Woah, anyone else just hear that?

[zz0468]

Who would be responsible? The website hosting my scanner (scanamerica.us), or me?

I dunno. I'm not an attorney. I would imagine they'd want to get as close to the source as possible.

Also, check out this reply I got from "Cowthief" on the radioreference.com forums...makes very good sence....

"Hello.

10-35 simply ment talk-around in San Antonio in the era of UHF GE PE radios.
And, by what I heard, this was a discussion intended to make people think that they (police) do not know.
This is a very common ploy, throw out a few tiny tidbits that are of no real value, details that are easily traced, perhaps one digit off on a house number, that type of thing.
The usual use for this is to "track" informants, is the guy really on the inside track or just a good scanner buff?
Remember, police officer training deals in no small part on how to use the radio."

There's a lot of nonsense posted in these forums, RR included. So take it all with a grain of salt. The ten code is not standardized, so what 10-35 means in one jurisdiction is not necessarily what it means in another. Someone in the RR thread mentioned that it meant there was some confidential information. In RSO's communications, it's usually used when dispatch has a hit on a suspect, and wants the deputy to remove himself and his radio from earshot, so that the confidential information can be given without the suspect over hearing it. But I'm sure one of the dispatcher members can expound upon that better than I.

Look... going back to your original post, you asked for our thoughts on this. I gave you mine: There is this law that can be interpreted to say that you can't feed these things to the net, or otherwise divulge what you hear. But there's dozens of scanner feeds out there. If you continue, the most likely scenario is someone could ask you to remove it. I just thought you should be aware that if someone comes along and tells you to shut it down, the weight of law would be on their side, not yours. But no one has told you to shut it down yet. If you just stream dispatch talk groups, leave the i-calls and other confidential traffic out of it, no one is likely to bother you. If you keep posting stuff like this thread, you may be unpleasantly surprised at just how many people you've managed to piss off.

[convE36]

Who would be responsible? The website hosting my scanner (scanamerica.us), or me?

I dunno. I'm not an attorney. I would imagine they'd want to get as close to the source as possible.

Also, check out this reply I got from "Cowthief" on the radioreference.com forums...makes very good sence....

"Hello.

10-35 simply ment talk-around in San Antonio in the era of UHF GE PE radios.
And, by what I heard, this was a discussion intended to make people think that they (police) do not know.
This is a very common ploy, throw out a few tiny tidbits that are of no real value, details that are easily traced, perhaps one digit off on a house number, that type of thing.
The usual use for this is to "track" informants, is the guy really on the inside track or just a good scanner buff?
Remember, police officer training deals in no small part on how to use the radio."

There's a lot of nonsense posted in these forums, RR included. So take it all with a grain of salt. The ten code is not standardized, so what 10-35 means in one jurisdiction is not necessarily what it means in another. Someone in the RR thread mentioned that it meant there was some confidential information. In RSO's communications, it's usually used when dispatch has a hit on a suspect, and wants the deputy to remove himself and his radio from earshot, so that the confidential information can be given without the suspect over hearing it. But I'm sure one of the dispatcher members can expound upon that better than I.

Look... going back to your original post, you asked for our thoughts on this. I gave you mine: There is this law that can be interpreted to say that you can't feed these things to the net, or otherwise divulge what you hear. But there's dozens of scanner feeds out there. If you continue, the most likely scenario is someone could ask you to remove it. I just thought you should be aware that if someone comes along and tells you to shut it down, the weight of law would be on their side, not yours. But no one has told you to shut it down yet. If you just stream dispatch talk groups, leave the i-calls and other confidential traffic out of it, no one is likely to bother you. If you keep posting stuff like this thread, you may be unpleasantly surprised at just how many people you've managed to piss off.

Wow, as you can tell, I havnt been scanning for very long. Thanks so much for your advice and comments. I honestly had no idea what laws there were for scanning. I think I am just going to keep my scanner offline for now on...and hopefully I havnt pissed off too many people yet :/


If we could just manage to make this thread dissappear...

[318]

OMFG, keep the damn scanner on-line. There are thousands of feeds on-line accross the nation and no-one is getting in any trouble for having them up. Don't let the 'radio police' scare you into doing or not doing something your having fun with.

I promise you, the real police will not come knocking at your door.

~318

[zz0468]

OMFG, keep the damn scanner on-line. There are thousands of feeds on-line accross the nation and no-one is getting in any trouble for having them up. Don't let the 'radio police' scare you into doing or not doing something your having fun with.

I promise you, the real police will not come knocking at your door.

~318

I'd agree with you if he was simply streaming the primary dispatch talk groups. But posting threads in multiple web forums calling attention to the contents of an individual call is far more likely to cause someone to rain on his parade.

RSO deputies are VERY touchy about their radios. Anything that brings out unwanted attention is bound to draw scrutiny. Especially in a venue like this that already has their attention.

[convE36]

I-Calls are now DISABLED on the Riverside County Sheriff's online scanner feed. Hopefully that will save some drama.

[Kingscup]

I know that the Los Angeles Fire Department is pretty aggressive in not letting someone broadcast their transmissions over the internet. Here is a FAQ on their site about the transmissions over the internet. http://lafd.org/audio.htm

I am not too worried about my feed. If someone asks me to take it down, then I might do it. Most scanner users seem to think we are in the right but I don't know if a lawyer would think that.

[zz0468]

Most scanner users seem to think we are in the right but I don't know if a lawyer would think that.

Most scanner users have zero knowledge of communications law, and the contents of the Communications Act of 1934. I wouldn't rely on the fact that they "think" they're right to keep me out of trouble.

[kb6jag]

I've been following your posts on the forums and was wondering, are you part of the PSEC project, RCIT Comm or do you work for a vendor (like comserco?)

Most scanner users seem to think we are in the right but I don't know if a lawyer would think that.

Most scanner users have zero knowledge of communications law, and the contents of the Communications Act of 1934. I wouldn't rely on the fact that they "think" they're right to keep me out of trouble.