Sheriffs Dispatch, or not??

[slash]

Well said. Some of your reasons stated are the same I don't provide a stream. Plus, I don't want anything on my conscious.

Exactly - see, that's the thing. It's a double-edged sword. Because of listening to my scanner, I have a handful of cases where I myself was able to help provide valuable information to law enforcement via 911 in my apartment complex just by hearing a physical description of a fleeing suspect in real time and being an extra set of eyes and ears, or knowing what is going on down the street, or even in two separate cases, being able to turn off the valve on a bursted pipe flooding elderly neighbors apartments within seconds when the fire department took minutes to arrive and make entry through the front gate, get the key from the knox box, etc..

My intent was, presuming that most people are good law-abiding citizens, that providing my scanner for the public that they could do incredibly helpful things like what I did without interfering with the police/fire doing their jobs.

Unfortunately, criminals have caught on and now the police are mad, and suddenly all the broadcasters are the bad guys.

For me to even consider the possibility of coming back and being a broadcaster, there has to be a screening process for who gets to listen to a live feed, and I'm not going to pay RadioReference $15 a month for the ability to do so when I can do the same using my own resources for far cheaper. In my opinion, all feeds open to the public with no screening process should, at minimum, have a 10-minute delay. If you want to be a good samaritan, sign up and make yourself known.

 

[rdale]

Cell phones for all intents and purposes are radio receiving sets. The law makes no stipulation as to how the frequencies end up on the phone

It sure does... You missed an important part:

"a radio receiving set that will receive signals sent on a frequency assigned by the federal communications commission of the United States for police or other law enforcement, fire fighting, emergency medical, federal, state, or local corrections, or homeland security purposes"

Cell phones are not a radio receiving set that will receive on frequencies assigned to public safety. End of story.

it wouldn't take much for any of the feed broadcasters to become a test case by a prosecutor representing a very angry police department.

There's no law at all against feed broadcasters, so not sure where you heard that from?

Those guys who used their cell phones to listen on a RadioReference feed were in my opinion still breaking the law.

Not Michigan scanner law. I think you need to read the law again unless you're referring to something else?

pretty soon if a policeman shows up at your door for something as simple as a loud music complaint, if he sees a computer or any internet connected device that theoretically could be used to receive a scanner feed broadcasted on this site, it could be confiscated and searched.

Is this a joke? Or are you one of those tin foil wearing conspiracy theorists? Because it certainly doesn't match reality.

Congratulations, you made a bad situation worse, and ultimately there's nothing that will stop this from being passed into law with one-party majorities that rarely question each other.

From what being passed into law? You've got me confused - did Sen Jones introduce legislation already?

When the police come knocking, they won't be going after RadioReference, they will be going after the broadcaster, as was in this case.

Ahh - you're a troll.

Nobody went after the broadcaster. Nobody went knocking. The LT that I talked to uses the stream himself when he's traveling. Where you come up with these things is incredible. Stick to the facts of the story and you'll have much less to get upset about.

If you think breaking state laws are bad, the federal system is a completely different animal

You're funny! As the FCC has stated, there is no law against streaming. Maybe this was included in the new defense act right next to the section where Obama can command the US Army to arrest anyone he wants because he declared the US a war zone?

 

[slash]

It sure does... You missed an important part:

"a radio receiving set that will receive signals sent on a frequency assigned by the federal communications commission of the United States for police or other law enforcement, fire fighting, emergency medical, federal, state, or local corrections, or homeland security purposes"

Cell phones are not a radio receiving set that will receive on frequencies assigned to public safety. End of story.

Read what I said again. You are still receiving the signals by proxy (the scanner, to the internet and through the cell phone towers).

You probably don't remember this, but in People vs. Gilbert in 1982 in the Michigan Court of Appeals, a person was charged for having a radar detector in his vehicle, and the prosecutor used the police scanner law's prohibition of equipping a motor vehicle with a radio receiving set that will receive signals on frequencies assigned for police purposes. The legislature ended up changing the law to specifically exclude radar detectors but purposefully left it open for further interpretation. They never, even in 2006 when they rewrote the law to only apply to people using a "radio receiving set" in the commission of a crime, regardless whether in your house or in a vehicle, that the police frequencies had to be used for voice communication purposes. Feel free to read the entire court opinion if you wish. They excluded radar detectors, but left it wide open for other interpretations.

You are also forgetting an important point, that most law enforcement agencies use the cell phone network for their mobile computer terminals to communicate via VPN so they can access dispatch information, LEIN and other databases. Again, the current Michigan law says, "a radio receiving set that will receive signals sent on a frequency assigned by the federal communications commission of the United States for police or other law enforcement, fire fighting, emergency medical, federal, state, or local corrections, or homeland security purposes". That can be interpreted many different ways.

As assinine as it was to charge a person with a radar dector by using a vaguely worded police scanner in a vehicle law in 1982, outdated laws are routinely misconstrued and are applied to new technology. Smart phones (like used today) nor this site (broadcasting feeds) existed in 2006. The bottom line is, the way the law is written, it doesn't guarantee that a person couldn't be charged for receiving these signals via proxy or by utilizing frequencies used by law enforcement couldn't be used to charge someone.

I could be wrong, but hey, If you want to be a test case, hire a lawyer and spend tens of thousands of dollars and years of your life battling this in court, be my guest. Most people don't have the money to do so (especially in today's economy) and end up pleading guilty and taking a slap on the wrist.

There's no law at all against feed broadcasters, so not sure where you heard that from?

If the original poster continues to broadcast his feed, now having been informed by law enforcement no less, that his feed is being used by criminals to commit crimes, best of luck to him. He's aiding criminals, and now I doubt they no longer need to prove the element of intent to charge him with aiding and abetting a criminal if something like that happens again, or at the very least, make his life very difficult.

Is this a joke? Or are you one of those tin foil wearing conspiracy theorists? Because it certainly doesn't match reality.

Please... Tin foil hats are poor faraday cages, and generally make poor antennas worn on the head.

Nobody went after the broadcaster. Nobody went knocking. The LT that I talked to uses the stream himself when he's traveling. Where you come up with these things is incredible. Stick to the facts of the story and you'll have much less to get upset about.

Great, prove that this cop accesses it and call him as a witness in a court of law where RadioReference provides no access logs to feed broadcasters to back up his fuzzy memory. Don't forget that hearsay is inadmissible.

You're funny! As the FCC has stated, there is no law against streaming. Maybe this was included in the new defense act right next to the section where Obama can command the US Army to arrest anyone he wants because he declared the US a war zone?

Heh, you have that too. Post 9/11, the patriot act, the latest defense authorization bill, etc. has made it a very scary time to live and to do anything at all that might anger Bush and now Obama's posse. I could give a rat's behind what the FCC says is OK or not, they are the very least of my concerns.

 

[rdale]

Read what I said again. You are still receiving the signals by proxy (the scanner, to the internet and through the cell phone towers).

I read it - and the prosecutor still has no intention of using the law because it doesn't cover cellphone apps. I'm no lawyer but that's good enough for me

Again, the current Michigan law says, "a radio receiving set that will receive signals sent on a frequency assigned by the federal communications commission of the United States for police or other law enforcement, fire fighting, emergency medical, federal, state, or local corrections, or homeland security purposes". That can be interpreted many different ways.

Cellphones are not assigned to frequencies assigned by the FCC for public safety, so there really is no room for interpretation.

I could be wrong, but hey, If you want to be a test case, hire a lawyer and spend tens of thousands of dollars and years of your life battling this in court, be my guest. Most people don't have the money to do so (especially in today's economy) and end up pleading guilty and taking a slap on the wrist.

Considering that to be charged by this law you have to be committing a crime, I'm not sure how I could be a test case?

If the original poster continues to broadcast his feed, now having been informed by law enforcement no less

He wasn't. Read the story for its facts

Great, prove that this cop accesses it and call him as a witness in a court of law where RadioReference provides no access logs to feed broadcasters to back up his fuzzy memory.

Who is getting called to court, and why? Does it matter if he accesses it? All my point was is that they know about the feed and utilize it themselves. If it's illegal as you claim, why would they admit to it? (HINT: It's not illegal.)

I could give a rat's behind what the FCC says is OK or not, they are the very least of my concerns.

True - it's those dang black helo's flying over your house that should be worrisome...

 

[slash]

I read it - and the prosecutor still has no intention of using the law because it doesn't cover cellphone apps. I'm no lawyer but that's good enough for me

Cellphones are not assigned to frequencies assigned by the FCC for public safety, so there really is no room for interpretation.

Considering that to be charged by this law you have to be committing a crime, I'm not sure how I could be a test case?

Your cell phone itself is running software to even function. I'm not going to argue semantics with you because this conversation isn't getting anywhere. I have an impression that you do not even have even the fuzziest clue of how the legal system works especially when applied to technology. FYI, I read legislation, statutes and court opinions as a hobby. I've also talked to lawyer friends about this, and they do not disagree with me.

He wasn't. Read the story for its facts

I retract my previous statement on that point.

Who is getting called to court, and why? Does it matter if he accesses it? All my point was is that they know about the feed and utilize it themselves. If it's illegal as you claim, why would they admit to it? (HINT: It's not illegal.)

Presuming the original poster were charged with a crime and called to court and tried to claim that "oh, this officer uses this feed too, so what I did was obviously legal."

:roll: That's akin to saying, "That pot I sold to all my friends was also bought by an undercover officer, so what I did was completely legal because he bought some too". Can he prove the officer was only out of town and not on the job when he claimed to use the feed?

True - it's those dang black helo's flying over your house that should be worrisome...

I'm not going to respond to ad hominem attacks. I let the first slide, but my conversation with you about this is over. Best of luck in whatever the future holds for you, legally or otherwise.

 

[rdale]

I've also talked to lawyer friends about this, and they do not disagree with me.

That and a nickel gets you a nickel. Unless those lawyer friends are Eaton County Prosecutors, the perps aren't getting charged for using their cellphone because the law is interpreted as meaning radio scanners.

Presuming the original poster were charged with a crime and called to court and tried to claim that "oh, this officer uses this feed too, so what I did was obviously legal."

What crime could the OP get charged with?

Can he prove the officer was only out of town and not on the job when he claimed to use the feed?

Since every deputy is issued a radio, why would they listen to a delayed stream instead?

I'm not going to respond to ad hominem attacks.

It's not AH. Your conspiracy theories about computer confiscation, Federal prosecution, anti-Constitutional laws and so on don't fit with the real world. No offense intended, but if you believe that every in the government is out to get you then it's just hard to have a discussion.

 

[slash]

That and a nickel gets you a nickel. Unless those lawyer friends are Eaton County Prosecutors, the perps aren't getting charged for using their cellphone because the law is interpreted as meaning radio scanners.

Unless you can cite a court ruling that excludes smart phones for the scanner statute or an attorney general opinion that says it's OK (so long as the AG is in office), the interpretation is left up to each individual prosecutor. What may be OK in Eaton County may not fly in other counties. My point is, you don't want to be "that guy" and be a test case. I have little faith, knowing Rick Jones's history as a chief and his stance on other judiciary related issues, he is not competent enough with technology to draft legislation that would specifically target smart phones without writing something that is so over broad that opens the door even wider for police and prosecutors to make it apply to just about any computer device under the sun in the future. Legislators like writing broad laws that can be applied to future technology. By doing so, they don't have to revisit and redraft the law every time something new gets invented, which is especially hard to do if you don't have a super majority. You should read through the Michigan statutes regarding computer crimes - it's so ridiculously over broad, that it boils down to that if you do anything with a digital processor, even a calculator, for anything that they don't like, you could be charged with a crime. That's typically a last resort if they can't find any other more relevant statute that sticks and has a punishment the prosecutor deems appropriate. But, that's the reality of laws today.

What crime could the OP get charged with?

Whatever crime the perpetrator did via Aiding and abetting (MCL 767.39).
A guy commits arson, you get charged with arson. A guy commits rape, you get charged with rape.

The MI supreme court recently said that three things have to happen in order for it to be aiding and abetting:

(1) the crime charged was committed by the defendant or
some other person;
​

(Obviously the idiot with the smart phone)

(2) the defendant performed acts or gave
encouragement that assisted the commission of the crime; and
​

(Broadcasting the feed is performing an act)

(3) the defendant intended the commission of the crime or had
knowledge that the principal intended its commission at the time that [the defendant] gave aid and encouragement.’
​

(OP now knows his feed is being utilized by other criminals to commit crimes, and there is the intent. OP doesn't have to know who the criminals even are, but he aided them)

Since OP by his own admission knows his feed has been used by criminals, he can no longer claim down the road by operating a live feed he didn't know it was possible or that it was being actively used for crimes.

The only way around this is to make the information of no value to criminals to avoid capture. A delayed feed is one approach, but without any attorney general guidance or legislation clearly spelling out what is and isn't OK, I'm not going to risk anything, and anyone else who does is only playing with fire.

Since every deputy is issued a radio, why would they listen to a delayed stream instead?

Police wouldn't listen to a delayed feed, I proposed earlier in this thread to have a screening process to allow LEOs and other people of good character to get access to the real-time feed. There are many legitimate reasons for a LEO to have realtime access to a feed, low batteries, broken radio, a repeater being offline, etc.

Everyone unverified gets access to the delayed feed. This way the criminal with his/her pre-paid smart phone he just bought with an unlimited data plan won't get immediate access to a scanner. For goodness sakes, they don't even have to know what a frequency is or how to program a scanner to get very valuable information to commit a crime. All they need is to know how to install an App, which a 5 year old can do.

It's not AH. Your conspiracy theories about computer confiscation, Federal prosecution, anti-Constitutional laws and so on don't fit with the real world. No offense intended, but if you believe that every in the government is out to get you then it's just hard to have a discussion.

No, I don't believe the government is out to get me or you, or especially that most people in the government intends to do citizens harm, but if one willingly does something the government doesn't like, especially if its fueled by fear and hysteria or media exposure, don't think it's going to be an easy road to defend yourself, not just at the state level but the federal and now the military level. Ask any peaceful Muslim or Arab immediately after 9/11 or any survivor of the Japanese concentration camps in the USA after WWII how easy emotions can lead to grave injustices done by people in power. If the next big terror attack happens in your hometown and your feed helped them, God help you.

The way I live is to try to not do things you aren't 100% sure won't come back on you in some way, even if perceived to be legal. Any time there's a question of ethics it should be a red flag, that applies to every RR feed provider, yourself included.

 

[KE4RWS]

Christ almighty . . .
*for the record, I have to agree with rdale. But that's me.

I considered streaming once I acquired a my second digital scanner but decided against it. Although there's no love-loss between me and the police (at least where I live), I decided against it for the greater good rather than just going ahead and doing it as a jab since I know the police wouldn't like it. And although there isn't a damn thing they could do about it if I did stream their traffic, I decided not to in consideration of The People, as in We The People. That is, those of us out here who are just innocent parties to everything that goes on out there. That's the ONLY reason I decided not to stream (at least for public use) even though my reasons aren't as noble as most have explained.

I do stream but only for myself when not at home.

 

[slash]

aaaaa

 

[KE4RWS]

I believe we all know exactly where you stand on this issue now. Your six prior indepth, exhaustive posts you have made on this one subject explains over and over and over that you won't provide a feed and *why*.

We understand this. We really do.

 

[slash]

I believe we all know exactly where you stand on this issue now. Your six prior indepth, exhaustive posts you have made on this one subject explains over and over and over that you won't provide a feed and *why*.

I understand this. I really do.

Fixed that for you.

Great! Do you have anything else of value to contribute to this conversation as a person living in Florida about Michigan laws or legislation since this is a Michigan forum post that was started by a Michigan feed broadcaster? That's all I'm going to talk about from here on out. The bulk of my posts have been responding to people who responded to me, yourself included.

 

[rdale]

Slash, all feeds are delayed. It's the nature of the beast. Due to the technology, there is a 30-60 second delay.

 

[KD8PVX]

This is all a very interesting debate. In my opinion this is a moral dilemma. Does a person keep serving the feed, because it is currently our right and not against the law to do so? Or for the possibility of a person having a devise utilizing an app to listen the police while they commit a crime is it best not to provide the feed.

Yes, there are a ton of arguments that can be said on this matter and in an ideal world it would be nice for the dispatch to be able to temporarily shut down a feed while they are in pursuit. This is possible, but it would take time and knowledge for it to happen. First off the person providing the feed would need to communicate with the police department a username, password, URL, and so forth. Then the provider may only want to give them the option to shut the feed down for so long such as 10, 20, 30, or 60 minutes. On top of that the feed provider or streaming service company would have to write up a program or script to be able to do this. Finally who is to say that dispatch wouldn’t be upset about having one more thing to do while they are trying to do their other duties?

I guess what I am trying to say is no matter what a person does he/she will not be able to appease everyone. More than likely when a major incident happens where people feel that lives could have been saved if an incident was not streamed then laws will change. Until then it may be in our best interest to do what we can do to work with the entities we stream.

That is my 2 cents and hopefully no one is upset about it.

- William

 

[kirk5056]

1) Cell phones DO NOT recieve freqs assigned to law enforcement therefore under Michigan law they are not illegal. Recieving the content of law enforcement freqs is not the same as recieving the freqs. If that were true then my TV would be illegal because I can hear the police scanners in newsrooms when some reporters are talking.

2) As much as I care for the safety of officers, the real issue is that the web feeds of law enforcement freqs will make encryptions become more common therefore ending our scanner hobby.

 

[mkoronka]

Agreed! I for one do not want to see my hobby end!

 

[mike_s104]

As much as I care for the safety of officers, the real issue is that the web feeds of law enforcement freqs will make encryptions become more common therefore ending our scanner hobby.

Agreed! I for one do not want to see my hobby end!

I feel exactly the same way.

Also, these armchair lawyers need to stop trying to play as they were a real one.


Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk

 

[KE4RWS]

Good Luck

Fixed that for you.

Great! Do you have anything else of value to contribute to this conversation as a person living in Florida about Michigan laws or legislation since this is a Michigan forum post that was started by a Michigan feed broadcaster? That's all I'm going to talk about from here on out. The bulk of my posts have been responding to people who responded to me, yourself included.

Well, I guess you told me . . .

Slash, I don't know what your problem is but I was trying to diplomatically tell you that you've gone over this BS so much you are just beating the proverbial dead horse. Six prior posts going back and forth the the same guy, all of which becoming an even longer dissertation than the next gets old very fast.

And now you imply I can't post here because I live in Florida? Good luck with that one, bub.

 

[johnvassel]

Wow, you step away from the computer for a few days, and this..lol.

Nobody in any legal position asked me to stop broadcasting the feed. In fact, Rob never asked me but rather let me know what was going on. Stopping the feed was my decision, and I wouldn't hesitate again.

When I started streaming this, not every tom dick and harry had a smart phone. I used it for personal reasons, and in return got a premium membership to rr.com.

While I am not in law enforcement, I do have business with them from time to time. (Less and less lately).
So I do respect what they do, and the struggles they face. Sure, someone else may pick up the feed, but at least I know I didn't do anything that eventually could lead to the harm of a deputy.

I'm not nor was I ever worried about 'legal' aspects. Rather, is it worth it to stream something that could lead to the harm of officers with home I both work and also ask to protect my family and home. I decided it is not.
Currently, I'll have fire dispatch for the county. Delta is too bloody busy and I don't care to listen to their calls, so that's all I'll have. I'm in the process of setting up my stream with dispatch, for my private use. At which time it'll fall on someone else to carry the torch.

 

[rdale]

John - your last paragraph confused me... Will you be streaming on RR all of county fire other than Delta? That would be a good feed.

- Rob

 

[johnvassel]

As of now, I'm playing around with just county fire dispatches. I'm not sure of my reception of Charlotte Fire, they don't typically use the repeater. So I've brought out a different receiver. Monkey'in with an outside antenna ain't going to happen today, but is easy enough done if needed. County dispatch for fire agencies should be fine, as well as Grand Ledge. You might hear a little portland FD in there too until the tweaking is finished.
Sheriffs disptach is kaput. I tinkered a bit last night with setting up a stream for just me, but had some issues (Using the webserver portion of radiofeed). I could connect, but nothing would stream.
Obviously, this stream would be available to others if needed, on a password/permission basis. Until I finalize it, it'll be just for me. (Once I get it working!)
This is my absolutely busiest weeks of the year, so things may be a little flaky as I tweak/tune, etc.
I'm thinking this receiver has a bit of hiss on play, but I'm not hearing it in the feed at an idle, which is good.

Thanks everyone. Rob, if you have any experience in setting up the web server portion of radio feed, your input is always welcomed. I've got a player figured out for Android, just can't get it to stream yet. It's not an ip/ports issue. I can 'see' the server, it just won't stream.

Thanks!