Illegal Use of Scanner?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Captain Numpty - Your post represents a somewhat unprofessional attitude for a police officer which you claim to be.
Can you tell me where in the wireless telegraphy act it mentions anything about as you say:-
" Basically, it is NOT illegal to listen to transmissions, albeit it is an offence to act on any information that you might hear. i.e. attending the scene of crime etc...."
Airbubba's link on the previous page, to the UK radio regulatory authority page gives the Wireless telegraphy act clearly for all to see.
Neither I do not remember reading within that law anything related to accidental selection of any frequency and then listening to it. This must still therefore be regarded as an offence - even though I agree that the burden of proof would probably be too great even if a person were caught in such a circumstance. So a prosecution would not be possible.
Finally I refer to the case in question once more, where a person has heard (or claims to have heard) an ATC conversation. A story referring this sad event is given to the newspapers, which is incidentally at odds with the recorded ATC transmissions. This information is deeply upsetting for the bereaved family and those in agencies involved in the incident. This is just one of the reasons that the law exists as in most other reasons, to protect the public from people who will act this way upon information that they have no right to receive.
I do accept that people who have a genuine interest in aviation may wish to listen to ATC transmissions for purely their own purposes, this is as earlier stated quite harmless. Nevertheless it remains illegal.
[This message has been edited by fragul (edited 09 June 2001).]
[This message has been edited by fragul (edited 09 June 2001).]
Can you tell me where in the wireless telegraphy act it mentions anything about as you say:-
" Basically, it is NOT illegal to listen to transmissions, albeit it is an offence to act on any information that you might hear. i.e. attending the scene of crime etc...."
Airbubba's link on the previous page, to the UK radio regulatory authority page gives the Wireless telegraphy act clearly for all to see.
Neither I do not remember reading within that law anything related to accidental selection of any frequency and then listening to it. This must still therefore be regarded as an offence - even though I agree that the burden of proof would probably be too great even if a person were caught in such a circumstance. So a prosecution would not be possible.
Finally I refer to the case in question once more, where a person has heard (or claims to have heard) an ATC conversation. A story referring this sad event is given to the newspapers, which is incidentally at odds with the recorded ATC transmissions. This information is deeply upsetting for the bereaved family and those in agencies involved in the incident. This is just one of the reasons that the law exists as in most other reasons, to protect the public from people who will act this way upon information that they have no right to receive.
I do accept that people who have a genuine interest in aviation may wish to listen to ATC transmissions for purely their own purposes, this is as earlier stated quite harmless. Nevertheless it remains illegal.
[This message has been edited by fragul (edited 09 June 2001).]
[This message has been edited by fragul (edited 09 June 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Captain Numpty,
Thank you, glad to see someone who actually knows what they are talking about.You are the one at the sharp end, who knows the law through practice-as indeed I once did.Thought through the cobwebs I was right.
I for one appreciate the difference between someone who utilises and enforces the law on an everyday basis-and an anorak who thinks he knows the law.
[This message has been edited by mach78 (edited 09 June 2001).]
Thank you, glad to see someone who actually knows what they are talking about.You are the one at the sharp end, who knows the law through practice-as indeed I once did.Thought through the cobwebs I was right.
I for one appreciate the difference between someone who utilises and enforces the law on an everyday basis-and an anorak who thinks he knows the law.
[This message has been edited by mach78 (edited 09 June 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Mach 78,
Why cannot we discuss this without chucking in insults?
The act and advice from the RA are quite clearly worded. The practice of enforcement ie how the copper on the street or his bosses choose to attempt prosecution may well differ. When you could receive police transmissions on a domestic VHF receiver an odl lady listening in was probably quite safe, a scanner enthusaist these days may be. If they want to nick you they can. Interpretation will then be for the Court.
Airbanda-happy to be an anorak!
Why cannot we discuss this without chucking in insults?
The act and advice from the RA are quite clearly worded. The practice of enforcement ie how the copper on the street or his bosses choose to attempt prosecution may well differ. When you could receive police transmissions on a domestic VHF receiver an odl lady listening in was probably quite safe, a scanner enthusaist these days may be. If they want to nick you they can. Interpretation will then be for the Court.
Airbanda-happy to be an anorak!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Fragul, your point is noted....However, we shall, on this occasion have to agree to disagree.
However, I shall leave you with the following to consider....
If it is illegal to listen to information over the air via scanners....then why are scanners so readily and easily available from many electrical outlets, with Aviation/ Marine, Military and various other frequencies programmed in ???????
In the circumstances, I don't propose to enter into any further correspondence in respect of this matter, espcially given the tradgic events that started this original posting.
Furthermore, I am sorry if you consider my posting to be "unprofessional". Quite how you arrived at this remark is totally beyond me, after all I was only sharing my knowledge and EXPERIENCE in dealing with these matters, which with respect.....is probably more than you will ever do, unless you want to share your "personal experiences" of course!
In the final analysis. I certainly do not condone the actions of individual concerned. However, lets get things in perspective here Gentleman. What is now being discussed is an issue/ interpretation of the law. Whether we agree or not is a personal opinion, and in the circumstances, is of no practical relevance to this topic.
Afterall, isn't it illegal to do more than 70Mph on the Motorway?.....How many of us have broken that law?
Ok....enough handbags.
Cheers
C.N.
PS Fragul... I am not offended for the record.....As comments like yours are like water off a ducks back. Comes with the territory. Day in day out!
[This message has been edited by Captain Numpty (edited 09 June 2001).]
[This message has been edited by Captain Numpty (edited 09 June 2001).]
[This message has been edited by Captain Numpty (edited 09 June 2001).]
However, I shall leave you with the following to consider....
If it is illegal to listen to information over the air via scanners....then why are scanners so readily and easily available from many electrical outlets, with Aviation/ Marine, Military and various other frequencies programmed in ???????
In the circumstances, I don't propose to enter into any further correspondence in respect of this matter, espcially given the tradgic events that started this original posting.
Furthermore, I am sorry if you consider my posting to be "unprofessional". Quite how you arrived at this remark is totally beyond me, after all I was only sharing my knowledge and EXPERIENCE in dealing with these matters, which with respect.....is probably more than you will ever do, unless you want to share your "personal experiences" of course!
In the final analysis. I certainly do not condone the actions of individual concerned. However, lets get things in perspective here Gentleman. What is now being discussed is an issue/ interpretation of the law. Whether we agree or not is a personal opinion, and in the circumstances, is of no practical relevance to this topic.
Afterall, isn't it illegal to do more than 70Mph on the Motorway?.....How many of us have broken that law?
Ok....enough handbags.
Cheers
C.N.
PS Fragul... I am not offended for the record.....As comments like yours are like water off a ducks back. Comes with the territory. Day in day out!
[This message has been edited by Captain Numpty (edited 09 June 2001).]
[This message has been edited by Captain Numpty (edited 09 June 2001).]
[This message has been edited by Captain Numpty (edited 09 June 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Well glad we got that one cleared up.I don't think any police "secrets" have been given away either.
It's not the enthusiast the police are after, its the criminal who is listening in order to evade apprehension from serious crime.
Legislation such as quoted earlier-would not be given a second thought by such men.
It's not the enthusiast the police are after, its the criminal who is listening in order to evade apprehension from serious crime.
Legislation such as quoted earlier-would not be given a second thought by such men.
Guest
Posts: n/a
OK Captain Numpty - your points taken too -
As I said earlier I can't see any harm at all in enthuiasts use of scanners. Don't get me wrong.
I did not intend to offend you personally either - I was just surprised at your tacit approval of what appears to be illegal in your postion.
Agreed we let this topic rest in peace along with the deceased.
My only relevant experience was to have been the last person to speak to him - as Aerodrome controller on the fateful day.
As I said earlier I can't see any harm at all in enthuiasts use of scanners. Don't get me wrong.
I did not intend to offend you personally either - I was just surprised at your tacit approval of what appears to be illegal in your postion.
Agreed we let this topic rest in peace along with the deceased.
My only relevant experience was to have been the last person to speak to him - as Aerodrome controller on the fateful day.
