That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.Chaotic_Warlord wrote:scanners are not illegal unless you are using them while committing a crime.
I drive an extensive lenth of the I95 each monday and friday.dusred wrote:Are you retarded? LOL! The speedlimit has nothing to do with scanners. . . unless of course you live in a place where people will call you in for speeding.
I've had a scanner for a long time. It's OK to know what's going on. Our cops have some sort of a private radio system that they use so that they can't be heard on the scanner.
Always trying to pick a fight...Dattebayo wrote:That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.
The actual law as written can be found here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/usc....html You want part 2511http://www.police-scanner.info/scanning/police-scanner-laws.htm wrote:
The bottom line:
*It is illegal to listen in on cellular and cordless phone calls. *It is illegal to intercept encrypted or scrambled communications. *It is illegal for scanner manufacturers to sell or import radio scanners that are capable of receiving cellular phone frequencies. (Note: This rule does not apply to sales by individuals and radio scanners made before 1985). *It is illegal to modify radio scanners so that cellular phone frequencies can be received. *It is illegal to use information you hear for personal gain. A common example is where a taxi driver listens to a competitor's dispatch channel for fare pick-ups and then races over and picks-up the fares. *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.
§ 2511. Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited (e)(i) intentionally discloses, or endeavors to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, intercepted by means authorized by sections 2511 (2)(a)(ii), 2511 (2)(b)–(c), 2511(2)(e), 2516, and 2518 of this chapter,(ii) knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of such a communication in connection with a criminal investigation,(iii) having obtained or received the information in connection with a criminal investigation, and(iv) with intent to improperly obstruct, impede, or interfere with a duly authorized criminal investigation.uscode/18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_119 wrote:
(g) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter or chapter 121 of this title for any person—(i) to intercept or access an electronic communication made through an electronic communication system that is configured so that such electronic communication is readily accessible to the general public;(ii) to intercept any radio communication which is transmitted—(I) by any station for the use of the general public, or that relates to ships, aircraft, vehicles, or persons in distress;(II) by any governmental, law enforcement, civil defense, private land mobile, or public safety communications system, including police and fire, readily accessible to the general public;(III) by a station operating on an authorized frequency within the bands allocated to the amateur, citizens band, or general mobile radio services; or(IV) by any marine or aeronautical communications system;(iii) to engage in any conduct which—(I) is prohibited by section 633 of the Communications Act of 1934; or(II) is excepted from the application of section 705(a) of the Communications Act of 1934 by section 705(b) of that Act;(iv) to intercept any wire or electronic communication the transmission of which is causing harmful interference to any lawfully operating station or consumer electronic equipment, to the extent necessary to identify the source of such interference; or(v) for other users of the same frequency to intercept any radio communication made through a system that utilizes frequencies monitored by individuals engaged in the provision or the use of such system, if such communication is not scrambled or encrypted.
Always quick to assume...Chaotic_Warlord wrote:Always trying to pick a fight...
http://www.police-scanner.info...s.htm
I didn't take it as a personal challenge, you just have a knack of voicing your opinion in a way that comes across as personal affront towards whoever it is that you are quoting when you make statements. The interwebz cannot properly convey sarcasm or the direction of sarcastic comments.Dattebayo wrote: Always quick to assume...
Did you make the law? Then why would you take it as a personal challenge?
So maybe next time you won't blow up when you *think* something is being said a certain way.Chaotic_Warlord wrote:The interwebz cannot properly convey sarcasm or the direction of sarcastic comments.
Where...NICO? Nhoooo.Chaotic_Warlord wrote:Didn't blow up, just wanted to put any debates on the legality of scanners to bed before anything got out of hand, you just happened to be the first person to come in and make an inflammatory statement. I'm sure at some point or another someone else (Redcoupe, Charleo, PMQ ect...) would have come in and pull something far more inflammatory out of their a** that would have really pissed me off and derail the whole point of this thread.
WRONG.krash wrote:It is illegal to disclose information you hear to other persons.
Thanks for keeping me in mindChaotic_Warlord wrote: I'm sure at some point or another someone else (Redcoupe, Charleo, PMQ ect...) would have come in and pull something far more inflammatory out of their a** that would have really pissed me off and derail the whole point of this thread.
oooh ok haha, I wasn't saying that. I posted something I heard and then read the next post where it said, "It is illegal to disclose information you hear to other persons." So I got scared and ran away.ADDirishboy wrote:
WRONG.
As long as you're not using that info for personal gain, and you don't disclose names of people involved, you can say whatever the hell you want.
Ha, in NJ wearing a bullet proof vest is illegal only if you are committing murder with one on.Dattebayo wrote:That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.
You probably found an old scanner that was either a 500Mhz model or was not capable of trunk hopping. Most if not all communications are on the 900Mhz band with the exception of some small towns and systems that don't use radios much. Also keep in mind that most of the scanners available now are capable of double and triple trunking and can pick up a wide band range. You have to be careful with any of the higher end modern scanners as they are more than capable of getting you in trouble if you know how to work them. Keep in mind that most cordless phones used to operate @ 900 Mhz (they are now in the 1-2Ghz range) and getting one that is capable of double and triple trunking will pick up frequencies and channels that you really aren't allowed to listen to (FAA,Military,Federal channels). Airport chatter is usually pretty active (at least for mega airports i.e. JFK, Dulles, LAX)as are most multi purpose radio systems in larger cities (systems that carry Police,Fire,EMS,and EOC).bcar240 wrote:Last year I found a scanner in our design lab that I guess was part of someone's radio communications project. I played with it a lot and found all sorts of channels. Police, EMT, hospital, campus janitorial services, air traffic control, etc. I learned that most of them are pretty quiet a lot of the time, makes them hard to find.