(I believe that it is illegal to repeat any content heard on radio
other than on broadcast and ham radio.)

http://www.nynewsday.com/news/local/...-ny-columnists

IN THE SUBWAYS

Straphangers flex their muscles
Ray Sanchez

August 1, 2005

Little trace remains of the early-morning mutiny on a conductorless L
train in Brooklyn.

Still, the rebellion is noteworthy as the Metropolitan Transportation
Authority moves ahead with plans to eliminate more than 300 conductors
on four subway lines in coming years.

The tale of mutinous MetroCard holders was recounted by Jon Schachter,
a Manhattan resident and longtime subway activist, who deciphered it
from transit radio frequencies.

It starts sometime after 2:30 a.m. on July 10, in the tension-filled
days after the first terrorist bombings in the London Underground.
Schachter was riding the L beneath the East Village, listening, as he
always does on the train, to his portable scanner.

"There was a Manhattan-bound train and transit control center says,
'Hold at Lorimer with your doors open,'" Schachter recalled.

That would be Lorimer Street station in Brooklyn. It was unclear what
the trouble was. Maybe signal problems. There was a track gang working
on the line beneath Sixth Avenue in Manhattan, Schachter said.

"They held the train at Lorimer for a while before they said, 'Proceed
to Bedford and discharge the train,'" he said.

The lone motorman took his eight-car train to Bedford Avenue, the last
stop in Brooklyn before the train enters Manhattan via a tube under
the East River. One-person train operation, a money-saving measure
known as OPTO, was introduced on the L last month - on nights and
weekends, for now.

The controversial move counters the transit agency's supposed focus on
security in the wake of terrorist bombings on trains in London and
Madrid. The MTA plans to eliminate the positions of 313 train
conductors on four subway lines, starting in 2007, according to a
published report.

"The train proceeds to Bedford Avenue and, of course, there's only one
person on the train," said Schachter, referring to the train operator.
At that hour, people leaving clubs and restaurants along Bedford flock
to the subway.

"He calls back on his radio and says people won't get off the train,"
Schachter continued. "This guy has eight cars of people to discharge
by himself. They called police and it was almost three in the morning
and the police never showed."

Frustration on the L line had been running high for months. The MTA
hopes to run its first automated trains on the line. Service
disruptions have been frequent as the line's antiquated signal system
is replaced.

Schachter believes riders at Bedford Avenue that morning had had
enough.

"There were too many people," he said. "They said, 'No, we're not
getting off. We're not taking this crap. We want to get home.'"

A New York City Transit spokesman, Charles Seaton, said there was no
record of the incident. But this was not a denial. "It means we can't
find a record of it," he said.

"I'm sure he was sound asleep at the time," Schachter said of the
transit spokesman.

A police spokesman yesterday said the incident would likely go
unreported by cops. "There was no crime committed," he said.

So Schachter's recollection of radio transmissions is the hardest
information available on the mutinous L line riders.

"Finally, somebody at the control center said, 'I have a solution,
call me on the phone,'" he said. "Moments later you hear the
announcement, 'OK, we're going to send this train and the next one
into Manhattan.' They let the train roll because people would not get
off."

"I know that occasionally there are mutinies, but I didn't hear the
details of that particular one," said Andrew Albert, a nonvoting
member of the MTA board who represents riders.

Last week, London's largest transit union threatened to strike if rail
guards were not reinstated on all tube trains. Rail guards, as
London's conductors are known, were eliminated decades ago.

A motorman on the L line yesterday said passenger mutinies are not
uncommon.

"People get fed up," he said. "If they don't sense that it's a
dangerous situation, they're not going to get off your train."

He added, "From our point of view, it's only a matter of time before
the New York subway is attacked. When it happens, I hope I have a
conductor on my train."

Copyright © 2005, Newsday, Inc.

So then I can call a friend up and tell them that I just heard on the
scanner that the cops are coming to raid his house? Cool...



"Cyrus Afzali" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 13:11:30 GMT, Joel Rubin
wrote:

(I believe that it is illegal to repeat any content heard on radio
other than on broadcast and ham radio.)

No it's not. As long as someone receives a radio transmission through
a legal device, what's said on it is totally open to the public.
Surely you've seen cases where the transcripts and/or tapes from
police departments and other emergency operators has been made public.
What IS illegal is modifying a device to receive cellular phone calls
or other private transmissions between private individuals. I don't
even think it's that easy to modify scanners to do that these days.
But back before everything was digital, it was fairly simple if you
were comfortable with making your own modifications.


http://www.nynewsday.com/news/local/...aug01,0,205702
4.column?coll=ny-ny-columnists

IN THE SUBWAYS

Straphangers flex their muscles
Ray Sanchez

"Jim Hackett" wrote in message
ink.net...
So then I can call a friend up and tell them that I just heard on the
scanner that the cops are coming to raid his house? Cool...



Not being a lawyer, I can't say. I would "Guess" that if you did that, and
they could prove you did, like his phone was tapped and they heard you do
it, or you were stupid enough to admit you did, that you could be in for
some trouble. Whether they could convict you of anything would probably
depend on your local laws, but if something went bad, say someone got shot
and they felt it was because you called him and told him, I would guess some
judge would try to find some way to make you miserable.
--
Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it.

What's the connection between passengers being fed up with delays/discharges
and there not being a conductor on the train? I guess if there had been a
conductor, he could have instructed passengers with statements like "I don't
know what the problem is, we just have to discharge the train."

--
Remove numbers, if any, from e-mail address to reply.
"Joel Rubin" wrote in message
ink.net...
(I believe that it is illegal to repeat any content heard on radio
other than on broadcast and ham radio.)

http://www.nynewsday.com/news/local/...-ny-columnists

IN THE SUBWAYS

Straphangers flex their muscles
Ray Sanchez

August 1, 2005

Little trace remains of the early-morning mutiny on a conductorless L
train in Brooklyn.

Still, the rebellion is noteworthy as the Metropolitan Transportation
Authority moves ahead with plans to eliminate more than 300 conductors
on four subway lines in coming years.

The tale of mutinous MetroCard holders was recounted by Jon Schachter,
a Manhattan resident and longtime subway activist, who deciphered it
from transit radio frequencies.

It starts sometime after 2:30 a.m. on July 10, in the tension-filled
days after the first terrorist bombings in the London Underground.
Schachter was riding the L beneath the East Village, listening, as he
always does on the train, to his portable scanner.

"There was a Manhattan-bound train and transit control center says,
'Hold at Lorimer with your doors open,'" Schachter recalled.

That would be Lorimer Street station in Brooklyn. It was unclear what
the trouble was. Maybe signal problems. There was a track gang working
on the line beneath Sixth Avenue in Manhattan, Schachter said.

"They held the train at Lorimer for a while before they said, 'Proceed
to Bedford and discharge the train,'" he said.

The lone motorman took his eight-car train to Bedford Avenue, the last
stop in Brooklyn before the train enters Manhattan via a tube under
the East River. One-person train operation, a money-saving measure
known as OPTO, was introduced on the L last month - on nights and
weekends, for now.

The controversial move counters the transit agency's supposed focus on
security in the wake of terrorist bombings on trains in London and
Madrid. The MTA plans to eliminate the positions of 313 train
conductors on four subway lines, starting in 2007, according to a
published report.

"The train proceeds to Bedford Avenue and, of course, there's only one
person on the train," said Schachter, referring to the train operator.
At that hour, people leaving clubs and restaurants along Bedford flock
to the subway.

"He calls back on his radio and says people won't get off the train,"
Schachter continued. "This guy has eight cars of people to discharge
by himself. They called police and it was almost three in the morning
and the police never showed."

Frustration on the L line had been running high for months. The MTA
hopes to run its first automated trains on the line. Service
disruptions have been frequent as the line's antiquated signal system
is replaced.

Schachter believes riders at Bedford Avenue that morning had had
enough.

"There were too many people," he said. "They said, 'No, we're not
getting off. We're not taking this crap. We want to get home.'"

A New York City Transit spokesman, Charles Seaton, said there was no
record of the incident. But this was not a denial. "It means we can't
find a record of it," he said.

"I'm sure he was sound asleep at the time," Schachter said of the
transit spokesman.

A police spokesman yesterday said the incident would likely go
unreported by cops. "There was no crime committed," he said.

So Schachter's recollection of radio transmissions is the hardest
information available on the mutinous L line riders.

"Finally, somebody at the control center said, 'I have a solution,
call me on the phone,'" he said. "Moments later you hear the
announcement, 'OK, we're going to send this train and the next one
into Manhattan.' They let the train roll because people would not get
off."

"I know that occasionally there are mutinies, but I didn't hear the
details of that particular one," said Andrew Albert, a nonvoting
member of the MTA board who represents riders.

Last week, London's largest transit union threatened to strike if rail
guards were not reinstated on all tube trains. Rail guards, as
London's conductors are known, were eliminated decades ago.

A motorman on the L line yesterday said passenger mutinies are not
uncommon.

"People get fed up," he said. "If they don't sense that it's a
dangerous situation, they're not going to get off your train."

He added, "From our point of view, it's only a matter of time before
the New York subway is attacked. When it happens, I hope I have a
conductor on my train."

Copyright © 2005, Newsday, Inc.

Cyrus Afzali wrote:
(I believe that it is illegal to repeat any content heard on radio

No it's not. As long as someone receives a radio transmission through
a legal device, what's said on it is totally open to the public.

This is not true in the United States, as I understand it.
From NF2G's very nice site: "Section 705 (47 USCA 605) states that it is
unlawful to disclose the content of radio transmissions overheard unless
they are amateur radio traffic, broadcasts to the public or distress
calls. It is unlawful under this section to use traffic monitored for
personal gain."

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.



_______________________________________________
Ken Kuzenski AC4RD ken . kuzenski at duke .edu
_______________________________________________
All disclaimers apply, see? www.duke.edu/~kuzen001

Cyrus Afzali wrote:
On Tue, 2 Aug 2005 13:56:46 +0000 (UTC), wrote:

This is not true in the United States, as I understand it.
From NF2G's very nice site: "Section 705 (47 USCA 605) states that it is
unlawful to disclose the content of radio transmissions overheard unless

Monitoring the conversations for the sake of your own recreation or
information is absolutely, positively NOT illegal.

I DIDN'T say that, Cyrus. I said it's, by my understanding,
illegal to DISCLOSE the content of two-way communications to
others, not to listen to them.

Maybe you should get a dictionary. Or find an adult to help
you with the big words.



_______________________________________________
Ken Kuzenski AC4RD ken . kuzenski at duke .edu
_______________________________________________
All disclaimers apply, see? www.duke.edu/~kuzen001

Cyrus Afzali wrote:

This is not true in the United States, as I understand it.
From NF2G's very nice site: "Section 705 (47 USCA 605) states that it is
unlawful to disclose the content of radio transmissions overheard unless

No, you need to get a clue and stop being an ass. You are free to
disclose the content of ANY, and I mean ANY, conversation that's sent
out over the public airwaves. A person can't be charged with a crime
for passing along the content of something that's not illegal to
monitor in the first place.

That's EXACTLY what the law I quoted above says, very explicitly:
you MAY monitor these transmissions but you may NOT disclose the
contents to any other person. If you can't understand the very
plain language above, perhaps your babysitter can help.

Really, for the love of God, I hope you're not studying law if you are
at Duke. If you are, PLEASE get a refund and try a new vocation.

I'm a proctologist, and I look in the scanner newsgroup from
time to time because there are so many gaping *ssh*les here.



_______________________________________________
Ken Kuzenski AC4RD ken . kuzenski at duke .edu
_______________________________________________
All disclaimers apply, see? www.duke.edu/~kuzen001

18 USC ss 2510-2522

Sec. 2511. Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic
communications prohibited

(1) Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter any
person who--

(a) intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures
any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral,
or electronic communication;

(b) intentionally uses, endeavors to use, or procures any other
person to use or endeavor to use any electronic, mechanical, or other
device to intercept any oral communication when--

(i) such device is affixed to, or otherwise transmits a signal
through, a wire, cable, or other like connection used in wire
communication; or

(ii) such device transmits communications by radio, or
interferes with the transmission of such communication; or

(iii) such person knows, or has reason to know, that such
device or any component thereof has been sent through the mail or
transported in interstate or foreign commerce; or

(iv) such use or endeavor to use (A) takes place on the
premises of any business or other commercial establishment the
operations of which affect interstate or foreign commerce; or (B)
obtains or is for the purpose of obtaining information relating to the
operations of any business or other commercial establishment the
operations of which affect interstate or foreign commerce; or

(v) such person acts in the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any territory or possession of the
United States;

(c) intentionally discloses, or endeavors to disclose, to any
other person the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic
communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information
was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic
communication in violation of this subsection;

(d) intentionally uses, or endeavors to use, the contents of any
wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to
know that the information was obtained through the interception of a
wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of this
subsection; or

(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(b)-(c), 2511(e), 2516, and 2518 of this
subchapter, (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, shall be punished as provided
in subsection (4) or shall be subject to suit as provided in subsection
(5).

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

On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 09:50:26 -0400, Cyrus Afzali wrote:

No, you need to get a clue and stop being an ass. You are free to
disclose the content of ANY, and I mean ANY, conversation that's sent
out over the public airwaves. A person can't be charged with a crime
for passing along the content of something that's not illegal to
monitor in the first place.

I'll say it again - read Section 605. It's clear that what you have
stated is NOT accurate. Violations of that section can be
prosecuted administratively (civil forfeiture/fine) by the FCC or
criminally by the Justice Department.

Civil forfeitures was what I did at the FCC before I retired.

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

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