[Scan-DC] 15$ editorial

Wed, 16 Jul 2003 12:06:18 -0400

AND I CAN'T STRESS THIS ENOUGH, I AM SORRY FOR MY TACKY BEHAVIOR LAST NIGHT.
I SHOULD NOT BE CAPITALIZING OFF OF SOMEONE ELSE'S MISERY.  NOT ONLY THAT, I
SHOULD HAVE REALIZED THAT IN A WAY I WAS COMPROMISING THE SCANNER HOBBY.
PLEASE FORGIVE ME.  I DON'T WANT TO BE HATED IN THIS ONLINE FORUM.  I HAVE
BEEN A FREQUENT POSTER HERE FOR OVER A YEAR.  PLEASE FORGIVE ME.

ON ANOTHER NOTE, I THINK WE ALL ARE CONTINUING TO SHOOT OURSELVES IN THE
FOOT BY DISCUSSING WHAT I DID.  THAT REPORTER, AND OTHERS, COULD SEE THIS
FIRESTORM THAT I'VE CREATED, AND DECIDE TO FOLLOW UP ON IT WITH ANOTHER
ARTICLE.

I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE A GENTLEMAN'S AGREEMENT TO STOP DISCUSSING THIS
MATTER.  IT IS DONE, AND IT IS HISTORY.  FROM THIS MOMENT FORWARD, WE SHOULD
CONTINUE NORMAL POSTINGS REGARDING SCANNER STUFF.

IT IS CLEAR HOWEVER, THAT THERE ARE "THREATS" IN THIS GROUP.  YES, SOME OF
YOU WOULD POINT AT ME BECAUSE OF WHAT I DID.  THAT'S UNDERSTANDABLE.  BUT I
AM REFERING TO REPORTERS WHO BELONG TO THIS GROUP, NEVER POST, AND WHEN
SOMETHING LIKE WHAT I DID YESTERDAY HAPPENS, USE IT AGAINST US.

BELIEVE ME, I HAVE LEARNED MY LESSON.  BUT LET'S MOVE ON.

AND IF SOME OF YOU STILL WANT TO YELL AT ME, WHICH IS TOTALLY
UNDERSTANDABLE, PLEASE DO IT OFF THE LIST SO THAT THINGS CAN "COOL DOWN" A
BIT.

-BILL

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Jack Anderson
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 11:37 AM
To: Scan DC
Subject: RE: [Scan-DC] 15$ editorial

I think the bigger concern is one of perceptions. Legally we can monitor to
almost anything we want to, with a few well known exceptions. Abusing this
right is risky - not so much in terms of being prosecuted for possible
violations, as Alan points out, but in terms of adding fuel to the "encrypt
everything" fire.

I think we have to be just a little bit careful about saying and doing
things that give the hobby a bad name.

The pursuit itself was fascinating to listen to. I was out picking up
carryout and drove to the Big Hill in Tysons. I parked next to Golfdom
(about a mile from my house), and I was able to easily receive the AACO
trunked system, which I can't get at home, and of course, stations that are
normally weak at my house were easier to receive. I tracked it as it came
back around I-695 from I-70 in Baltimore, then down I-95 to I-495, then US50
to PG, then to AACO and the Bay Bridge on AACO PD talkgroups, then back to
the point at the AACO/PG line where the car was finally stopped. I think all
the departments involved (especially Maryland State Police) did an excellent
job of managing the pursuit and keeping the kids safe.

I found the comments about the importance of OnStar interesting. It seemed
that there were at least two law enforcement helicopters with the vehicle
for the entire duration of the event. Perhaps OnStar helped departments not
involved in the pursuit track the location and prepare in case it crossed
into their jurisdiction.

By the way, dinner was a little bit late getting back to the house!

Jack

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Alan Henney
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 2:11 PM
To: Scan DC
Subject: [Scan-DC] 15$ editorial

In defense of our scanner colleagues who record and disseminate recordings,
I would like to make a few points.  I am concerned that as a hobby, we
continue to paint ourselves into a corner, based on a conservative
interpretation of the law.

The public airwaves are public!  As we all know, it is not unusual to hear
privately made recordings of scanner traffic aired by broadcasters (Sept. 11
is a prime example).  There are numerous interpretations of the intention of
the 1934 Communications Act when it comes to divulging radio communication.
A couple court cases suggest that the section of the act regarding divulging
was intended for radio common carriers and their employees who overhear
customer conversations.

To tell people what they can and cannot repeat is a prior restraint.  I am
not aware of any case where a scanner listener was prosecuted for passing
along audio recordings of public safety scanner traffic.  Can anybody think
of one?  In fact, I am aware of at least one case where federal agents were
allowed to use in court radio recordings of a business channel which were
recorded without a warrant.

Such radio communication is readily available to the general public.  We
have already allowed legislators to define cellular, PCS and similar
personal communication as not accessible, although some of it is not.  Let's
not concede any more than we have to when it comes to our rights to openly
communicate and disseminate what we hear in what's supposed to be a free and
open society.

Alan

_______________________________________________
Scan-DC mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/scan-dc

_______________________________________________
Scan-DC mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/scan-dc