On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 23:04:45 -0400, Cyrus Afzali wrote:

You're talking about two completely different things. Using
information that's sent over public airwaves for any kind of personal
gain that includes an illegal activity is obviously illegal. That is
what is meant by personal gain.

That's only ONE of the actions which constitute "personal gain".
There are others.

Monitoring the conversations for the sake of your own recreation or
information is absolutely, positively NOT illegal. If that were so, it
would be illegal to sell scanners in the U.S. and it's absolutely,
positively not.

Stand by - it may become such. See my penultimate paragraph below.

Please note that police transmissions are NOT "broadcasts to
the public" but are rather two-way communications. Unless the
law has changed drastically since my youth, it is in fact, in
the US, illegal to disclose the content of monitored transmissions
unless they are intended for public use.

Again, you're very, very confused. Disclosing for personal gain is
obviously not legal. But it's absolutely false to say that you cannot
monitor two-way radio conversations. Police departments themselves
have long given the public not only the frequencies they use for
communication, but the accompanying "10 code" sheets that explain what
the various 10-XX codes are.

You are the one who is confused - you are missing the point very
widely and giving people bad information.

The (Federal) Communications Act (47 U.S.C. s. 605) is very clear on
this point - contents of monitored transmissions (except AM/FM/TV
broadcast, aviation and marine traffic, and amateur and CB radio
communications) MAY NOT BE DIVULGED to anyone except to the sender
or recipient without permission of the sender or to another
communications carrier or pursuant to a court order. Period. No
wiggle room.

Do not confuse this with the provisions of the above section which
deal with "using for gain" or with the provisions of the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act (18 U.S.C. s. 2511) which allow the mere
monitoring of such communications as long as they are not encrypted
for security.

In the case of police transmissions being quoted by the press, the
former has given the latter such permission.

That's the way the law is today.

We pros in the field are quietly shuddering at the possibility that
it may become a lot stricter in regard to who may monitor non-broadcast,
non-marine/aviation, non-amateur/CB radio transmissions in the name
of "domestic security" as most foreign countries do, democratic or
not. One does not wander around a railyard today with a camera and
scanner without prior permission if one is smart...

Yes, I am a lawyer and this is the specific area of expertise of my
law practice. Further questions?

--
=== Stand Clear of the Closing Doors, Please ===

Phil Kane -- Beaverton, Oregon
PNW Milepost 754 -- Tillamook District