Moral Question Regarding Radio Scanning

[tanger32au]

I have been involved in the radio scanning hobby for about 17 years. I run a blog and post my loggings fairly often.
Recently a company has emailed me, asking me not to post the fact that I am able to listen to them, this is not the content of the communications but the fact that the communication takes place.

The only "law" around scanning I know of is that you can't listen to telephone calls, this is covered by the telecommunications (interception) act. Over the years I have also heard / read a couple of "common sense" rules which I agree with.
- Don't repeat what you hear to third persons (If you hear your boss gets caught drinking driving don't go and tell other people)
- Don't use what you hear for commercial gain (such as tow truck drivers turning up at accidents to get work)
- Don't use what you hear to assist with committing a crime. (Listening to the police to know where they are to not get caught committing a crime)

Now this company rents this frequency off a two way radio rental company, via some detective work I have worked out who the user is, this is what I am listing on my blog.

I am in two minds about this, I don't want to piss off this company but I don't think listing the company name is an issue. To me the "content" of the communications should not be shared but the fact that company X uses 71.675MHz is not a problem. The email is fairly informal at this stage. How would you approach this?

[Radio_Australia]

Personally I would ignore any emails or letters . You are not breaking any laws , you are simply informing the radio scanning community of the find . After all it is a hobby .

[peteramjet]

Personally I would ignore any emails or letters . You are not breaking any laws , you are simply informing the radio scanning community of the find . After all it is a hobby .

It's responses like these that make radio users switch to un-scannable modes and/or encryption. Why rock the boat when it's not necessary? He may not be 'breaking laws' by listing the frequency, but it is common decency that he'd remove the company name. As you said, this is only a hobby.

The frequency is not listed on the public database in the company name and they've asked to remove their association to it - that seems more than reasonable. Just list it as a rental frequency with a brief descriptor (ie: transport company/security/etc).

[Radio_Australia]

The question I ask , what about all the other frequency users listed here and other forums and other public databases describing the users of certain frequencies ? Where do you draw the line ?

[tanger32au]

Thanks for all the feedback.

I have removed the company name from my blog for the moment.

[peteramjet]

The question I ask , what about all the other frequency users listed here and other forums and other public databases describing the users of certain frequencies ? Where do you draw the line ?

If they asked to remove it, and their info wasn't registered on the public database (ie ACMA frequency register) then you would. There is no line to be drawn, just common sense. There been occasions on this forum where info has been redacted on request from individuals. I fail to see how a request such as that you describe would be any different.

[Vkfour]

The question I ask , what about all the other frequency users listed here and other forums and other public databases describing the users of certain frequencies ? Where do you draw the line ?

If they asked to remove it, and their info wasn't registered on the public database (ie ACMA frequency register) then you would. There is no line to be drawn, just common sense. There been occasions on this forum where info has been redacted on request from individuals. I fail to see how a request such as that you describe would be any different.

Good answer.

[Radio_Australia]

The question I ask , what about all the other frequency users listed here and other forums and other public databases describing the users of certain frequencies ? Where do you draw the line ?

If they asked to remove it, and their info wasn't registered on the public database (ie ACMA frequency register) then you would. There is no line to be drawn, just common sense. There been occasions on this forum where info has been redacted on request from individuals. I fail to see how a request such as that you describe would be any different.

Good answer.

Not really .

[Vkfour]

Since giving up the practice of law, I have tried to avoid debate in forums such as this. My wife tells me that it only annoys and upsets me, and when I am annoyed and upset, I annoy and upset her, who in turn, further exacerbates my suffering. However, I sometimes just can not say nothing.

One contributor says , and I quote, “Personally I would ignore any emails or letters . You are not breaking any laws , you are simply informing the radio scanning community of the find . After all it is a hobby”. It is correct to say that he is doing nothing wrong in listening, but publishing details may very well be unlawful.

The original contributor states that the frequency is rented by the user from another company, not an unusual situation, and as a consequence, their name is not listed on any official publicly accessible databases.

If the information is not on an official, publicly accessible database, the key word being official, and the user does not wish for the information to be made publicly available, then they have every right to ask that it be not made public, and if it has already been made public, to remove it.

Any information that is publicly available, or that a person does not object to being made, public, or does not reasonably object to being made public, is okay. In this case, it is not listed and the user has most definitely objected to their details, albeit in part, being made known. Failure to remove the data may result in action under the Privacy Act.

Whether or not any action would be successful depends on a large number of situations and circumstances, but it will cost money, and no doubt a certain amount of publicity.

You and I know that it is not illegal to listen in, but there are a huge number of people who think it's illegal, or don't approve, and this can result in negative attitudes towards our hobby, and things can be changed, easily. Much Federal legislation is subject to subordinate legislation, often referred to as regulations, and can be changed by regulation, not by legislation. We have to be extremely careful about vexing people.

Whilst we may well be doing nothing wrong, often times it is better to accede and walk away gracefully.

[dags19]

totally agree vkfour

[Radio_Australia]

I guess we agree to disagree .

[SteveO]

To keep the peace I would just remove the name. Why make things difficult for yourself if they decide to take things further

[Pumper_50]

Soooo, given some of the replies, how would you all feel if entities started turning up here requesting information pertaining to them or their operations not be shared here? It's not really that different.

Sent from my GT-I9300T using Tapatalk

[Vkfour]

Simple, if the information is publicly available, they have no claim, and most of the information published on this site is publicly available on the ACMA database. If not, they can request, and expect it to be removed.

[Phantom]

Simple, if the information is publicly available, they have no claim, and most of the information published on this site is publicly available on the ACMA database. If not, they can request, and expect it to be removed.

Seems moral enough....

[railscan]

In response to this same question on another forum, I posted this reply. I will include it here for continuity purposes.

Unfortunately forums like this one and especially streaming has brought this hobby from the background into the limelight and not always in a good way. There seems to be an attitude with some that 'it is not illegal therefore I can do it'. And yes they are probably legally entitled to post information that is available in the public domain into forums, but whether it is prudent, morally correct and or socially responsible remains to be seen. I have for some time been concerned that this cavalier attitude is doing little to enhance the hobby but indeed drag it into the mud and cause those who manage radio systems, both public and private, to take steps to exclude the casual listener. Some may disagree with my thoughts others many not, frankly I don't give a toss. I have for some time stopped posting frequency information to forums instead electing to remain on the fence like to vast majority of forums members and watch the hobby decend into darkness. Time and technology are against us ladies and gentlemen and we a doing little to slow the flow. People who know me know that I do not make statements like this casually.

R

[SteveO]

Railscan you are correct.I am just glad that I have been part of this hobby long enough to have enjoyed the good old days. Listening in to lots of things not meant to, searching out frequencies for myself and remaining anonymous. The people these days have it to easy.

[mn1983]

Well said R.

[blacktown]

Railscan you are correct.I am just glad that I have been part of this hobby long enough to have enjoyed the good old days. Listening in to lots of things not meant to, searching out frequencies for myself and remaining anonymous. The people these days have it to easy.

It was a problem in the "good old days" as well .... we have been on the slippery slope for some time now
I have fond memories of the reaction of Australian Wonderland management when they became aware that their radio information was being publicised in a certain radio magazine about thirty years ago ....the author was using a non de plume
No internet or email for the masses back then .... just publications

[Radio_Australia]

One I remember ,

The Home And Holiday
Scanner Frequency Guide - 200 pages - Published by dick smith and available in store , and was updated/republished occasionally.