D
DaveNF2G
Guest
SkipSanders said:
Strip away all of the statutes and case law, and this is the reasonable position that should be left underneath. Well said.
:wink:
Scanners, Internet and the Law: An objective discussion with case law.
- Thread starter crayon
- Start date
- Status
Strip away all of the statutes and case law, and this is the reasonable position that should be left underneath. Well said.
:wink:
Very interesting reading in this thread! Lots of gray area here! Many of you probably read the scanner radio magazine Monitoring Times published by Bob Grove. I have for many years. He's in my opinion one of the most knowledgeable person about radio that I know of. In the October 2007 issue... under the Ask Bob section... there's a question about if it's illegal to live stream or rebroadcast radio communications. I didn't understand the question or the answer... so I sent Bob Grove an email. The response was as follows...
Hi, Ralph: I guess the best answer is really the simplest. It's against federal law (1934 Communications Act, Amended 1994) to reveal the contents of any message not intended for you to hear unless there is permission given. This, then, would include all two-way communications accept ham radio and broadcasting.
Thus, it doesn't make any difference whether the "rebroadcast" is a Podcast, live URL or a radio transmitter.
Bob
I was a bit surprised by the answer. I understand if I hear something on my scanner... then told my neighbor about it... that would be against the law. Owning a scanner and listening to PD, FD, EMS and ATC is not against the law... yet?! So if my scanner is on... and the neighbor hears it... that would not be against the law? That's not a whole lot different then live streaming.
I live stream my local scanner comms at http://www.pinelakeshome.com/Scanner/radio1.htm
There are thousands of live streams from all over the world. Does anyone know of any streams being shut down by the law? I'm a bit nervious about keeping my stream on line.
I hoped Monitoring Times would maybe do an article about live streams... but in reading Bob Grove's email... it doesn't look like they have any interest. Maybe I'll contact Popular Communications.
Comments?
Hi, Ralph: I guess the best answer is really the simplest. It's against federal law (1934 Communications Act, Amended 1994) to reveal the contents of any message not intended for you to hear unless there is permission given. This, then, would include all two-way communications accept ham radio and broadcasting.
Thus, it doesn't make any difference whether the "rebroadcast" is a Podcast, live URL or a radio transmitter.
Bob
I was a bit surprised by the answer. I understand if I hear something on my scanner... then told my neighbor about it... that would be against the law. Owning a scanner and listening to PD, FD, EMS and ATC is not against the law... yet?! So if my scanner is on... and the neighbor hears it... that would not be against the law? That's not a whole lot different then live streaming.
I live stream my local scanner comms at http://www.pinelakeshome.com/Scanner/radio1.htm
There are thousands of live streams from all over the world. Does anyone know of any streams being shut down by the law? I'm a bit nervious about keeping my stream on line.
I hoped Monitoring Times would maybe do an article about live streams... but in reading Bob Grove's email... it doesn't look like they have any interest. Maybe I'll contact Popular Communications.
Comments?
Based upon the examples of case law *and* the FCC memo, Bob Grove is wrong.
umm .. err .. incorrect.
umm .. err .. incorrect.
I did send this thread link to Popular Communications. Maybe enough interest there to do a story?
Perhaps. I dug around quite a bit for what was presented, but it would be nice to see it verfied/refuted by someone else.homer said:
UpRiver
Member
Dear Mr. Grove:
If it's against the law, any law, to stream police, fire, etc. communications over the Internet, please cite the law chapter and verse rather than simply cite an Act.
If it's against the law, any law, to stream police, fire, etc. communications over the Internet, please cite the law chapter and verse rather than simply cite an Act.
UpRiver
Member
The Communications Act of 1934
The Communications Act of 1934 was a United States federal law enacted as Public Law Number 416, Act of June 19, 1934, ch. 652, 48 Stat. 1064, by the 73rd Congress, codified as Chapter 5 of Title 47 of the United States Code, 47 U.S.C. § 151 et seq. The Act replaced the Federal Radio Commission with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). It also transferred regulation of interstate telephone services from the Interstate Commerce Commission to the FCC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Act_of_1934
Has anyone called the FCC?
The Communications Act of 1934 was a United States federal law enacted as Public Law Number 416, Act of June 19, 1934, ch. 652, 48 Stat. 1064, by the 73rd Congress, codified as Chapter 5 of Title 47 of the United States Code, 47 U.S.C. § 151 et seq. The Act replaced the Federal Radio Commission with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). It also transferred regulation of interstate telephone services from the Interstate Commerce Commission to the FCC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Act_of_1934
Has anyone called the FCC?
UpRiver
Member
I have telephoned (1-888-225-5322) and emailed (fccinfo@fcc.gov) the FCC. I have put the question to them. Is it legal or illegal to stream police scanner communications over the Internet?
This issue may demand litigation to be resolved but I am not the one who is going to challenge the law because I am too busy with other matters. But if there are freedom lovers present in this forum I encourage you to take preemptive steps and file a civil suit in federal court against the FCC to establish our rights to stream police communications over the Internet.
Maybe the issue is moot and the FCC will so advise but Mr. Grove seems to have credibility and certainly has been at this longer than me. If he is mistaken he should take a big credibility hit for misleading so many people.
This issue may demand litigation to be resolved but I am not the one who is going to challenge the law because I am too busy with other matters. But if there are freedom lovers present in this forum I encourage you to take preemptive steps and file a civil suit in federal court against the FCC to establish our rights to stream police communications over the Internet.
Maybe the issue is moot and the FCC will so advise but Mr. Grove seems to have credibility and certainly has been at this longer than me. If he is mistaken he should take a big credibility hit for misleading so many people.
I also emailed the FCC...
Is it "AGAINST THE LAW" to live stream a scanner on the Internet such as my page?
http://pinelakeshome.com/Scanner/radio1.htm
You may also find this thread interesting...
http://www.radioreference.com/forums/showthread.php?t=81717
Regards...
Ralph Stallsworth
10025 Bardmoor Ct.
Fort Myers, FL 33903
Is it "AGAINST THE LAW" to live stream a scanner on the Internet such as my page?
http://pinelakeshome.com/Scanner/radio1.htm
You may also find this thread interesting...
http://www.radioreference.com/forums/showthread.php?t=81717
Regards...
Ralph Stallsworth
10025 Bardmoor Ct.
Fort Myers, FL 33903
Last edited:
And recieved this automated reply...
Dear Consumer,
Thank you for contacting the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). This is an automated message to confirm that we have received your correspondence. We will review your information to determine how we can best serve you.
If you need to send additional information, you may reply back with this email, leaving the case number (example: CIMS0123456789) in the subject line, or contact us at our toll free phone number 1-888-Call-FCC (1-888-225-5322) and reference the case number.
The Federal Communications Commission
Dear Consumer,
Thank you for contacting the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). This is an automated message to confirm that we have received your correspondence. We will review your information to determine how we can best serve you.
If you need to send additional information, you may reply back with this email, leaving the case number (example: CIMS0123456789) in the subject line, or contact us at our toll free phone number 1-888-Call-FCC (1-888-225-5322) and reference the case number.
The Federal Communications Commission
D
DaveNF2G
Guest
UpRiver said:
You can't do that. In order to get a suit into court, you have to show that you have standing to bring the action (that you are directly affected by whatever it is you're suing over) and that the matter is justiciable (that there is a live case or controversy at the present time). A court will not hear a suit based on speculative results from something that might happen to somebody else.
Unless the FCC misapplies the law, they are not the point of action for establishing your legal rights, if any, to stream scanner traffic. The proper domain is a petition to Congress to enact or clarify federal law. With the Democrats in charge, I wouldn't bring anything to the attention of Congress right now that involves permitting activity that some might believe is questionable for some reason or other. They are more likely to pass a law against it.
UpRiver
Member
DaveNF2G said:
Cause of action, venue, jurisdiction and naming the correct defendant(s), etc. are legal issues for an attorney to sort out.
You can always file a complaint for declaratory judgment, etc. Clearly ambiguity gives rise to a cause of action. And an attorney who specializes in this area of the law, I am sure can determine others, e.g., name agencies that are threatening legal action if the streaming doesn't stop, etc. I think someone mentioned an LA fire agency but I am sure given the size and enthusiasm of those in this forum we can get a case before a court to rule on the legality of streaming police scanner communications over the Internet.
As for your partisan political sentiments, both parties voted for the war, NAFTA, allow illegal immigration, etc. ad infinitum, ad nauseam.
crayon Please check your private messages.
I have. Thank you. I am currently under some time constraints because of the upcoming holiday weekend, I will reply later.homer said:
UpRiver
Member
You are receiving this email in response to your inquiry to the FCC.
Mr. Giles,
FCC rules do not prohibit redistributing over the Internet those communications licensed under FCC rules Part 90, such as the communications of local government, law enforcement, civil defense, private land mobile, or public safety communications, including police, EMS, fire and the like.
Licensees under FCC rules Part 90 concerned about the intercept and divulgence of their communications may encrypt or ?scramble? these communications, except for station identification. Part 90.735(d) requires station identification to be transmitted by unencrypted voice. Station ID may also be by digital transmission of the station call sign, including by Morse code. A licensee that identifies its station in this manner must provide the Commission, on request, information (such as digital codes and algorithms) sufficient to decipher the data transmission to ascertain the call sign transmitted.
Rules are located in Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations; Part 90 is available online at http://wireless.fcc.gov/index.htm?job=rules_and_regulations
Hope this information proves helpful.
Saundra Drayton
Federal Communications Commission
end
I cite the FCC authoritative statement above as a clear signal that you can in fact legally stream scanner communications over the Internet. That so many apparent pundits would argue otherwise exposes a bias/opposition to streaming rather than accurate legal knowledge on the matter.
I do not seek to inflame or incite anyone but I cannot help but point out that this attitude is completely consistent with the police state mentality of most if not all law enforcement. If you are a member of LE and oppose a police state, God love you.
In the meantime, I say scan and stream, baby!
Some user has as a signature, In God We Trust, All Others we run through NCIC; funny; from the 'people's' perspective, I say, In God We Trust, All Others we scan, stream, video and record.
Mr. Giles,
FCC rules do not prohibit redistributing over the Internet those communications licensed under FCC rules Part 90, such as the communications of local government, law enforcement, civil defense, private land mobile, or public safety communications, including police, EMS, fire and the like.
Licensees under FCC rules Part 90 concerned about the intercept and divulgence of their communications may encrypt or ?scramble? these communications, except for station identification. Part 90.735(d) requires station identification to be transmitted by unencrypted voice. Station ID may also be by digital transmission of the station call sign, including by Morse code. A licensee that identifies its station in this manner must provide the Commission, on request, information (such as digital codes and algorithms) sufficient to decipher the data transmission to ascertain the call sign transmitted.
Rules are located in Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations; Part 90 is available online at http://wireless.fcc.gov/index.htm?job=rules_and_regulations
Hope this information proves helpful.
Saundra Drayton
Federal Communications Commission
end
I cite the FCC authoritative statement above as a clear signal that you can in fact legally stream scanner communications over the Internet. That so many apparent pundits would argue otherwise exposes a bias/opposition to streaming rather than accurate legal knowledge on the matter.
I do not seek to inflame or incite anyone but I cannot help but point out that this attitude is completely consistent with the police state mentality of most if not all law enforcement. If you are a member of LE and oppose a police state, God love you.
In the meantime, I say scan and stream, baby!
Some user has as a signature, In God We Trust, All Others we run through NCIC; funny; from the 'people's' perspective, I say, In God We Trust, All Others we scan, stream, video and record.
D
DaveNF2G
Guest
UpRiver, can you forward the original email to feedback@nf2g.com so I can add it to the legal information on the NF2G Scannist Pages? Thanks!
D
DaveNF2G
Guest
UpRiver said:
Size and enthusiasm won't get a case into court. Naming an agency that is threatening to go after someone else does not confer standing to bring suit. It is up to that someone to do so, and even they might not get a hearing if no action has been taken to carry out the threat.
You are right, and I apologize for my off-topic bloviation.
UpRiver
Member
DaveNF2G said:
Done.
UpRiver
Member
DaveNF2G said:
The issue appears to be moot at this point. Moreover, I suggest that everyone be very careful in giving or taking legal advice. Most if not all good legal advice requires payment in advance.
Apology accepted.
D
DaveNF2G
Guest
UpRiver said:
That is certainly what the members of the lawsuit industry (lawyers, in other words) would like us all to believe. One does not need to be a lawyer to understand how the courts work in the real world.
Anyway, as UpRiver points out, there is no issue here anyway per the FCC. Maybe there needs to be a sticky with that message in it.
Last edited:
- Status
