Talk:Radio scanner

message: There's another issue with the page regarding the US ban on scanners capable of tuning the cellular frequencies. That law has been amended several times over the years. The original 1986 law prohibited listening but there was no ban on equipment, though some manufactures chose to omit those frequencies. It wasn't until the early 90's that there was a ban on the radios themselves, and I think there was even a short period where "police scanners" could not include those frequencies but wide-coverage "communications receivers" could.
Finally in the late 1990s the law was changed to specifically prohibit individuals from modifying the radios ( which had been a gray area around the definition of "manufacturing" a radio before ), and directed the FCC to deny type-acceptance ( which essentially bas the marketing of ) radios that were easily modifiable for cellular. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues with the US rules on cellular 

message: The article states that "the general guidelines to follow when using a radio scanner are that it is illegal to" ... "disclose information received to other persons".
I don't believe this is correct. The cited Electronic Communication Privacy Act enumerates in 2511(1)(e) conditions under which disclosure is prohibited, and it does not include 2511(2)(g)(i)-(ii), which allows interception by radio scanners.
But I'm not a lawyer.
--Vanyo (talk) 04:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It goes all the way back to the Communications Act of 1932, which says that intercepts cannot be divulged except for broadcast radio, amateur radio, or distress calls. There's no doubt been a lot of case law since then, but most scanner books include a disclaimer to this effect up top. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

text: The problem with playing around with court decisions is that they would count as primary sources. They may be open to interpretation or just plain invalid. A tertiary source such as American Jurisprudence may be extremely helpful in researching something like this. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 14:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disclosing Information Received to Other Persons - Illegal? 

message: Here is the second Gass decision. Fast457 (talk) 19:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with playing around with court decisions is that they would count as primary sources. They may be open to interpretation or just plain invalid. A tertiary source such as American Jurisprudence may be extremely helpful in researching something like this. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 14:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second decision 

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: A Citizen's Guide to Police Scanners. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  108.48.193.178 (talk) 08:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed