Removal of feed disclosing personal information

[fuzzy_porpoise]

My municipality has a radio system that is shared by the various first responders (police, fire dept, and ambulance) and broadcast on Broadcastify.com, as well as iPhone apps.

The terms of service for Broadcastify says that feeds dedicated to government, military, and hospital operations are prohibited (as they should), however the scanner feed for my locale has frequent listeners and contains information that residents want to be kept private, including:

• The names, addresses, motor vehicle information, and criminal history of people stopped by police
• Descriptions of private residences, including whether or not the owner is there and what kind of pets live there
• The name, age, gender, and medical information of people needing an ambulance

Me and my fellow residents do not think it's appropriate for anyone on the internet to have access to the private information of taxpayers who get pulled over by police, have their fire alarm go off, or need an ambulance. Some of the homeowners are known to the general public and may have this information used against them, especially with the media being all over the place.

This is why I want to know-Does this kind of feed violate the Broadcastify Terms of Service? If not, are the administrators of Broadcastify willing to consider the removal of the feed in question?

 

[FedFyrGuy]

I'm assuming that you are aware that residents of your community can purchase several types of commercially available devices (scanners, pagers, SDR dongles) that allow them to receive the same signals. Internet feeds such as Broadcastify don't have a monopoly on the type of listening you describe.

 

[buddrousa]

 

[radioman2008]

My municipality has a radio system that is shared by the various first responders (police, fire dept, and ambulance) and broadcast on Broadcastify.com, as well as iPhone apps.

The terms of service for Broadcastify says that feeds dedicated to government, military, and hospital operations are prohibited (as they should), however the scanner feed for my locale has frequent listeners and contains information that residents want to be kept private, including:

• The names, addresses, motor vehicle information, and criminal history of people stopped by police
• Descriptions of private residences, including whether or not the owner is there and what kind of pets live there
• The name, age, gender, and medical information of people needing an ambulance

Me and my fellow residents do not think it's appropriate for anyone on the internet to have access to the private information of taxpayers who get pulled over by police, have their fire alarm go off, or need an ambulance. Some of the homeowners are known to the general public and may have this information used against them, especially with the media being all over the place.

This is why I want to know-Does this kind of feed violate the Broadcastify Terms of Service? If not, are the administrators of Broadcastify willing to consider the removal of the feed in question?

you don't sound like a scanner fan.

that type of radio information has been heard over the airwaves since the old AM low band systems of the 40-50s and those signals went nationwide (and worldwide) depending on band openings that happened on a regular basis.

I've been scanning radio signals since I was a teenager, 30+ years ago using regular old scanners that were from the 1970s

perhaps, explore getting into the scanning hobby Fuzzie Wuzzie and not be a Fuddie Duddie

 

[sonm10]

It would be helpful to provide a location or better yet a link to the feed in question, then we can listen for any supposed violations.

 

[fuzzy_porpoise]

I have no problem with hobbyists interested in radio and I understand dedicated receivers exist for listening, but I am concerned that the service seems to have a loose policy on what can and can't be heard by anyone with an internet connection.

Unless they are excluding a specific list of frequencies that are illegal to broadcast, I thought the Broadcastify administrators were willing to prevent disclose of confidential or personal information, given that they ban gov't, military, and hospital radio feeds.

 

[YardDart63]

As sonm10 said, it would be helpful to tell us what municipality and what feed(s) we're talking about. The feed description should say what channels are being broadcast.

 

[mmckenna]

The names, addresses, motor vehicle information, and criminal history of people stopped by police

This information right here is considered "Personal Identifying Information" (PII) and "Criminal Justice Information" (CJI)

That information is protected. Some states have rules that require CJI to be protected at all times and in all forms. The FBI/DOJ have similar requirements on any CJI that passes through their systems. Public safety agencies should be doing a better job protecting that information.

Some scanner hobbyists do not agree with those laws, since it impacts their chosen form of entertainment.

You can take some action on this:
Contact your local law enforcement agency and ask for their policies on sharing CJI in the clear. They should have a policy on this, and if they don't, they need one.
Contact your state Department of Justice, specifically the branch that handles their CJI databases and ask them what their policy is on that information being shared publicly. They should have one.
Ask these agencies how they plan to protect CJI, and how they protect CJI that sources through the USDOJ.

Then start a local push to get your local public safety agencies to follow those rules. Depending on what state you are in, some of the work may already be in the works. Protection of PII/CJI is required in most cases. Some agencies are choosing to not follow the requirements.

 

[paulears]

Don’t worry, they’ll encrypt shortly and silence is golden.

 

[YardDart63]

Public safety agencies should be doing a better job protecting that information.

Agreed. Many smaller agencies here in north Louisiana (likely elsewhere too) use their primary Dispatch channel for literally everything, and that means a lot of PII and CJI going over the air. Oddly enough, what the OP described sounds an awful lot like what typically goes over police and sheriff dispatch channels in this area. I'm hoping they're not referring to the feed I provide (broadcasting only the SO Dispatch channel in accordance with the TOS).

 

[paulears]

Seriously, for once, in the UK, this doesn't happen we have very strict data protection laws. They even extend to ring doorbells - where images of identifiable people walking past your house have been determined to contravene the law. Schools are just realising that walkie talkies the dinner ladies and playground staff use need to be encrypted when they pass messages saying "Jimmy X's mum has just phones to say she has had to go out - tell jimmy the back door is open." Shops used to have shoplifter photos up on the walls - no longer, that's foul of the law. Personal data is everything now. Personal info here is heavily protected - most people think too much, but it's law! It will follow in the US - inevitable really. It's difficult to find any citizen who believes their own info should be shared. The radio hobbiest folk of course disagree - but they're understandably biased. If you are not interested in aircraft or boats in the UK, there's really little else to hear now. All the interesting stuff is private, and legal.

 

[rf_patriot200]

Seriously, for once, in the UK, this doesn't happen we have very strict data protection laws. They even extend to ring doorbells - where images of identifiable people walking past your house have been determined to contravene the law. Schools are just realising that walkie talkies the dinner ladies and playground staff use need to be encrypted when they pass messages saying "Jimmy X's mum has just phones to say she has had to go out - tell jimmy the back door is open." Shops used to have shoplifter photos up on the walls - no longer, that's foul of the law. Personal data is everything now. Personal info here is heavily protected - most people think too much, but it's law! It will follow in the US - inevitable really. It's difficult to find any citizen who believes their own info should be shared. The radio hobbiest folk of course disagree - but they're understandably biased. If you are not interested in aircraft or boats in the UK, there's really little else to hear now. All the interesting stuff is private, and legal.

Thanks for the insight ! Years ago I was in Binghampton, wasn't like that at all then.

 

[paulears]

It's more strict for businesses, but the UK GDPR (general Data Protection Regulations) apply to individuals outside their homes. If you have a camera on your house that records passers by - you should register and somebody needs to be the data controller. You can keep info for reasonable purposes for a reasonable period. It has had weird results that weren't expected. If you leave a job, and 6 years later ask for a reference, it's probable they won't even have your name in the records - gone! It means that at best a reference just a few months after you leave might be the job you did and the date you left. All the personal stuff deleted straight away. I gave somebody a reference for a job working with vulnerable people and they phoned me up to thank me for being detailed and honest, and telling me she got the job. She told me that my reference was the ONLY one that gave real honest opinion and history. Thanks GDPR. We have the situation where anybody with a body cam MUST tell the people they are recording that they are being recorded, so they can get a copy. You can walk past a house with a camera facing the street and legally require a copy of what they recorded of you, and demand its removal.

There are exceptions of course, and indeed the Police always ask for security camera footage, which people give, probably unaware they should not have it in the first place. We still have a bit of old law that makes it an offence to have in your possession equipment for which a licence is not available. I cannot find any record of it being repealed - but technically, that probably makes scanners illegal if they cover frequencies a normal citizen couldn't get a licence for. This seems to be currently ignored by the authorities. It probably makes owning some radio types illegal, but nobody worries.

I keep this mind though when selling radios. I sell and hire mainly marine radios, and the law here means that my marine licence is a bit special - testing and demonstration are allowed on land. I have an AIS transmitter in the office I use to test various things - and in my area, I'm the only station on Shipfinder that doesn't float. I'm keen to stay as legal as I can, so when somebody asks for extra marine channels, I ask for things like ID - if they have a lifeboat crew ID, then I'll add those channels, but I get asked often to put these channels in other radios and I'm wary. I suppose that keeping the IDs, just in case, on my computer probably counts against GDPR, but for OFCOM (our version of the FCC).

 

[RaleighGuy]

I have no problem with hobbyists interested in radio and I understand dedicated receivers exist for listening, but I am concerned that the service seems to have a loose policy on what can and can't be heard by anyone with an internet connection.

Unless they are excluding a specific list of frequencies that are illegal to broadcast, I thought the Broadcastify administrators were willing to prevent disclose of confidential or personal information, given that they ban gov't, military, and hospital radio feeds.

There is no way to exclude everything that has this information, since many times it isn't the primary purpose for the channel. If the primary purpose is dispatch and it sometimes has the disclosure of information then it isn't typically excluded. Note in TOS the word DEDICATED.




Broadcastify doesn't have loose policy on content, but the basis for enforcement is primary use of frequencies/channels. Your unwillingness to disclose what system/frequency/TG you are concerned about makes it hard to give you a direct answer to your concern, but you are always free to submit a report through Broadcastify.

 

[blantonl]

Me and my fellow residents do not think it's appropriate for anyone on the internet to have access to the private information of taxpayers who get pulled over by police, have their fire alarm go off, or need an ambulance. Some of the homeowners are known to the general public and may have this information used against them, especially with the media being all over the place.

I'm sorry that you and your fellow residents feel this way.

But as you can imagine, this isn't going to be a place to debate this. This would be like walking into McDonalds and hosting a debate on whether or not french fries are good for public health.

I would recommend you find another place to discuss this.