Could you elaborate on your position of legality.
Do you have a statement from Industry Canada?
Perhaps you do. That would be interesting.

My interpretation of:

"Except as prescribed, no person shall intercept and make use of, or
intercept and divulge, any radiocommunication, except as permitted by
the originator of the communication or the person intended by the
originator of the communication to receive it."

is that you are 'intercepting' and 'making use of'.

On 14 Jul 2004 14:43:28 -0700, (Micro) wrote:

Update:
It is infact legal to broadcast the conversations in Canada. The
people that e-mailed me were mistaken.

I guess I got worried about nothing.

So the SCANNER IS BACK UP. ENJOY.

- Jon
http://waterlooscanner.zapto.org

--
The letter 'Q' has been added to my otherwise valid email address for spam protection.
To email me please remove the 'Q'.

Jesus, who cares? If this guy wants to do something let him do it.

Does everyone in the newsgroups have to be a crybaby tattle tale?

"Oh no! He's doing something that MIGHT be illegal!!!!"

"Dave Holford" wrote in message
...

Micro wrote:

Update:
It is infact legal to broadcast the conversations in Canada. The
people that e-mailed me were mistaken.

I guess I got worried about nothing.

So the SCANNER IS BACK UP. ENJOY.

- Jon
http://waterlooscanner.zapto.org




I'd really be interested in your source for that since it appears to be
in clear violation of several sections of the Criminal Code of Canada.
As I'm sure you are aware there is very serious legislation regarding
all aspects of personal privacy in Canada.

You might also check what happened to the last guy in Ontario that set
up a scanner broadcast - it did get a certain amount of coverage on the
National media for the short time it survived.

I also used to believe it was legal to listen, until the privacy
provisions of the CCC were pointed out to me.

Curiously,
Dave

I am not making use of nor divulging any information.

Do you have a link or something to what you're talking about? This
last guy? I heard about one in Ottawa broadcasting cell phones, which
was apparently legal but I don't know.

"Charlie" wrote in message news:8YzJc.97987$Oq2.51347@attbi_s52...
Jesus, who cares? If this guy wants to do something let him do it.

Does everyone in the newsgroups have to be a crybaby tattle tale?

"Oh no! He's doing something that MIGHT be illegal!!!!"

"Dave Holford" wrote in message
...

Micro wrote:

Update:
It is infact legal to broadcast the conversations in Canada. The
people that e-mailed me were mistaken.

I guess I got worried about nothing.

So the SCANNER IS BACK UP. ENJOY.

- Jon
http://waterlooscanner.zapto.org




I'd really be interested in your source for that since it appears to be
in clear violation of several sections of the Criminal Code of Canada.
As I'm sure you are aware there is very serious legislation regarding
all aspects of personal privacy in Canada.

You might also check what happened to the last guy in Ontario that set
up a scanner broadcast - it did get a certain amount of coverage on the
National media for the short time it survived.

I also used to believe it was legal to listen, until the privacy
provisions of the CCC were pointed out to me.

Curiously,
Dave

"...intended..."

Here in the US, if you have a small amount of a controlled substance,
they assume you "intend" to sell. Well, if you are transmitting a
radio signal across the county and radiating it through my body, I
assume you "intend" for me to receive it.

Amazing how the powers that be interpret things for their own benefit.

I know we (in the US) are prohibited from all kinds of listening and
rebroadcasting. How do you spell G-e-s-t-a-p-o?

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 11:32:39 -0400, Al
wrote:

Could you elaborate on your position of legality.
Do you have a statement from Industry Canada?
Perhaps you do. That would be interesting.

My interpretation of:

"Except as prescribed, no person shall intercept and make use of, or
intercept and divulge, any radiocommunication, except as permitted by
the originator of the communication or the person intended by the
originator of the communication to receive it."

is that you are 'intercepting' and 'making use of'.

On 14 Jul 2004 14:43:28 -0700, (Micro) wrote:

Update:
It is infact legal to broadcast the conversations in Canada. The
people that e-mailed me were mistaken.

I guess I got worried about nothing.

So the SCANNER IS BACK UP. ENJOY.

- Jon
http://waterlooscanner.zapto.org

Spammers, please send email to:

and get your SMTP server blacklisted!

Micro wrote:

I am not making use of nor divulging any information.

Do you have a link or something to what you're talking about? This
last guy? I heard about one in Ottawa broadcasting cell phones, which
was apparently legal but I don't know.


I don't know what happened to him, I just know that the site suddenly
vanished once the media heard about it.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

THE CANADIAN FEDERAL CRIMINAL CODE
(Like all legal documents it is far too extensive to fully quote in an
e-mail; these are just basics. I suggest you might spend a little time
and read the sections on privacy, which is where the interception of
private radio communications offences are detailed - it is available in
libraries or on line.
Note that this is the Criminal Code, not Radio Regulations and that
there are no exemptions for encrypted communications).



Section 184 (1) Everyone who, by means of any electro-magnetic,
acoustic, mechanical or other device, wilfully intercepts a private
communication is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to
imprisonment
for a term not exceeding five years.

Section 193 (1) provides for a two year sentence for disclosing the
content,
or even the existence, of an intercepted communication.

Section 193.1 (1) specifically applies the above to radio-based
telephone
communications.

Section 194.1 (1) permits a court to order payment of up to five
thousand
dollars as punitive damages to a person whose communications were
intercepted.

This law has been in effect for more than 20 years.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

I was surprised when this was bought to my attention a few years back,
and just thought you should be aware of it since you ask on your web
page for comments about legality - I'll leave your request for comments
on morality to others.

Dave

Too obvious. Even trolls spell better than that.


Too obvious. Even trolls spell better than that.

I don't think he's a troll. His email address shows that he's using webtv.

webtv has a habit of dropping many individual alphabetical letters from the
posts after it's sent even though they were there when sent.

I know because I used to use web tv and it frequently happened to me when I
used to use it.

But it pretty much hasn't happened to me at all whenever I used computers to
post with.

i can here

that is the only misspelled word in his post "here" instead of "hear".

Everything else that is incomprehensible to you in his post isn't misspelled,
but simply has a bunch of missing letters.

I HIGHLY suspect the webtv browser (or service) is at fault there.

I've learnt to read webtv's incomprehensible posts after it happened to me
several times when I used to post from there.