USA SCANNERISTS CAN MONITOR AND DIVULGE DAMN NEAR EVERYTHING AS LONG AS IT IS READILY ACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC
UPDATE - 8/5/99
I am told that this following case says that it is OK for scannerists to intercept and divulge public safety communications in the New England area. The case is - US versus Rose 669F.2d 23 (1982) - it is not binding outside of New England.
(8/5/99) - I just spoke to the nice library lady at the First Circuit Court Library - she says that this case was a denial of a request for reversal of conviction on marijuana possession and distribution charges - it is available on Westlaw and Lexus/Nexus - for those of us who cant afford $1000 a minute in research costs, you can probably get a copy of the case at a law library or a statehouse library. The citation is from the year 1982 and is found in Volume 669 of the Federal Reporter 2nd Edition. Apparently this case says that the Safe Streets Act overides the US Communications Law of 1934 (or something along those lines).
---------
Update - Update - Update - I spoke to the duty attorney at the Federal Attorneys Office in Boston this morning (6/9/99) - she said that the Oklahoma decision (linked to below) might or might not be applicable to other parts of the USA. I got an Email from one other person today who sort of said the same thing. Do we have a gaggle of senior, rich lawyers out there that would care to enlighten us all?
---------
More Updated Updates - the Safe Streets Act Section 2511 may have bearing on this matter - I cant find the Safe Street Act online yet - 6/13/99 - this is apparently USC 18 Section 2511 also known as the Electronics Communication Privacy Act of ?1986 - I am told that a couple of courts have ruled that this act preempts any provisions of the 1934 Communications Act - sounds like more evidence that I am correct in saying that anyone can intercept and divulge public safety radio communications. (6/21/99)
----------
�The Open Broadcasting Webpage�
*********************
Here is a post from a Email list.
As I suspected, the SS and Attorney Generals officers are total airheads. The jist of the decision in the Larry Gass case was the wording of Title 47, section 605. That says..."Except as authorized by Chapter 119, Title 18, no person receiving, transmitting, or assisting in transmitting, an Interstate or Foreign>>communication by wire or radio shall divulge or publish the existance, contents, substance, purport, or meaning thereof, except through authorized channels of transmission or reception.
Now that alone doesn't come close to explaining, but if you go READ that section, you find this...The ECPA (the section referenced above) also specifically exempted communications that are 'readily accessible to the public', including those transmitted by "any governmental, law enforcement, civil defense, private land mobile, or public safety communications system, including Police and Fire.". Notice there is not a SINGLE mention of VOICE comms. Under that section, as it still stands, you CAN monitor MDT and pager traffic if it is a Public Service system.
The judge in the Gass case was even more specific than that when he threw out Gass's conviction. He found: "ANY, electronic communication that is readily accessible to the general public may be intercepted. 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(g)(i). Moreover, any governmental radio communication>that is readily accessible to the general public may be intercepted, REGARDLESSS OF ANY EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY. 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(g)(ii)(II)." The phrase, "readily accessible to the general public" is defined in 18 U.S.C. 2510(16). Not only that, but he found that in the case of any governmental radio communication that is readily accessible to the general public, it may also>be divulged by the interceptor, since the act of a governmental agency transmitting a readily accessible signal is essentially equivalent to divulging it already.
In a footnote he wrote: "If governmental operations desire protection in the transmission of radio signals, all that is required is some form of mechanism to take the signal out of the definition of being 'readily accessible to the general public.' "I think (remember IANAL) that if Cheek has the money to get a good lawyer some heads should roll.>
***************
I AM NOT A LAWYER - KEEP THAT IN MIND - by Peter Szerlag - May 3, 1999 - also keep in mind that I did not write the post above - I am going to research these legal references and see what I can come up with.
8/5/99 UPDATE - If Bill Cheeks advertised that his software could decode protected/encrypted data communications of business users, perhaps that would be grounds for his arrest. What the heck ever happened to Bill Cheeks and Kieth Knipschild anyhow? I see KK posting on the ScanCom@onelist.com list all the time from Long Island NY but he did not respond to my request for info about his status.
May 6, 1999
I did a little online research and this is what I have figured out - The Communications Act of 1934 says that it is illegal for you to tell anyone what you hear on a scanner - The Electronics Communications Privacy Act of 1986 says that it is not illegal for the public to INTERCEPT any radio communications which is transmitted by any police or fire agency "readily accessible to the public". Let me try to figure out if it is illegal to DIVULGE anything intercepted on a police or fire radio system. (Seems odd that you would allow someone to intercept something but not let them tell anyone about it). Standby for more info.
By the way - it looks like most of the info about this subject on Email lists, news groups, and scanner websites is wrong.
5/8/99 - Update
I have not been able to access the Gass case documents yet but I think I can point you in the right direction to get them - http://www.uscourts.gov/PubAccess.html gives info about accessing various items from the Federal District Courts via dialup connections - apparently tollfree phone numbers are used and the charge for downloading is 60 cents per minute - the case that we are looking for was held in Tulsa OK in the Northern Oklahoma Federal District Court - USA versus Larry Nathan Gass - Case Number 95-CR-55-C by US District Judge H Dale Cook - the Gass aquittal was filed 2/12/96 - the date of filing of denial of the governments appeal was on 2/28/96 (that might have been done in the Federal Appeals Court???)
This case apparently involved Mr Gass putting some tow trucks on the Tulsa 800T radio system who did not have permission to be there. Motorola and the city got involved. Look at www.dispatchmonthly.com for a short report on the case from 1997 - apparently civil action was taken by Motorola against Mr Gass after the criminal prosecution fell apart (was dismissed - whatever). To all lawyers everywhere - do not right to me telling me that I am wrong about this or that - just write to your Federal Courts and tell them to put this case info ONLINE!
May 10, 1999 - the orders from the judge are online in the Gass case - please see http://www.afn.org/~jlr/gass1.txt and see http://www.afn.org/~jlr/gass2.txt or please jump to them at �Gass 1� and �Gass 2� - one is a judgement of aquittal and the other is a denial of the governments request for a retrial - both are dated 4 April 1996. I just need to find out if these decisions are binding nationwide - if so - then there is no doubt that it is totally legal for anyone to intercept AND divulge any governmental police or fire radio traffic in the USA. (as long as it aint ~scrambled)
* * * *
I do not know what the interaction is between the WebTV browser, the Internet, and the Geocities site: but something is truley weird - some times words are run together in the Gass documents - sometimes they are not.
Update - May 22, 1999 - It looks like the conviction of Larry Gass was thrown out because the judge found that ONE of the indictments against Mr Gass had been improperly presented to the jury. Apparently the judge decided that the government lawyers had totally blown their case (even though the jury bought it totally) - SO MUCH FOR THE JURY SYSTEM! Why should I pay attention to any law if the legal system is this screwed up?
Bottom line as I understand it at this time - it is legal to monitor and divulge any governmental radio traffic in the USA as long as it is "readily accessible" (not scrambled) - it is NOT legal to intercept cellular phones, cordless phones, or media remote feed freqs (at ?450Mhz and 455Mhz).
10/9/99 - here is a newspaper article from Michigan that contains some "interception and divulgence" - look for the phrase "emergency dispatch report stated that a firefighter was involved" or something like that. Saginaw MI
-----------------