Scanners, Internet and the Law: An objective discussion with case law.

[UpRiver]

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.

I understand your sentiment in this regard and share it to a degree; but you know what they say about about representing yourself? Even though I've done it many, many times myself; the biggest thing an untrained non-lawyer has going against him is unfamiliarity with the way the system works; that knowledge is controlling when dealing with our 'judicial' system.

As the best lawyer in America told me recently, "The best and only way to truly win is to not play."

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.

Good idea; and BTW, I've emailed Bob Grove requesting a retraction; I suggest that others do the same as my reputation often interferes with my communications. IOW, he is more apt to listen to you than me.

 

[jasonpeoria911]

All this talk about whether it's legal or not to have a stream up is rather moot. There currently is over 1100 live scanner streams online from all over the world. The real question is, if a department threatened to take legal action if you received a warning to take the stream down, would you decide to fight it in court with all the legal costs or just take the stream down? Even with an e-mail from the FCC saying it's legal, you know a department with big bucks will fight it to the teeth, costing you hundreds to thousands if you do happen to lose.

Jason

 

[UpRiver]

All this talk about whether it's legal or not to have a stream up is rather moot. There currently is over 1100 live scanner streams online from all over the world. The real question is, if a department threatened to take legal action if you received a warning to take the stream down, would you decide to fight it in court with all the legal costs or just take the stream down? Even with an e-mail from the FCC saying it's legal, you know a department with big bucks will fight it to the teeth, costing you hundreds to thousands if you do happen to lose.

Jason

And those 1100 live scanner streams have nothing to fear because of the FCC's statement that streaming is legal. Any department with big bucks will never 'fight it' because they know they would lose because of what the FCC has said in regard to the law.

Moreover, there could be 100,000 live scanner streams and they would all be shut down if it were truly illegal to stream which it's not.

There is currently a lot of ignorance out there and there are people exploiting this ignorance for their own purposes that are not rooted in the law.

 

[UpRiver]

All this talk about whether it's legal or not to have a stream up is rather moot. There currently is over 1100 live scanner streams online from all over the world. The real question is, if a department threatened to take legal action if you received a warning to take the stream down, would you decide to fight it in court with all the legal costs or just take the stream down? Even with an e-mail from the FCC saying it's legal, you know a department with big bucks will fight it to the teeth, costing you hundreds to thousands if you do happen to lose.

Jason

Jason,

I thought more about your comments and you impress me as a young person. So let me point out a couple of more things.

The 1100 number that you cite might be twice that or four times that size were it not for the legal cloud of ambiguity that has apparently been hanging over streamers heads and wrongly so.

Your attitude seems analogous to those who illegally download music. There are so many as to make it impossible to prosecute all the offenders.

But that analogy does not apply to streaming scanner communications. And the legal cloud should not be there at all.

The Federal Communications Commission is the big dog here and when they speak everyone else listens especially those agencies with big bucks.

As for any threats or actual legal action by those agencies, litigation is a two way street and they would be exposing themselves to financial liability if not outright criminal prosecution.

We've got the agencies on the run now. Spread the word.

 

[UpRiver]

From Bob Grove:

Dear [UpRiver]:

I am in receipt of your retraction request regarding an allegation that I incorrectly informed my readership regarding streaming audio. Since it is apparent that you didn't see it yourself, here is my actual response to the reader's question about the legality of receiving and streaming a variety of radio intercepts:

"Certainly not FCC licensed services like AM and FM broadcasters or communications services without their express written permission. I suspect, however, that unlicensed services like CB, FS and Part 15 low-power AM and FM broadcasters would be OK. Reader input on this (or any other question( is certainly welcome."

As you can see, I never referred to police, EMS and fire comms, and "communications services" involves far more than public safety agencies. There may be a conflict between the FCC's position and that of the Department of Justice (Section 2511). That's what much of the chatter is about on the Net.

While this is gradually weeding itself out, I think it's probably time to put an editorial in Monitoring Times to help sort out the rough spots.

Thanks for writing,
Bob

end

This man sounds like a champ to me.

 

[K4IHS]

I got an email from the FCC in response to my question about the legality of live streaming today. The email in whole follows...

You are receiving this email in response to your inquiry to the FCC.

Hello,

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.

Thank You

Thank You

Rep Number : TSR09

 

[SkipSanders]

I don't believe anyone really thought the FCC would bother with streams... though they DO get irate if hams retransmit such stuff.

Your problem is that the FCC is not the ones who will prosecute you. The complaining agency merely has to get the local US Attorney to file the case, and it's Justice that decides if it's illegal or not. (Or anyway, if they think they can win the case)

FCC is never involved, because you won't be being prosecuted for violation of FCC regulations, you'd be prosecuted for violation of US Law. So you are always at the mercy of the local US Attorney of the complaining agency. If they happen to feel it's a violation, you will find yourself in court. You may win, of course... but your wallet won't.

 

[K4IHS]

I guess if the law came "beating on my door" to close down my stream... I'd be polite and comply immediately. However... I'd tell them about about the email from the FCC and that I'd at least had enough common sense to try to find out if I was doing something illegal. Hopefully... that said... maybe I'd get to keep my scanner and computer. And... I think you are correct... no way would the "normal Joe" be able to win in court. The $$$$ would be just too high...

 

[zerg901]

A coalition is needed between the ACLU, media groups, freedom of info groups, and the scanning community. A practical case could be made that excessive restrictions om scanning (encryption and legal action against streamers) would be very detrimental to the USA.

1. 250 million people were killed in the last century by genocides and wars. Genocides and wars are created by organizations that thrive on secrecy.

2. France, England, China, Iraq - they all ban scanners. Anyone yearning to move to those countries?

Peter Sz

(PS - I am not positive on which countries do and do not ban scanners - but you get my point).

 

[Tweekerbob]

Upriver, where is your paddle? Anyone, including local, state and federal agencies can sue for any reason whatsoever! They don't need to be right. They just need enough funding behind them to swamp you in court. Enough judges throughout this country will listen to the jurisprudence, case law, and statute law enough to elevate the case to a point where you will be bankrupt. If this is your point, then stand behind it when a local agency kindly asks you to stop.

If you truly want to slide down the slippery slope, then why aren't millions of speeders prosecuted every year? Why do criminals run free? Law enforecement cannot provide and does not insinuate it provides 100% protection against the commencement of all crimes. Why do you feel that it can?

Although only a handful of cases have been brought against streamers, none of them have primarily involved the FCC. The FCC is not the prosecution in these cases; the local agencies ARE. I cannot report that the FCC has held any liability in these cases, since all were brought about by disinterested parties (to the FCC), chielfly, the agencies who felt most "violated".

The FCC is not the BIG DOG as you claim. It is merely a regulating agency, although it does reserve the powers to enforce its own rules. It does not control nor influence its licensees in matters of litigation. So if you're claiming the FCC has no power to enforce...?

 

[thenet411]

I run a scanner streaming website in Northern California and I have been fortunate enough to receive overwhelming support for the service from local law enforcement and local governments. If any one of them asked me to stop streaming their comms, I would do so in a heartbeat.

It is, however, comforting to know that all of the uninformed haters out there sending me email telling me that my site is illegal citing FCC rules and laws can now be told (with authority) to zip it.

My question is, why get into a shoving match against an agency just because they don't want their comms streamed? If anyone is really interested in listening they will buy their own scanner and listen all day long. If the comms are encrypted, we all know there are ways of decrypting those transmissions if you REALLY want to listen in. Streaming scanners are, IMHO, for the convenience of the public. They might not have their own scanner or they might be at work and don't have their scanner with them, and streaming scanners give them access to the audio in those circumstances.

So, why fight it? What do you (or online listeners) gain?

 

[K4IHS]

There's an article in the scanner magazine December issue of Monitoring Times that references this thread. If you are not a subscriber... it's available at most book stores.

 

[trooperdude]

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.

Just be sure the person in the FCC has the legal standing to issue such a ruling.

Otherwise you could still find it tested in court.

Not inciting here, just a word to the wise to dot the i's and cross the t's.

There is a lot of precedence on this with IRS communication.

 

[IdleMonitor]

Here's the Monitoring Times Article Dec. '07

http://www.monitoringtimes.com/mtlettersdec07.pdf

 

[zerg901]

Crayon - are you still following this thread?

1. Your first post in this thread quotes section 605 which applies to 'interstate and foreign' communications - not 'intrastate' communications - right? (I dont know if this is especially relevant or not)

2. Can you go to the Wikipedia entry on police scanners - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_scanner - I dont think the last bullet point under 'Legal' is correct - "disclose information received to other persons" - maybe you could set them straight, and talk about Internet scanning.

Peter Sz

 

[crayon]

1. Your first post in this thread quotes section 605 which applies to 'interstate and foreign' communications - not 'intrastate' communications - right? (I dont know if this is especially relevant or not)

Doubtful. If there was any relevance, surely it would have been addressed in several of the case's that I included in my rr.com "brief".

2. Can you go to the Wikipedia entry on police scanners - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_scanner - I dont think the last bullet point under 'Legal' is correct - "disclose information received to other persons" - maybe you could set them straight, and talk about Internet scanning.

Thanks for pointing that out, but to be honest, I really do not want to expend additional mental energy on the topic. Sorry.



However, I would be honored if you would want to pick up the mantle and stamp out the little fires that pop up.

 

[zerg901]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:S...mation_Received_to_Other_Persons_-_Illegal.3F

The Gass info and more has been added to the discussion page for Scanners at Wikipedia. Peter Sz

 

[SCPD]

Posted on scanamerica http://www.scanamerica.us/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=17201
EXCERPT FROM 18 USC 2511, Part of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986.

(g) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter or chapter 121 of this title for any person—

(i) 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;

(ii) to intercept any radio communication which is transmitted—

(I) by any station for the use of the general public, or that relates to ships, aircraft, vehicles, or persons in distress;

(II) 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;

(III) by a station operating on an authorized frequency within the bands allocated to the amateur, citizens band, or general mobile radio services; or

(IV) by any marine or aeronautical communications system;

(iii) to engage in any conduct which—

(I) is prohibited by section 633 of the Communications Act of 1934; or

(II) is excepted from the application of section 705(a) of the Communications Act of 1934 by section 705(b) of that Act;

 

[Springfield]

Internet Live Stream Radio

Internet Live Stream Radio


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

 

[poltergeisty]

Interesting parallels between OKLAHOMA v. Gass and the old "Clear And Present Danger"