop and hold your ground because the threat of unjustified legal action is *always* a threat. I would assert you should fight for your rights as long as you have the stronger case. If you can't take the legal high ground, you need to change your operation so you can.

I think the validity of claims in MRA attorney's letter has been thoroughly covered, but there's one point that no one has seemed to bring up: Unless Lindsay submitted the data himself, he didn't "obtain" the data in the first place. The letter asserts that *Lindsay* performed the scanning and monitoring. The law says that listening and divulging is illegal. (We can argue whether or not it applies to an SMR, but that's beside my point.) It does not say that publishing data that has already been divulged is illegal. Most data on the site is obtained and submitted to the site by third parties. RR is a neutral service provider and as such shouldn't be held liable for the actions of others. (You could talk about DMCA take-downs and such, but that only applies to copyrighted material - since RR is a database of facts, copyright does not apply.) Not only has MRA not proven that the data was obtained illegally, they haven't even correctly identified the person who committed this supposed illegal act. Since they're so short on facts, I can't see how they would have a leg to stand on in front of a judge.

--z

 

[fwradio]

The law says that listening and divulging is illegal. (We can argue whether or not it applies to an SMR, but that's beside my point.) It does not say that publishing data that has already been divulged is illegal. Most data on the site is obtained and submitted to the site by third parties. RR is a neutral service provider and as such shouldn't be held liable for the actions of others. (You could talk about DMCA take-downs and such, but that only applies to copyrighted material - since RR is a database of facts, copyright does not apply.) Not only has MRA not proven that the data was obtained illegally, they haven't even correctly identified the person who committed this supposed illegal act. Since they're so short on facts, I can't see how they would have a leg to stand on in front of a judge.

--z

Interesting... If the attoryney's claim was true, does that mean that when the governments official media outlet, MSNBC is liable when it publishes a statement by an official who spoke on the condition of that the source not be revealed because the information was not supposed to be divulged?

Also another note---having the information here could in no way be illegal. The improper use of it would be. Just like the Anarchist Cook Book. It tells how to make bombs and all kinds of scary stuff. Owning the book is not a crime. Using it is.

 

[hotdjdave]

CAUTION: A Shakedown in the Making

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.

Furthermore, capitulating to a lawyer's demands doesn't guarantee Lindsay that he will be left alone.

I agree, it will cost more to to capitulate than it would to fight this (and believe we would win).

Again, the rule of the "domino effect," the "slippery slope," "open the floodgates," etc.


In California, there was an ongoing scam by a law firm, known as the Trevor Law Group, performing similar "shakedown" practices.

See these articles:
Trevor Law Group - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
California Bar Journal
Lockyer Sues Trevor Law Group Under Statute It Allegedly Abused
Reform this scam
Trevor Law Group / California Watch sued 2,000 + auto-repair shops under Section 17200

 

[kd7rto]

As RR is a conduit for information gathered and submitted by others, I would consider Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to be germane:

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider..

For this and the many other reasons already stated, their grounds under the law are very weak. Nevertheless, I smell something similar to a SLAPP suit in the making. Strategic lawsuit against public participation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. These bloodsuckers most certainly know how to keep an unfounded civil suit active for years, with legal fees slowly draining the victim dry.

 

[blantonl]

Guys, be cool.

MRA hired this law firm to pursue an issue that troubles them. Frankly, the lawyers are doing their jobs, and no attorney, like any other company that is called for assistance, is going to "turn down a job."

Folks, please approach this process respectfully.. maturely, and honestly.. This is a standard process in the business world and requires a careful, methodical actions.

Thanks,

 

[Mick]

Mra

I usually go through and log TG's on business TRS's in SoCal every few months. When I last checked on all of MRA's SoCal TRS's on 10 March 2009, the number of active TG's was down about 50%. Checking the last two days, the active TG's is down 35% from last March.

 

[bezking]

As RR is a conduit for information gathered and submitted by others, I would consider Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to be germane:

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider..

47 USC 230 is called the Common Carrier Law - that means, for example, if a user of an ISP is hosting kiddy porn the ISP that provides him internet access can not be held responsible...

 

[w8jjr]

Guys, be cool.

MRA hired this law firm to pursue an issue that troubles them. Frankly, the lawyers are doing their jobs, and no attorney, like any other company that is called for assistance, is going to "turn down a job."

Folks, please approach this process respectfully.. maturely, and honestly.. This is a standard process in the business world and requires a careful, methodical actions.

Thanks,

Agreed. Everyone needs to step back and let the process go its course.
Dont think writing the law firm will help in anyway.

I am sure we will be kept up to date. Its ok to rant and show support, but lets not cause problems.

 

[blantonl]

and for gosh sakes people, the first time I hear that one of you called this attorney or his organization, I can assure you I'll be very disappointed.

Again, be respectful, be cool, and let the process take its course.

thank you folks for being mature while we work through this process.

 

[hotdjdave]

Knowledge is Power

Lindsay,

Hopefully, some of the comments we have made here in this thread have give you some ideas to help the solve the problem.

 

[sgrotefend]

Mra smr

I too am concerned about this issue. I do know that ALL FCC issued licenses are public domain. I did read the USC code 47 section 605 and was confused. In this section, it lists several things such as encryption, satellite tv issues and divuling information for profit to name a few.

What part of the law do scanner hobbyists have to abide by ?

What part of the law says what RR is doing is illegal ?

How does MRA know for sure that interference is caused by information obtained from this site ?

Here in Alabama and Georgia the two way radio industry is at times cut throat, back stabbing and really low ball. Some questionable competition could be causing these problems or an unlicensed illegal system.

Maybe with the sheer success of this web site we have reached a point where retaining legal counsel is now necessary to ACCURATELY answer these questions.

I would be willing to pay a few extra bucks for that security.

Comments welcome.


Have a great weekend gang.

R. Scott Grotefend
Prattville, Al.

 

[kb2vxa]

Oh I'm certain that Lindsay has more than a few ideas, he has experience. I remember a while back a similar letter received from someone in the military regarding the disclosure of "sensitive information" to wit, certain military frequencies that could be logged by anyone with appropriate receiving equipment. A few wrinkles aside this case has the same ring to it, the company via it's lawyer is addressing the wrong person for the wrong reasons all based on assumption of fact not in evidence, to borrow a legal phrase. I expect this dark cloud like the other will pass without a drop of rain and with a bit of hope for reason prevailing the real issue will be addressed via a formal complaint of willful and malicious interference lodged with the FCC. That is the proper approach and may produce the desired results, eliminating the interference which is the actual problem, not information available all over the internet. The long and the short of it is the hounds are barking up the wrong tree, the 'coon is over THERE and this thing is going nowhere.

As an aside I got a bit of a chuckle over the comment about The Anarchist's Cookbook, I have the 2000 edition and it happens to be a very interesting and nostalgic read. Why nostalgic? I'll never tell. (;->) I also have a book by an old friend Abbie Hoffman, Steal This Book... sigh. Ah the '60s, those were interesting times.

 

[zz0468]

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

You may be treading on shaky ground with that definition. Where does the definition of Part 90 state that it's for public use? It's "Private Land Mobile Radio", it's administered by the "Private Radio Bureau", and is listed as an "Exclusive Use Service" in other parts of the Communications Act of 1934. There's nothing "public" about it.

Personally, I see plenty in Section 605 that makes clear that we can listen all we want, and makes just as clear that even the existence of what we hear, we can't divulge.

Is this interpretation yours, your attorney's, or an administrative law judge? I sure don't see it in Part 90, or anywhere in the Communications Act of 1934. But I've been wrong before... *shrug*

 

[zz0468]

I too am concerned about this issue. I do know that ALL FCC issued licenses are public domain.

Public information. Public domain would imply that the license is available for use by the general public, which is not the case.

I did read the USC code 47 section 605 and was confused. In this section, it lists several things such as encryption, satellite tv issues and divuling information for profit to name a few.

I think the people who wrote it were confused, so you're not alone. When I read it, I get that by the time we're into satellite encryption, we've read too far.

What part of the law do scanner hobbyists have to abide by ?

The Communications Act of 1934, and 47 CFR Part 15.

What part of the law says what RR is doing is illegal ?

Well, that seems to be the big question! The alleged violation is in The Communications Act of 1934, Section 605 - the part about divulging the existence or contents of transmissions not directed to you (a gross over simplification).

How does MRA know for sure that interference is caused by information obtained from this site ?

They have no way of knowing that.

Here in Alabama and Georgia the two way radio industry is at times cut throat, back stabbing and really low ball. Some questionable competition could be causing these problems or an unlicensed illegal system.

And here, I naively thought that was a Southern California phenomenon.

Maybe with the sheer success of this web site we have reached a point where retaining legal counsel is now necessary to ACCURATELY answer these questions.

I would be willing to pay a few extra bucks for that security.

This may be a case where it's better to ask for forgiveness, then it is to ask for permission.