Use of Voice Scramblers

[porthole]

[Originally posted to a thread about a new radio, this topic has been separated into its own thread in order to discuss the use of voice scramblers--jimh]

One "feature" I see as both useless and annoying at the same time is the scrambler. I never understood the reasoning behind this feature. It is not a secure form of comms and if you have to monitor a channel 24/7, listening to the garbled speech gets old real quick. To add to that, there are enough people around the water here that have resorted to just turning off the radio or worse yet, keying up, sometimes with amplifiers.

Besides, English as a language is required for marine VHF comms. Scrambled speech is not much different then a non understandable foreign language being broadcast.

[jimh]

One "feature" I see as both useless and annoying at the same time is the scrambler. I never understood the reasoning behind this feature. It is not a secure form of comms and if you have to monitor a channel 24/7, listening to the garbled speech gets old real quick....

I think you are completely wrong. First of all, as a listener to the radio communications of other vessels in the VHF Marine Band you have absolutely no standing to complain about their voices being scrambled. All radio communications except distress alerts like a MAYDAY, a PAN-PAN annoucenment, or a SECURITY call are secret. You are not supposed to be listening to them. If you happen to hear any radio communication you are BOUND BY LAW to not reveal it. That is a provision of an act of Congress that goes back to 1934, the dawn of radio communications, the Radio Act of 1934. You don't get to tune in to private communications between vessels, and you certainly have no basis to complain if you try to eavesdrop and those communications are scrambled and you cannot understand them. See

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/80.88

For you to complain that some other boaters use Voice Scramblers and you get annoyed that you cannot read them probably means you are not supposed to be listening to them--they're private communications. You have no right to listen in the first place, and if you do listen accidentally, then you are bound by law to not disclose what you heard. So if you can't hear them in plain English, you cannot really complain about it. And if you intentionally listen you are really trying to eavesdrop on private communication.

Finally, whether or not you think voice scramblers are useful or proper or ought to be used really has no bearing on whether radio manufacturers can or should offer voice scramblers as an option. They are not mandatory. If you don't want to get that accessory you are completely free to not get it. I think that is why they are sold as accessories instead of being included with the base radio.

[jimh]

Here is the applicable section of the Communications Act:

SEC. 705. [47 U.S.C. 605] UNAUTHORIZED PUBLICATION OF
COMMUNICATIONS.
...No person not being entitled thereto shall receive or
assist in receiving any interstate or foreign communication by radio and use such
communication (or any information therein contained) for his own benefit or for
the benefit of another not entitled thereto. No person having received any
intercepted radio communication or having become acquainted with the contents,
substance, purport, effect, or meaning of such communication (or any part thereof)
knowing that such communication was intercepted, shall divulge or publish the
existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of such communication
(or any part thereof) or use such communication (or any information therein
contained) for his own benefit or for the benefit of another not entitled thereto.
This section shall not apply to the receiving, divulging, publishing, or utilizing the
contents of any radio communication which is transmitted by any station for the
use of the general public, which relates to ships, aircraft, vehicles, or persons in distress,
or which is transmitted by an amateur radio station operator or by a
citizens band radio operator.

Source: https://transition.fcc.gov/Reports/1934new.pdf

[conch]

I wonder if amended and supplemental revisions may have changed parts of the 1934 Act. 18 USC 2511 section (g) seems to do that, and notes to the section point to the communication being " readily accessible to the general public".

(g) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter or chapter 121 of this title for any person—
(i) to intercept or access an electronic communication made through an electronic communication system that is configured so that such electronic communication is readily accessible to the general public;
(ii) to intercept any radio communication which is transmitted—
(I) by any station for the use of the general public, or that relates to ships, aircraft, vehicles, or persons in distress;
(II) by any governmental, law enforcement, civil defense, private land mobile, or public safety communications system, including police and fire, readily accessible to the general public;
(III) by a station operating on an authorized frequency within the bands allocated to the amateur, citizens band, or general mobile radio services; or
(IV) by any marine or aeronautical communications system;
(iii) to engage in any conduct which—
(I) is prohibited by section 633 of the Communications Act of 1934; or
(II) is excepted from the application of section 705(a) of the Communications Act of 1934 by section 705(b) of that Act;
(iv) to intercept any wire or electronic communication the transmission of which is causing harmful interference to any lawfully operating station or consumer electronic equipment, to the extent necessary to identify the source of such interference; or
(v) for other users of the same frequency to intercept any radio communication made through a system that utilizes frequencies monitored by individuals engaged in the provision or the use of such system, if such communication is not scrambled or encrypted.

[conch]

18 usc 2511 defines "readily accessible to the general public" as:


(16) “readily accessible to the general public” means, with respect to a radio communication, that such communication is not—
(A) scrambled or encrypted;
(B) transmitted using modulation techniques whose essential parameters have been withheld from the public with the intention of preserving the privacy of such communication;
(C) carried on a subcarrier or other signal subsidiary to a radio transmission;
(D) transmitted over a communication system provided by a common carrier, unless the communication is a tone only paging system communication; or
(E) transmitted on frequencies allocated under part 25, subpart D, E, or F of part 74, or part 94 of the Rules of the Federal Communications Commission, unless, in the case of a communication transmitted on a frequency allocated under part 74 that is not exclusively allocated to broadcast auxiliary services, the communication is a two-way voice communication by radio;

[conch]

When I am trying to understand all these rules as a layman it seems

"All radio communications except distress alerts like a MAYDAY, a PAN-PAN annoucenment, or a SECURITY call are secret. You are not supposed to be listening to them. If you happen to hear any radio communication you are BOUND BY LAW to not reveal it. That is a provision of an act of Congress that goes back to 1934, the dawn of radio communications, the Radio Act of 1934. You don't get to tune in to private communications between vessels" Reading 18 USC 2511 (g) this has changed.

" you certainly have no basis to complain if you try to eavesdrop and those communications are scrambled and you cannot understand them" This remains in (16) (A) definitions to 18 USC 2511 "readily accessible to the general public"

[porthole]

I think you are completely wrong. First of all, as a listener to the radio communications of other vessels in the VHF Marine Band you have absolutely no standing to complain about their voices being scrambled. All radio communications except distress alerts like a MAYDAY, a PAN-PAN [announcement], or a SECURITY call are secret. You are not supposed to be listening to them.

Yeah - I do.
If lets say we are monitoring a commercial channel, for example 5 (local towBoatUS operating channel) or 10 (local Sea Tow operating channel) and those channels are also used by many local boaters to chit chat, sometimes all day long, and they are using scramblers, then yes, we have a right to complain and be annoyed.

There are numerous provisions of the law that are violated every day by recreational and commercial boaters. For years after channel 70 was designated as the DSC channel, clam boats were still using it for their local chat channel.

And that secrecy provision doesn't apply to public safety radio comms over the public airwaves. For example, "North Carolina law says very clearly and simply: “communication between or among employees of public law enforcement agencies that are broadcast over the public airwaves” are public record. In other words, it’s public property, not to be denied to the public by any local government or government official."

Marine VHF radio transmissions are over public airwaves.

So my take is your understanding of all that boilerplate legalese is how it relates to you with what I think you have, a commercial radio operators license. You are referring to the exact wording.
Myself and I am sure many others refer to the plain meaning, something the reasonable person would understand.

My take of the 1934 law is that it has been updated and clarified somewhat though State coding for example, in that radio transmissions over the public airwaves are public. So, if I am tasked with monitoring a working channel and - or just relaxing out on the water monitoring several channels, towboats, dive boats, fishing boats etc, and some folks are using scramblers, then I have a reason to be annoyed. No different the two mariners using a foreign language in US waters.

Now, listening to the foreign flagged vessels hailing the pilots and trying to have a reasonable communication, that is at times, entertaining.

[jimh]

The "airways" are public but the FCC controls their use and allocates them for various services with various regulations. The communications transmitted over them are not intrinsically public. If I make a cellular telephone call, you are not supposed to be eavesdropping with some sort of receiver to my conversation. Suppose I call some vendor and give them my credit card number. Because it was sent via radio that does not make my credit card number something in the public domain. It is the same with VHF Marine Band radio, other than the clearly public transmission for distress alerts.

When a vessel is underway it is supposed to maintain a radio watch on Channel 16. You aren't supposed to be sitting on some ship-to-ship channel listening to all the transmissions from other ships that use that shared channel.

[jimh]

It may not be "unlawful" to possess a receiver and listen to something sent via radio. That is why there are a zillion scanners out there, and plenty of scanner enthusiasts. But--as far as I know--it remains forbidden to re-publish or disclose the information contained in radio transmission to others, except for the specified exemptions (distress messages, amateur radio transmissions, CB radio transmissions).

Actually, in many years and many hours of listening to the normal recreational boat channels used in the Great Lakes, I have never heard any voice modulation that was scrambled or encrypted being transmitted. Maybe use of scramblers is more common on the ocean coastal areas where there is more commercial fishing taking place. I can see how commercial fishers might want to ensure some privacy if they were talking about their catch and locations.

[jimh]

18 U.S. Code § 2511--Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited--is complicated. See the text at

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2511

I will have to get an attorney to offer an opinion. It seems to say that:

(g) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter or chapter 121 of this title [emphasis added] for any person...(ii)to intercept any radio communication which is transmitted..(I)that relates to ships..in distress [or] (IV)[transmitted] by any marine...communications system.

But this just says it is not against the law to listen under those regulations. But Part 80 restricts VHF Marine Band practices further. See my cite earlier.

§ 80.88 Secrecy of communication.
The station licensee, the master of the ship, the responsible radio operators and any person who may have knowledge of the radio communications transmitted or received by a fixed, land, or mobile station subject to this part, or of any radiocommunication service of such station, must observe the secrecy requirements of the Communications Act and the Radio Regulations. See sections 501, 502, and 705 of the Communications Act and Article 23 of the Radio Regulations.

[conch]

I was responding to this - You stated "All radio communications except distress alerts like a MAYDAY, a PAN-PAN announcement, or a SECURITY call are secret. You are not supposed to be listening to them."
I do not believe this is correct today. Some presently sold VHF marine radios even include a record "rewind" feature for later playback. Maybe this falls to intent, if your not doing it for profit or gain and without criminal intentions it seems to be the general public airwaves are like the air and available to take. Regarding 18 USC 2511 seems that if the transmission doesn't fit (it is readily accessible to the general public) you must acquit.

A local AM radio show that has been on for at least a decade features a daily program at 5pm where the guest repeats the days fishing related conversations he has heard on the VHF radio regarding what is going on ,on the water.

Where are those attorneys?

[jimh]

CONCH--I don't see where your cite from Part 18 trumps the regulations of the FCC in Part 80--but I am not a lawyer. I am just going by what I had to learn in order to pass examinations for several FCC licenses. I will call in our staff attorney for his opinion.

Also, I found this additional section on the same topic:

47 U.S. Code § 605 - Unauthorized publication or use of communications

See https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/605 for the full text. It says, in part:

(a) Practices prohibited
Except as authorized by chapter 119, title 18, no person receiving...by..radio shall divulge or publish the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning thereof, except through authorized channels of transmission or reception, (1) to any person other than the addressee, his agent, or attorney, (2) to a person employed or authorized to forward such communication to its destination, (3) to proper accounting or distributing officers of the various communicating centers over which the communication may be passed, (4) to the master of a ship under whom he is serving, (5) in response to a subpena issued by a court of competent jurisdiction, or (6) on demand of other lawful authority...This section shall not apply to the receiving...or utilizing the contents of any radio communication:

--which is transmitted by any station for the use of the general public,

--which relates to ships...in distress, or

-- which is transmitted by an amateur radio station operator or by a citizens band radio operator.

[conch]

Staff counsel will be great Jim, it is really only the "You are not supposed to be LISTENING to them" sentence that I question regarding marine general public VHF radio.
How do you know their traffic is over unless you monitor the channel before you key the microphone?
I realize now I gave up my three score and ten age by telling the world I still listen to AM radio, maybe no one is listening.
Chuck

[jimh]

Mariners are required to keep a radio watch on Channel 16--the calling channel. I suppose if a boat has more than one radio a mariner can keep a radio watch on any other channel, too, but from the language of Part 80 referencing the Communications Act, I don't think mariners are entitled to disclose or publish anything they hear, except as described in the various exemptions.

People on shore who are just listeners, not on any vessel with a licensed radio transmitter--well, I don't know what regulates them.

I guess this situation is an example of why there are lawyers.

It looks like a lot of the language in the regulations was added recently in order to clarify situations like home satellite dishes receiving non-encrypted signals. In the early days of satellite relay of television broadcasts, mostly open, unencrypted transmission was used, and anybody with a receiver and a dish could tune in, often to find some rather interesting material.