Disqus - Latest Comments for dcrisis

Re: Because it’s digital we can watch it over and over and…

dcrisis — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 13:39:03 -0000

Thanks for the links to the videos. I was in broadcast media for 8 years as a host and producer. I'm currently a communications interoperability and spectrum consultant. I cringed twice over this.

This is an excellent demonstration of CNN using their position of influence to direct public opinion rather than being objective about what was happening. The frightening part is that knowing what we know now and going back to the footage, they were able to take a very sketchy source and completely populate a real incident out of it through their use or "reporters" and "homeland security experts." Rather than exercise any restraint, they employed many elements to create a dramatic moment out of a short piece of radio traffic taken out of context. Now it appears that piece of traffic may not even have been intercepted by them, so there's no way they could have had any context, but that didn't stop them.

This is the state of cable news, willing to do anything to get the viewers. Luckily no one got hurt, but the potential certainly exists.

Re: Exercise! Exercise! Exercise!

dcrisis — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 20:24:30 -0000

There's this huge misconception about what Coast Guard training looks like and why it should be seen as "dangerous." Most of the time, and especially if they were saying "bang bang bang" over the radio (that should have tipped off CNN BIG TIME) instead of firing blanks like they occasionally do, they were probably just a handful of clearly marked orange boats buzzing around a piece of water. They do this all of the time in the SF Bay where I live, we're used to it. If this were any more serious of an exercise, it would have been more widely know. This was more like practice during patrol.

No one in view of the boats reported them as dangerous and if CNN had listened to "The Scanner" a little bit longer they would have known what they were listening to. I'm really starting to believe that they knowingly reported something "plausibly unusual" as suspicious and dangerous just to boost their ratings. It was just too easy to know what this really was. If you'd ever listened in on one of these it's very clearly an exercise. You can hear them set the scenarios back up when they're done, plus it's pretty much always done on a VHF channel other than the regular working channels so that the other CG units know it's training. I can't imagine how CNN could have missed it. Plus, the coast guard would have had to be on ham radio or CB to make it legal for CNN to report on what they were hearing, but that's on a different thread.

Re: Coast Guard Drill, CNN, and US Code

dcrisis — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 18:41:35 -0000

It's a news gathering tool that is against the Communications Act of 1934, but it's generally not abused so the law is not enforced. Doing 30 in a 25MPH zone can get you a ticket but usually doesn't. Going 90 in that same zone and getting into a wreck will probably get you that ticket, especially if you cop to doing 90.

The point is that by law, radio communications are protected and considered private with the exception of CB, ham radio, and reporting signals of distress. This law date back before encryption so without it, no one would have wanted to use two-way radio for fear of all of their business becoming public. At least in the USA you can listen, you just can't divulge or capitalize on what you hear. ...or at least admit it.

This is a lot looser than the UK, where you're just not allowed to listen to anything other than CBers or Hams. http://www.ofcom.org.uk/rad...

Re: Coast Guard Drill, CNN, and US Code

dcrisis — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 18:31:25 -0000

I agree, but you get the news by looking at it first, then reporting... Otherwise we wouldn't need stringers!

Re: Coast Guard Drill, CNN, and US Code

dcrisis — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 18:31:10 -0000

The ECPA 1986 was what they were charged with. The 1999 amendment wasn't really necessary. And it didn't save Newt much anyway after the news was public.

Re: Coast Guard Drill, CNN, and US Code

dcrisis — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 18:29:38 -0000

Re: Coast Guard Drill, CNN, and US Code

dcrisis — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 18:14:16 -0000

Whether or not they were on the training frequency, marine band or NTIA assignment, none of that stuff is legal to divulge or rebroadcast. There are very specific exceptions and those exceptions are obvious and few.

Re: Coast Guard Drill, CNN, and US Code

dcrisis — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 17:24:19 -0000

The Communications Act of 1934 (where most of this comes from) forbids divulging the content of an intercepted radio signal. It was written to encourage people to use the new technology. The only exceptions are Ham Radio, CB Radio, and passing on a report of distress (a good samaritan provision that doesn't include the news.)

All of the news does it, they listen to scanners so they know what's going on. Usually, it's not an issue because a reporter confirms the story before it is broadcast to the masses. There's plausible deniability that they may have been tipped another way and since the news actually exists, it's fair game. In this case CNN chose not to vet the story and went on air reporting a radio intercept they made with admission of it being "overheard on a scanner" (they forgot to mention that it was out-of-context).

Anyone who works with radio communications knows that's clearly illegal but the public generally doesn't and CNN should know better than to report something so important without confirmation. Most of the confused response was due to other agencies responding based on news reports rather than official reports but CNN started the ball rolling with an unlawful act.

I hope that when the investigation ordered by Sen. George Voinovich is conducted that it takes this important element into evidence. CNN could be liable for creating the entire incident and for additional violation for each rebroadcasting of the recording which is also covered in the law. I'm sure that the Coast Guard trains in that area often and this is the first time it has caused so much trouble. I'm also nearly certain that this exercise included only Coast Guard vessels so if anyone had actually looked, they'd realize that there was never a threat.

This doesn't make news very often because the only way to be prosecuted is to admit the act. The last high-profile case was John and Alice Martin, who plead guilty to recording Newt Gingrich's cell phone and distributing the tape to cause him political damage. That caused an amendment to the Act in 1999, tightening it further.

Those of us who enjoy lawfully listening in on radio activity like this should take notice. CNN or other news agencies openly capitalizing of radio intercepts makes it likely that more communications will be encrypted, justifiably or not, and we'll no longer be able to gain the insight that comes from responsible listening.