mason@tmsoft.uucp (Dave Mason) (05/13/89)
In article <1989May8.152034.14415@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> sarathy@gpu.utcs.UUCP (Rajiv Sarathy) writes: >Relevant laws? The Radio Act (I think that's what it's called) says that all >frequencies are the Queen's property, and she grants you free access to certain >(radio, television, wireless telephone) frequencies only. You must apply to >receive ANY other frequency. Thus ALL scanners (the ones which can receive >police, ambulance, etc.) signals are illegal, as are radar detectors. You must >also apply for transmitting at ANY frequency (including radio and television). I'm not a HAM operator (and I may be suffering from confusion between US & Canadian law), but my understanding was that one is perfectly within their rights to RECEIVE *any* radio transmission, as long as they don't use it for personal or commercial gain (however THAT's defined :-), or for criminal purposes (which would include speeding I presume). All the government controls is the right to TRANSMIT radio frequencies. ../Dave
davecb@yunexus.UUCP (David Collier-Brown) (05/13/89)
| In article <1989May8.152034.14415@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> sarathy@gpu.utcs.UUCP (Rajiv Sarathy) writes: | Relevant laws? The Radio Act (I think that's what it's called) says that all | frequencies are the Queen's property, and she grants you free access to certain | (radio, television, wireless telephone) frequencies only. You must apply to | receive ANY other frequency. Thus ALL scanners (the ones which can receive | police, ambulance, etc.) signals are illegal, as are radar detectors. You must | also apply for transmitting at ANY frequency (including radio and television). In article <1989May12.222759.17490@tmsoft.uucp> mason@tmsoft.UUCP (Dave Mason) writes: | I'm not a HAM operator (and I may be suffering from confusion between | US & Canadian law), but my understanding was that one is perfectly | within their rights to RECEIVE *any* radio transmission, as long as they | don't use it for personal or commercial gain (however THAT's defined :-), | or for criminal purposes (which would include speeding I presume). | All the government controls is the right to TRANSMIT radio frequencies. We'll probably have to check with a real lawyer (david, are you listening?), but in my ham radio days we were taught that radio frequencies could be listened to by anyone, but that transmission was controlled by treaty between national governments. I hazily remember that someone was unsucessfully prosecuted in Hamilton for listening to the **new, high-tech** police radios, on the grounds that they were "intercepting" police communications. The court ruled that they could listen as long as they did not transmit, thereby breaking the treaty on use of frequencies as well as the law on interception. --dave
landolt@yunexus.UUCP (Paul Landolt) (05/15/89)
In article <1989May12.222759.17490@tmsoft.uucp> mason@tmsoft.UUCP (Dave Mason) writes: >... my understanding was that one is perfectly >within their rights to RECEIVE *any* radio transmission, as long as they >don't use it for personal or commercial gain (however THAT's defined :-), >or for criminal purposes (which would include speeding I presume). >All the government controls is the right to TRANSMIT radio frequencies. From what I remember, dave, the Govt controls tranmssion AND reception of frequencies. There are certain frequencies which are illigal to intercept (even if they may be decoded), and it is _definitely_ illegal to decode a signal if you have not been authorised to do so. If you ever want to get some strange looks, listen in on the police/fire bands for when a 2+ alarm fire breaks out, then show up with the marshmallows. -- Really: J. Paul Landolt | Some of us are born unto greatness, INTERNET: LANDOLT@Nexus.YorkU.CA | Others see no problem with swiping it! "The opinions expressed are mine. Don't blame the boss. She only hired me"