So I just heard two deputys talking on an "I-Call", one guy was warning the other guy that all individual calls are being monitored via the internet. Telling him to be careful what he says. He said a website in particular but I didnt catch it cause it kept scanning to Perris-3...he was saying deputys are giving out codes to these "people". Obviously this guy doesnt know what hes talking about, we dont need special codes. All this IS legal right?
If you go to my scanner feed on scancalifornia.net and go to the scanner archive for Riverside County Sheriff you will hear parts of that conversation. Go to the file; 7/29/2008 4:04pm - 4:19pm fast forward to 5:10
So let me know your input on this.
Woah, anyone else just hear that?
Re: Woah, anyone else just hear that?
The website cuts off but you can hear it end with .com, so it's probably in reference to this site. The radio codes are obtained from public sources (Google, CA Law Site, public documents/forums, etc...). As for the SEB Tac and "Encrypted" (?) channels, they are NOT broadcast online, so I don't know who that is in ref to. Would of loved to have heard that whole exchange in its entirety 
Good catch!
Good catch!Re: Woah, anyone else just hear that?
Your scanner feed is probably in violation of Section 705 the Communications Act of 1934.convE36 wrote:So let me know your input on this.
Re: Woah, anyone else just hear that?
So should I take my scanner off-line? No big deal to me, I just have it on there for others to enjoy...
Wouldnt that mean that the other california online scanners are illegal too?
Wouldnt that mean that the other california online scanners are illegal too?
Re: Woah, anyone else just hear that?
Oh, I understand WHY you do it. But section 705 clearly states that thou shalt not divulge or *publish* communications that aren't yours. So should you take it off? I'm not gonna say. I'm just telling you that there is a law that says you can't.convE36 wrote:So should I take my scanner off-line? No big deal to me, I just have it on there for others to enjoy...
It's a Federal law, so it would hold true for ANY online scanner, anywhere in the country.convE36 wrote:Wouldnt that mean that the other california online scanners are illegal too?
You do what you feel is best. But I wouldn't put a scanner feed on-line. I'll leave that for someone else to tackle.
Re: Woah, anyone else just hear that?
Sounds good to me. Thanks for your greatly appreciated advice.zz0468 wrote:Oh, I understand WHY you do it. But section 705 clearly states that thou shalt not divulge or *publish* communications that aren't yours. So should you take it off? I'm not gonna say. I'm just telling you that there is a law that says you can't.convE36 wrote:So should I take my scanner off-line? No big deal to me, I just have it on there for others to enjoy...
It's a Federal law, so it would hold true for ANY online scanner, anywhere in the country.convE36 wrote:Wouldnt that mean that the other california online scanners are illegal too?
You do what you feel is best. But I wouldn't put a scanner feed on-line. I'll leave that for someone else to tackle.
Re: Woah, anyone else just hear that?
I'd suggest you go look up the rules yourself, and read them. Then, YOU can make an informed decision on whether you keep the thing up on-line. Don't let some anonymous sentence fragments on the internet (like me) dictate what you do.
As to the deputies, their communications have NEVER been private, and I've always felt that they were sold a bill of goods when they were told that i-calls couldn't be monitored. They need to understand that the radios can be monitored *LEGALLY*, and that the MDC transcripts are discoverable as evidence if needed. I sympathize with their frustration that sometimes things are heard that ought not to be, but at least if they're aware it's happening, they'll be a bit more careful.
As to the deputies, their communications have NEVER been private, and I've always felt that they were sold a bill of goods when they were told that i-calls couldn't be monitored. They need to understand that the radios can be monitored *LEGALLY*, and that the MDC transcripts are discoverable as evidence if needed. I sympathize with their frustration that sometimes things are heard that ought not to be, but at least if they're aware it's happening, they'll be a bit more careful.
Re: Woah, anyone else just hear that?
In the late 1990s/early 2000s someone used to stream Palm Springs PD and was pressured to take it down by the city. He complied and nothing else ever became of it. That is the only case I can remember where it was an issue. Seeing as there are thousands of scanner feeds online, I wouldn't worry too much.
On the subject of secure comms does RSO even have encryption capability? Heard them say channel 13 is, but appears to be clear voice and NOT encrypted. User-selectable or false sense of security?
On the subject of secure comms does RSO even have encryption capability? Heard them say channel 13 is, but appears to be clear voice and NOT encrypted. User-selectable or false sense of security?
Re: Woah, anyone else just hear that?
One needs only to read some communications law, and see the mechanisms in place for levying some pretty hefty fines before pressure becomes compliance. It's not something to worry about, but it is something to be aware of, especially with the target of your feeds being aware of it. There are, apparently, dispatchers and deputies that are members of this board. Maybe they're ok with it, maybe not. One could argue that it's legal to monitor, therefore it's legal to webcast it. But that's not the way it works. The law clearly prohibits sharing or publishing what you hear. What's not so clear is whether you're allowed to listen. The ECPA of 1986 took care of some of that. Proliferation of webcasts of scanner feeds could well take care of the rest, if people aren't careful.brandon wrote:In the late 1990s/early 2000s someone used to stream Palm Springs PD and was pressured to take it down by the city. He complied and nothing else ever became of it. That is the only case I can remember where it was an issue. Seeing as there are thousands of scanner feeds online, I wouldn't worry too much.
Channel 13 is a cross county talk-group that forces its way into other cells, regardless of whether a user is logged in or not. It's not encrypted, never intended to be, and never advertised as such. It's just a place where units can go to talk from Blythe to Riverside (or where ever) without making an i-call.brandon wrote:On the subject of secure comms does RSO even have encryption capability? Heard them say channel 13 is, but appears to be clear voice and NOT encrypted. User-selectable or false sense of security?
Mastr III EDACS equipment is quite capable of encryption. Does RSO do it? How's the weather there? Kinda hot today, wasn't it. *whistling*
Re: Woah, anyone else just hear that?
Who would be responsible? The website hosting my scanner (scanamerica.us), or me?zz0468 wrote:One needs only to read some communications law, and see the mechanisms in place for levying some pretty hefty fines before pressure becomes compliance. It's not something to worry about, but it is something to be aware of, especially with the target of your feeds being aware of it. There are, apparently, dispatchers and deputies that are members of this board. Maybe they're ok with it, maybe not. One could argue that it's legal to monitor, therefore it's legal to webcast it. But that's not the way it works. The law clearly prohibits sharing or publishing what you hear. What's not so clear is whether you're allowed to listen. The ECPA of 1986 took care of some of that. Proliferation of webcasts of scanner feeds could well take care of the rest, if people aren't careful.brandon wrote:In the late 1990s/early 2000s someone used to stream Palm Springs PD and was pressured to take it down by the city. He complied and nothing else ever became of it. That is the only case I can remember where it was an issue. Seeing as there are thousands of scanner feeds online, I wouldn't worry too much.
Channel 13 is a cross county talk-group that forces its way into other cells, regardless of whether a user is logged in or not. It's not encrypted, never intended to be, and never advertised as such. It's just a place where units can go to talk from Blythe to Riverside (or where ever) without making an i-call.brandon wrote:On the subject of secure comms does RSO even have encryption capability? Heard them say channel 13 is, but appears to be clear voice and NOT encrypted. User-selectable or false sense of security?
Mastr III EDACS equipment is quite capable of encryption. Does RSO do it? How's the weather there? Kinda hot today, wasn't it. *whistling*
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."