Posted by The Big O on July 17, 2001 at 19:23:45:
In Reply to: Re: discussion reminder posted by Dennis Eckert KB7ST on July 17, 2001 at 15:25:22:
This is also quite a bid of case law stating that monitoring and talking about law enforcement comm. serves an important public function.
This reply is probably gonna set up a long thread. I wanted to reply to your private e-mail address but you didn't give it. So, here's the short version...
: The various Radio Acts of Congress (before the FCC was formed) had no language in them forbidding anyone from intercepting radio comms and also disclosing them (in print, by word of mouth, etc). It apparently never occurred to the Congress back then that this would happen.
: As radio usage became more widespread, businesses started complaining to their congressmen that competitors were making usage of radio comms (especially intercepting overseas radio cables) to gain competitive advantage. In 1934, while creating the FCC and the new Communications Act of 1934, Congress responded to the complaints and enacted a section (think it is called Section 605 or 602...but my copy of the law isn't handy). Altho the language doesn't specifically spell out what I'm about to say next, minutes of the Congressional conference committee (a committee of the House and Senate) plus court decisions since 1934 have made it clear there are two types of communications. (1) Communications in clear voice on systems paid for with taxpayer dollars are not subject to the 1934 restrictions on listening and disclosing information. But (2) communications "in the clear" on systems not paid for with taxpayer dollars (businesses, etc) are protected. This is why part of the language in Section 605 of the 1934 Act mentions that one of the "tests" for a law violation is whether the person intercepting and disclosing got a "personal gain." Just one of the reasons you don't see police departments suing various Internet sites who re-broadcast police comms.
: For a much longer version, Bob Grove Enterprises sells a well-researched book about this whole issue so I've just given the short version.
: http://www.grove-ent.com/
: : it is not legal to discuss the contents of police radio transmissions..that is all..