Re: P25 for Cheap
Teton Amateur Radio Repeater Association (TARRA)
Just speaking in reference to my little town, not everyone has a
scanner (or radio receiver of the type to listen) and I would
guess over all, a small percentage. A much higher percentage is
the amount of law enforcement, as well as dispatchers, know that I
listen and know a lot of what goes on. There have been a lot of
times that I have jumped in to help them with things, missing
children, trying to find cars, and on and on. They have even
stopped and asked me to look out for whomever, whatever. I have
been thanked so many times for helping out (including after a
meeting last night). I realize that in a city things are probably
much different. I'll stay small town!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe M."
Sent: Friday, November 08, 2019 09:30:17 PM
Subject: Re: [Uniden] P25 for Cheap
> Can you point to that law? Conceptually, I agree with you 100%. But that
> concept is not supported in law anywhere I've ever heard of.
> I would support a 'right to listen' law that limits the steps public
> safety can take to thwart lawful monitoring. There would be limits on
> what could be encrypted (and yes, there are some things that arguable
> should be).
> > follows is not political, but may trigger some readers.>
> Those who act in darkness can act illegally. Those who act in daylight
> cannot (well, they can, but they can be caught).
> The argument that the majority of the public are criminals just doesn't fly.
> The newspapers don't report everything - ESPECIALLY these days! Several
> times I have called in tips only because I happened to know what was
> going on. The loss of those eyes and ears leads to more crime which
> leads to less desirable neighborhoods which leads to takeover by
> criminals. Isn't that something to avoid?
> I know of areas that encrypted their police. I know there are now many
> more guns in those areas now because the public has no idea what is
> going on anymore and they don't feel safe anymore. The bad part about
> that is that this is a knee-jerk reaction and those people often fail to
> train on those guns. This leads to a worsening of the basic problem and
> not an improvement. It also leads to selective reporting of crimes which
> means some crimes are buried.
> I personally believe this all stems from the macho "we can do it all
> without you" mentality that is a basic flaw in many people. It's a
> subset of the divide that is infecting the country. Public Safety does
> not have to be, and should not be, an individual effort. We are all
> responsible to keep our communities safe. All that changes with
> encryption is that the public is less informed. That is never good.
> Joe M.
> On 11/8/2019 11:11 PM, Mark Lassman via Groups.Io wrote:
> > It’s also about “transparency”. The people have a right to know what the
> > police departments are doing. To a point, that is. If there is “law
> > enforcement activity” in my neighborhood, I would like, at the very
> > least, to know what’s going on. I don’t want the police to justify their
> > use of encryption by saying, essentially, “it’s on a need-to-know basis
> > and you don’t need to know.”. Uhhhhh, yes, I do. Its my town, my city, I
> > want to know.
> > “Sensitive” information such as identifies of victims and suspects and
> > anything else that the public should not be privy to, can be sent over
> > encrypted channels. By encrypting EVERYTHING, departments are saying,
> > essentially, “we can’t tell you! Ha ha ha ha!”.