Interesting UDXF thread on the legality of monitoring radio transmissions

[Fansome]

[UDXF] Legality of publishing the logs‏
From:    udxf@yahoogroups.com on behalf of vbifyz (3ym3ym@gmail.com)
Sent:    Mon 7/12/10 12:34 AM
To:    UDXF@yahoogroups.com

I guess in most developed world jurisdictions one can listen to everything that crosses the air around him (except satellite TV, cellphone frequencies, etc, etc, but let's talk about HF).
But what about telling others what he was able to hear?
 
 
Re: [UDXF] Legality of publishing the logs‏
From:    udxf@yahoogroups.com on behalf of Hans-Christian Becker (hanscbecker@gmail.com)
Sent:    Mon 7/12/10 3:48 AM
To:    UDXF@yahoogroups.com

Hi,
 
On Jul 12, 2010, at 6:29 AM, vbifyz wrote:
 
> I guess in most developed world jurisdictions one can listen to everything that crosses the air around him (except satellite TV, cellphone frequencies, etc, etc, but let's talk about HF).
> But what about telling others what he was able to hear?
 
AFAIK telling _that_ you heard something is fine, but I am not sure it is OK to divulge the _content_ of the transmission, though. On the other hand, I don't think the kind of traffic reports sent on this list are close to any practical legal limit.
Hans SM7TLH KG6POK


Re: [UDXF] Legality of publishing the logs‏
From:    udxf@yahoogroups.com on behalf of Jim (jim@sideband.bbmax.co.uk)
Sent:    Mon 7/12/10 6:46 AM
To:    UDXF@yahoogroups.com

At 04:29 12.7.10, an anonymous poster wrote:
 
>I guess in most developed world jurisdictions one can listen to everything that
>crosses the air around him (except satellite TV, cellphone frequencies, etc, etc,
 
   Not so. In our backward country it is illegal to LISTEN to anything that
isn't entertainment-broadcast or amateur; it's even illegal to listen to
CB and PMR-446 (assuming that anyone would want to). Airband listening is also
prohibited, which is probably why you won't find any (open) airband audio streamed
to the Internet from servers within the UK.
 
>but let's talk about HF).
 
>But what about telling others what he was able to hear?
 
   The UK's law forbids both listening and disclosing what is heard.
 
--
 
73 de Jim,
(MPJ)


[UDXF] Re: Legality of publishing the logs‏
From:    udxf@yahoogroups.com on behalf of n0sya (n0sya@yahoo.com)
Sent:    Mon 7/12/10 9:56 AM
To:    UDXF@yahoogroups.com

ECPA in the USA:
 
It is illegal to use information you hear for personal gain.
 
It is illegal to use information you hear to aid in the commission of a crime.
 
It is illegal to disclose information you hear to other persons.
 
=============================================
 
This last one is the one of interest.
 
Is it in reference to all that was heard?
 
What if we just report who talked to who without quoting?
 
ECPA:
http://floridalawfirm.com/privacy.html
 
So that is what is on paper, but what about the real world?
 
If Monitoring Times has published and distributed hf ute logs for decades now without legal action, I doubt if swl hobbyists will get in trouble. They have had Bob Grove testify before congress before, but he made it out of there just fine. Just as long as you don't record the congressman or senator pandering to the little boy on your scanner and try to sell it to the local fox network, you may be ok, but then again I am not a lawyer.
 
What was it Shakespear said re lawyers?
 
 
Chris


Re: [UDXF] Re: Legality of publishing the logs‏
From:    udxf@yahoogroups.com on behalf of Eric Earl (eearle52@comcast.net)
Sent:    Mon 7/12/10 10:49 AM
To:    UDXF@yahoogroups.com

A further comment to all:  "Discretion is the better part of valour"
 
Best Wishes and DX.
 
Eric// KG4OZO// Atlanta.
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From: "n0sya" <n0sya@yahoo.com>
To: <UDXF@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 12 July, 2010 09:56
Subject: [UDXF] Re: Legality of publishing the logs
 
 
> ECPA in the USA:
>
> It is illegal to use information you hear for personal gain.
>
> It is illegal to use information you hear to aid in the commission of a
> crime.
>
> It is illegal to disclose information you hear to other persons.
>
> =============================================
>
> This last one is the one of interest.
>
> Is it in reference to all that was heard?
>
> What if we just report who talked to who without quoting?
>
> ECPA:
> http://floridalawfirm.com/privacy.html
>
> So that is what is on paper, but what about the real world?
>
> If Monitoring Times has published and distributed hf ute logs for decades
> now without legal action, I doubt if swl hobbyists will get in trouble.
> They have had Bob Grove testify before congress before, but he made it out
> of there just fine. Just as long as you don't record the congressman or
> senator pandering to the little boy on your scanner and try to sell it to
> the local fox network, you may be ok, but then again I am not a lawyer.
>
> What was it Shakespear said re lawyers?
>
>
> Chris

[Fansome]

Re: [UDXF] Re: Legality of publishing the logs‏
From:    udxf@yahoogroups.com on behalf of Gary Hagermann (whitewolf4992000@yahoo.com)
Sent:    Mon 7/19/10 11:50 AM
To:    UDXF@yahoogroups.com

Good Afternoon Guys, I read of a case on an American web site, which charts the
history of radio  in the USA in particular. The case was quoted where a US
newspaper ( I believe "San Francisco Chronicle"), circa 1920s,  sued the radio
officers, or more correctly the Marconi company which employed them, for logging
and printing out for the passengers on the ships on which they were serving, the
contents of the news cables whcih were, at that time, sent via Morse code over
the air..At trial, it was held by the judge that what was (quote) "Free to air"
was liable to interception. I do not know if the current events whioch shape our
world have altered this. It obviously varies from nation to nation. Personally,
as a former soldier (British Army) and police officer, I am loatthe to publish
logs of either Britain or the USA which would possibly help others not well
disposed to our nations. I am amazed at the amount of information on the
internet divulging frequencies, logs, etc. I am sorry if this makes me a
"saddo", but old habits and all that! Having said all this, I see no legal
breach in what I and other colleagues do. I picked up radio /wireless at about 9
or 10, and still cant put it down. (Thank God for minituarisation, 'cos at 63
years of age, these sets are bloody heavy!!!!) 73 de Gary
 
 
 
 
________________________________
From: vbifyz <3ym3ym@gmail.com>
To: UDXF@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, July 13, 2010 12:35:44 AM
Subject: [UDXF] Re: Legality of publishing the logs
 
 
The situation is changing, with capabilities that were only available to
3-letter agencies now within reach of a hobbyist if he spends a few hundred
bucks. With a few SDRs (like a $60 Softrock) and a 5-year old junk computer it
is possible to scan the entire HF for new signals every few minutes and log the
results in a semi-automated fashion. Some human post-processing is still
required, and this is the only bottleneck. It can be crowdsourced, like
thousands of people are now pouring over Mars images to help astronomers.
 
Looks like posting a few loggings every now and then seems to be an established
practice nobody cares about. What about things like 24/7 monitoring of all ALE
activity around the globe, maybe with a live Internet feed? Can this list grow
1,2,3 orders of magnitude and remain open?
 
I guess we will learn only if we try
 
> These things pop up every now & then & I usually just ignore them,
> however, the real question is why would somebody be subscribed to this
> list, then question whether it's legal to post anything? It just seems
> odd to me........

[Fansome]

Re: [UDXF] Re: Legality of publishing the logs‏
From:    udxf@yahoogroups.com on behalf of Jim (jim@sideband.bbmax.co.uk)
Sent:    Mon 7/19/10 2:38 PM
To:    UDXF@yahoogroups.com

At 15:50 19/07/10, an anonymous poster wrote:
 
>... Having said all this, I see no legal breach in what I and other colleagues do.
>I picked up radio /wireless at about 9 or 10, and still cant put it down ...
 
   If you live in the UK, then simply to listen to a communication, whether you publish
or not is in breach of of at least two different Wireless Telegraphy Acts as well as
The Interception of Communications Act 1985 and the infamous Regulation of Investigatory
Powers Act 2000.
 
--
73 de Jim,
(MPJ)