Subject: [NEXTEL-1] Uh oh, scanner broadcast over the net...

From: Marcel <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 17:45:18 -0400

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Steve Grasha
To: [email-masked]
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2003 10:25
Subject: [LiveScannerAudio] HELP ---- Is this guy blowing smoke! Arrest -
for scanner broadcasting over net!

I received this e-mail this morning regarding my internet SCANNER
broadcast from my online newspaper at
http://thepalmspringsvillagevoice.com/

Do any of you know anything about this. Is this something that I
should be concerned with? With all the online broadcasting going on,
I can't imagine this could be illegal!

I NEED EXPERTISE AND COMMENTS HERE!

The letter from James Runge:
_______________________________________________________

Hello Mr. Grasha.  This is to inform you that you are in violation
of Title
47 Section 605 of the United States Code.  This refers to
the "Unauthorized
publication or use of Communications".  The penalties for violating
this
section are fines up to $50,000 and or 2 years in prison.  The FCC
is aware
of this violation but I have asked them to let me handle it first.  I
request the you remove our frequencies from your web site at once.
Failure
to do so will result in my turning this over to the FCC to handle.
Your
immediate cooperation in this matter is appreciated.  Please let me
know
when you have removed our frequencies.

James W. Runge
Director of Information Technology
City of Palm Springs

Phone:  760-322-8346
Fax:      760-322-8345
E-Mail:  [email-masked]

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Make Money Online Auctions! Make $500.00 or We Will Give You Thirty Dollars for Trying!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/yMx78A/fNtFAA/i5gGAA/61FxlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

---

From: "Mark" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 22:41:48 -0000

I think that in this situation it would of been easier to ask for 
permission instead of forgiveness especially when dealing with Law 
Enforcement communications.  But be that as it may, in my 
professional opinion being I too manage a public saftety radio system 
I would say that he is correct.  You as a person may monitor 
unencrypted communications over the rf specturm (except for cellular 
thanks to our Senators and Congressmen) but the catch is that you may 
not use the information for personal gain nor communicate the 
information to a 3rd party.  I would say that you re-broadcasting the 
information over the internet without their approval is an act of 
communicating the information as I stated above.  Maybe you can 
workout a deal with him as to what you can re-broadcast and get an 
agreement in writing.  I happen to think that listening to the cops 
is boring...fire calls are much more fun.  :-) 

Mark

--- In [email-masked], Marcel <Marcelrf@B...> wrote:
> E-Mail:  JimR@c...

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Get a FREE REFINANCE QUOTE - click here!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/2CXtTB/ca0FAA/i5gGAA/61FxlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

---

From: Marcel <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 21:00:57 -0400

With hundreds of these streaming audio links set up across the country I'm
surprised we have not heard of  a mainstream case as of yet. I did a quick scan
of  Cornell Law Library, FindlLaw, Public Law Research Institute, West Law and
Pacer with negative results. (That does mean there is not case law in support
of).

Last year some members of "Phrack" (Notorious hacker group) started
re-broadcasting Nextel conversations on one of their password protected website.
Most of the conversations were business related and boring to the average
listener.
It sounded like an over the air intercept.

A Nextel Tech posted a message (on his own) on their website asking them to
cease transmissions needles to say he was ignored. Since then they have started
streaming LAPD transmission without interruption.

I would have asked first also just avoid legal issues.

Listening to the Cops can be more exciting than the fire calls it all depends on
where you are listening

--
    "NEXTEL-1 IT'S NOT JUST NEXTEL"
  Note The New address
Subscribe to Nextel-1: http://www.groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/NEXTEL-1

  "NEXTEL2 FOR iDEN SOFTWARE DEVELOPERS"
Subscribe to Nextel2: http://www.groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/NEXTEL2

  "WIRELESS FORUM HOMELAND SECURITY GROUP"
     The Complete Resource for Wireless Homeland Security.
Subscribe to WFHSG:  http://www.groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/WFHSG

---

From: Rick Parrish <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 01:22:37 -0500

I don't see a problem here (but IANAL, blah blah) ...

Steve - are you located in Palm Springs? Is the City of Palm Springs 
planning on selling commercial air time in between public safety dispatches?

Also, please forward this to [email-masked] - you may get a 
response there.

-rick

Marcel wrote:

>Subject: [LiveScannerAudio] HELP ---- Is this guy blowing smoke! Arrest - for scanner broadcasting over net!
>  
>

---

From: Rick Parrish <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 02:33:12 -0500

Mark wrote:

>I would say that your re-broadcasting the information over the internet without their approval is an act of communicating the information as I stated above.
>
I'd like to see a ruling in this area. Anyone can possess the same 
receiving equipment and be beholden to the same laws as Steve. A group 
of people in the same room as him would each be held equally 
accountable. What if one of the audience members overheard Steve's radio 
via an intercom (or baby monitor, or a Nextel speakerphone [see, I'm 
actually on-topic!] )?

Does the fact that the person hearing the communications via a net 
connection (instead of a radio receiver) transfer their responsibility 
to the facilitator (the person making the audio stream available) ? Or 
is the internet just one big extension chord?

If the website gives the listener the ability to control the receiver 
(ie. select the frequency) then is the internet just an elaborate face 
plate?

We are becoming a very, very connected society and our laws need to 
recognize and accomodate that reality.

Rebroadcasting someone else's content while claiming it as your own is 
at best plagiarism. But, rebroadcasting publicly available content - and 
giving credit to the source - is nothing less than downright flattering!

On a lesser point, the fact that this is the radio comms of a 
non-military government (ie. public) entity might offer some relief. 
Again, IANAL.

>Maybe you can workout a deal with him as to what you can re-broadcast and get an agreement in writing.
>
Not likely since the city's IT guy has already used the "or else" phrase 
in reference to a three-letter government agency. Personally I think the 
city gov't has lost an opportunity for some good, free PR.

-rick