|
crypto comm
William Barrett, KW1B
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
I believe that citizens have the right and
the responsibility to supervise
at a certain level. Fully encrypted
police comms are not accessaable,
while most are quite routine and do NOT
require a high degree of
secrecy.
In those few special other cases, there are
methods of COMSEC
well-known to police and military
communications people. Simply
encryping everything is lazy and can lead to
Secret Police Mindset.
Not something most people would
favor.
Routine ops need to be in the
clear.
73
bb
NC
|
|
|
|
Re: P25 for Cheap
huntwildturkey8254 <huntwildturkey8254@...>
Won’t be long, and scanner companies will be making encrypted radio scanners.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
BJN
On Nov 9, 2019, at 19:02, KA9QJG <KA9QJG@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Re: P25 for Cheap
Joe M.
That's another one I would have to see to believe.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
I can buy all except the encryption part, as all the other info is published, and the trunk programming can be faked. But the encryption key is not available and I see no way they could get it. Joe M.
On 11/9/2019 8:02 PM, KA9QJG wrote:
Also if you have
|
|
|
|
Re: P25 for Cheap
KA9QJG
Robert . That was very well said I have been the Communications over 50 yrs US Navy , Law Enforcement , 911 Dispatcher and Ham Radio, I live in N/W Indiana near Chicago and had to buy tie expensive Uniden SDS-100 Just to hear My local PD/FD and some is Encrypted ,And I have worked in Law Enforcement Yes in some cases it is needed, But not for general Communications .. We actually have a few FB groups that are listen and posting Live incidents with Audio and Video and Pictures , This is very dangerous and illegal . Also if you have enough money and want a Motorola APX radio that the PD use just go to E bay and other places some will even program the radios for add More money and Yes you can get the Encryption too . Just do not get caught Even if the Scanners companies would make decoders it is still illegal for us to Monitor unless We are Authorized by the System administrator of any system
Happy Scanning while We can
Don KA9QJG
Ps in Working Law Enforcement and a 911 Communications Dispatcher Many yrs ago I know of many cases where a Scanner listener have called and helped out many times , one time when We has a Sgt call for help His battery was almost dead and the Dispatcher did not hear him, But a scanner listener a block away did and called the dispatcher and was able to get him the help he needed saving his life and catching the alleged bad guys ,of course this was the good ol analog days With the New Digital you either hear it or you don’t when the battery gets weak…
From: main@Uniden.groups.io [mailto:main@Uniden.groups.io] On Behalf Of Robert A Klamp
Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2019 4:42 PM To: main@Uniden.groups.io Subject: Re: [Uniden] P25 for Cheap
As intriguing as everyone's opinion on encryption is here that fact of the matter. Ever since people started running streaming media of real time police traffic enc use has skyrocketed. Broadcastify and Radio Reference are your two biggest problem in the scanner world. I remember having to go buy a book of all the local frequencies, having to know how to program them into your scanner or radio, then having the know how to distinguish what was being used for what. You had to do it all your self or instead of buying the book you could throw on the attenuator on your radio and drive around your area doing frequency searches and seeing what hits you got. The big problem with everything being one trunked system is everything is repeated there is no more switch to 5 for simplex ops really happening anymore. Well there is but not in very many places (at least where I live) I remember when the biggest most populated county in my listening area was VHF and all the tactical channels were vhf simplex. They have since encrypted everything with AES256 on a county wide trunked systems with a few different sites and multiple towers for each site. The days of just throwing on your scanner and hearing what's going on are pretty dead. Between CAD systems, encryption, cell phones, cellular PTT like zello or worse yet first net, and many other factors are becoming more and more popular. With the UHF T Band give/take back police have less room in a frequency spectrum that was already overcrowded but worked well for big cities it penetrated buildings and other nuisances well and didn't really propagate to much so there was much bleed over from other places half the country away like low band and sometimes vhf have problems with. Then you have broadcastify just spilling public safety radio traffic out for anybody who want it's like oil from a tanker crash. Add that with almost every frequency in use around the country being reported and published on radio reference for any old schmuck to go look up and you start to see the problem. To much info is readily available to the public. When my small area radio monitoring group decided to stop keeping our own records of data in our area and publish it all on radio reference because the owner of that site hasn't made enough money yet exploiting are once exuberant and lively hobby I saw the end sneaking up fast. But it's not my radio clubs fault i blame radio reference and broadcastify were a criminal can tune in clock patrol traffic and anything else they may need to time and commit crimes with little to no resistance from public safety already knowing what to expect. Or have a lookout listening to there it on there smart phone when he used to have to have some kind of skill with radios to listen to what he can now here with a click of a mouse or worse yet an app on his smart phone. And now we have even dumbed down the hobby further by putting the entire radio reference database in the scanner for so all you have to do is download the latest update and put in your zip code and pop everything from police to public safety are preloaded with the latest information from the biggest threat to our hobby. But wait in case you are so radio incompetent that you don't even know how to lock out unwanted channels don't worry you can just select the correct service tags to hear what you want if your a criminal just lock out all but police services if your a fire bug just lock out all but fire. These problems are not going away they are just getting worse as we enable more and more people who didn't have access to these comms easy access everything they could want and use to the disadvantage of the public and public safety. So of course police will encrypt. Fire will encrypt. And even ems will encrypt there is to much much information available that once upon a time was not. The part of this that makes me just sick is there is one man behind it who hands out little freebies to those that help him destroy our hobby while he take the big payday from uniden,Whistler, and users of both his websites. Stop enabling him! And the last thing I will bring up is the communications act of or the communications privacy act of 1986 I believe should cover live streaming but for some reason that is loop hole. Make streaming illegal and keep what you hear to yourself this used to be common sense but now we have threads on radiorefernce with titles funniest thing heard one scanner, best call heard on a scanner, active emergency ops on your scanner and so on and so forth. When you ask yourself why is my area going encrypted and why is my 700 dollar scanner now a paper weight just do a search of what info is readily available for your area and what people have posted about what they are hearing in your area things should become a little more clear at that point. I have a lot more to say but I will stop there for more information on the legalities of disclosing what I'd heard on your scanner please see the following link.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2511
And I know I have upset some people but these are just my thoughts and opinions your allowed to have yours please allow me to have mine,
Thank you, Bob
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
-------- Original message -------- From: Shawn Benoit <shawnbenoit@...> Date: 11/9/19 14:45 (GMT-06:00) To: main@uniden.groups.io Subject: Re: [Uniden] P25 for Cheap
I'm pro encryption for police and EMS communications. Nothing will change that even though it's a hobby and I like to listen.
On Sat, Nov 9, 2019 at 13:09 Joe M. <mch@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Re: P25 for Cheap
Robert A Klamp
As intriguing as everyone's opinion on encryption is here that fact of the matter. Ever since people started running streaming media of real time police traffic enc use has skyrocketed. Broadcastify and Radio Reference are your two biggest problem in the scanner world. I remember having to go buy a book of all the local frequencies, having to know how to program them into your scanner or radio, then having the know how to distinguish what was being used for what. You had to do it all your self or instead of buying the book you could throw on the attenuator on your radio and drive around your area doing frequency searches and seeing what hits you got. The big problem with everything being one trunked system is everything is repeated there is no more switch to 5 for simplex ops really happening anymore. Well there is but not in very many places (at least where I live) I remember when the biggest most populated county in my listening area was VHF and all the tactical channels were vhf simplex. They have since encrypted everything with AES256 on a county wide trunked systems with a few different sites and multiple towers for each site. The days of just throwing on your scanner and hearing what's going on are pretty dead. Between CAD systems, encryption, cell phones, cellular PTT like zello or worse yet first net, and many other factors are becoming more and more popular. With the UHF T Band give/take back police have less room in a frequency spectrum that was already overcrowded but worked well for big cities it penetrated buildings and other nuisances well and didn't really propagate to much so there was much bleed over from other places half the country away like low band and sometimes vhf have problems with. Then you have broadcastify just spilling public safety radio traffic out for anybody who want it's like oil from a tanker crash. Add that with almost every frequency in use around the country being reported and published on radio reference for any old schmuck to go look up and you start to see the problem. To much info is readily available to the public. When my small area radio monitoring group decided to stop keeping our own records of data in our area and publish it all on radio reference because the owner of that site hasn't made enough money yet exploiting are once exuberant and lively hobby I saw the end sneaking up fast. But it's not my radio clubs fault i blame radio reference and broadcastify were a criminal can tune in clock patrol traffic and anything else they may need to time and commit crimes with little to no resistance from public safety already knowing what to expect. Or have a lookout listening to there it on there smart phone when he used to have to have some kind of skill with radios to listen to what he can now here with a click of a mouse or worse yet an app on his smart phone. And now we have even dumbed down the hobby further by putting the entire radio reference database in the scanner for so all you have to do is download the latest update and put in your zip code and pop everything from police to public safety are preloaded with the latest information from the biggest threat to our hobby. But wait in case you are so radio incompetent that you don't even know how to lock out unwanted channels don't worry you can just select the correct service tags to hear what you want if your a criminal just lock out all but police services if your a fire bug just lock out all but fire. These problems are not going away they are just getting worse as we enable more and more people who didn't have access to these comms easy access everything they could want and use to the disadvantage of the public and public safety. So of course police will encrypt. Fire will encrypt. And even ems will encrypt there is to much much information available that once upon a time was not. The part of this that makes me just sick is there is one man behind it who hands out little freebies to those that help him destroy our hobby while he take the big payday from uniden,Whistler, and users of both his websites. Stop enabling him! And the last thing I will bring up is the communications act of or the communications privacy act of 1986 I believe should cover live streaming but for some reason that is loop hole. Make streaming illegal and keep what you hear to yourself this used to be common sense but now we have threads on radiorefernce with titles funniest thing heard one scanner, best call heard on a scanner, active emergency ops on your scanner and so on and so forth. When you ask yourself why is my area going encrypted and why is my 700 dollar scanner now a paper weight just do a search of what info is readily available for your area and what people have posted about what they are hearing in your area things should become a little more clear at that point. I have a lot more to say but I will stop there for more information on the legalities of disclosing what I'd heard on your scanner please see the following link. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2511 And I know I have upset some people but these are just my thoughts and opinions your allowed to have yours please allow me to have mine, Thank you, Bob Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
-------- Original message -------- From: Shawn Benoit <shawnbenoit@...> Date: 11/9/19 14:45 (GMT-06:00) To: main@uniden.groups.io Subject: Re: [Uniden] P25 for Cheap I'm pro encryption for police and EMS communications. Nothing will change that even though it's a hobby and I like to listen. On Sat, Nov 9, 2019 at 13:09 Joe M. <mch@...> wrote: Is that because crime only happens at the
|
|
|
|
Re: P25 for Cheap
Shawn Benoit
I'm pro encryption for police and EMS communications. Nothing will change that even though it's a hobby and I like to listen.
On Sat, Nov 9, 2019 at 13:09 Joe M. <mch@...> wrote: Is that because crime only happens at the
|
|
|
|
Re: P25 for Cheap
Joe M.
It should mute only that thread, but I have to admit
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
there are parts of GIO that I am not familiar with yet. There may be a "timeout" of when the mute expires, too. List Moderator
On 11/9/2019 12:54 PM, Tim Ferguson wrote:
If I choose to “Mute this topic” at the bottom of the email, will it just turn off replies to the P25 for Cheap thread, or all threads? Although it has been interesting, we don’t have P25 here and my phone goes crazy when the replies get hot and heavy.
|
|
|
|
Re: TOO MUCH EMAIL? READ THIS!
Lloyd Mitchell
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
On Sat, Nov 9, 2019 at 12:45 PM Joe M. <mch@...> wrote: If you don't want to receive email from the
|
|
|
|
Re: P25 for Cheap
Joe M.
Is that because crime only happens at the
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
police station and doesn't affect communities? Do you not care that you will be late to work because there is an accident blocking your normal route? Do you not care that you will be ADDING to the problem (traffic) in the above case? Are you fine with going to the mall when there is an active shooter in the area? If there is a felon loose in your neighborhood, are you OK letting your kids go out to play? A FOIA request will not solve any of these cases. Encryption will not alert you to these cases. Only clear communications will let you know WHEN you need to know it. Joe M.
On 11/9/2019 12:54 PM, Shawn Benoit wrote:
Sure, you can get access to police radio recordings by a FOI request (to
|
|
|
|
Re: P25 for Cheap
Shawn Benoit
Sure, you can get access to police radio recordings by a FOI request (to be nosy). No one except the police need real-time access to encrypted communications. Problem solved.
On Sat, Nov 9, 2019 at 12:42 Michael Harpe <mike@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Re: P25 for Cheap
Tim Ferguson
If I choose to “Mute this topic” at the bottom of the email, will it just turn off replies to the P25 for Cheap thread, or all threads? Although it has been interesting, we don’t have P25 here and my phone goes crazy when the replies get hot and heavy.
Thanks, and sorry to interrupt! Tim
|
|
|
|
Re: P25 for Cheap
Which really results in a decision that admits
that the Oregon court has no jurisdiction since it's under
Federal management and law. Rick NK7I
On 11/8/2019 9:35 PM, John Svensson via
Groups.Io wrote:
Years ago, the Oregon State Supreme court ruled against the city of Eugene in a case and said that because the radio frequencies that are used by any one are in fact owned/controlled by the Federal Government, that anything broadcast by them is a matter of public record and cannot be refused to the public
|
|
|
|
Re: P25 for Cheap
The CHP site (cad.chp.ca) is well filtered by dispatch before posting, it's benign and close to real time. Rick NK7I
On 11/8/2019 9:00 PM, Teton Amateur
Radio Repeater Association (TARRA) wrote:
|
|
|
|
TOO MUCH EMAIL? READ THIS!
Joe M.
If you don't want to receive email from the
main (general) list, just send an email to: main+nomail@Uniden.groups.io This way, you will still be able to receive emails from the scanner-specific lists. List Moderator
|
|
|
|
Re: P25 for Cheap
ihc53
Sunshine is the best disinfectant. Sent from my Galaxy Tab A
-------- Original message -------- From: "Joe M." <mch@...> Date: 11/8/19 11:47 PM (GMT-05:00) To: main@Uniden.groups.io Subject: Re: [Uniden] P25 for Cheap Act of 1933 that states divulging and distributing is illegal. That used to be the golden rule of scanners. Joe M. On 11/8/2019 11:34 PM, Teton Amateur Radio Repeater Association (TARRA) wrote: > I believe there have been some court challenges against encryption based > on law enforcement wanting to hide from the public what they are doing > and not staying above board with it. Broadcastify and some of the others > are probably some of the bigger reasons why agencies would go to > encryption. One time I read about a guy who had several scanners and > would make recordings and whatever else, and then type out all the > traffic as fast as he could and publishing it on a web page. Again, a > reason for agencies to encrypt. A big way to stop encrypting is to stop > abusing what you hear. It even gets into some FCC rule violations. More > than once I have seen in our local newspaper "such and such was going on > and happened according to scanner traffic". > > Mick > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Mark Lassman via Groups.Io" > To: main@Uniden.groups.io > Sent: Friday, November 08, 2019 09:11:51 PM > Subject: Re: [Uniden] P25 for Cheap > > > I can’t see ANY logical reason why ANY normal or routine radio > traffic can’t be sent over the air as normal communications and not > scrambled or encrypted. With the possible exceptions of narcotics, gang, > vice and other “sensitive” types of operations, the great majority of > law enforcement communications does not — in my opinion — meet the > criteria that would benefit from being encrypted. > > > > 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!”. > > > > I know that some Fire departments have encrypted and there’s > absolutely NO reason to do THAT. Especially when different departments > are going to be working together in a mutual aid situation. Fortunately, > encryption by Fire departments has not been a very large movement. > > > > > On Nov 8, 2019, at 6:26 PM, Thomas Rafferty Jr. wrote: > > > > > > When I was working, the CAD system, computers in car were used to > give back dispositions on calls, and when you wanted to give Dispatch > info that shouldn't be heard by the public. Everything else was in the > clear. > > > From: main@Uniden.groups.io > on behalf of Jim Walls > > > > Sent: Friday, Novembegive i fo that shouldn't be heard by the > public.r 8, 2019 7:13 PM > > > To: 'main@Uniden.groups.io ' > > > > Subject: Re: [Uniden] P25 for Cheap > > > > > > Steve T said: > > > > There are a lot of law enforcement agencies here in Ohio that > have went to in-cruiser laptops for most communications. > > > > Scanner traffic on their freqs are virtually silent. > > > > > > Yes, and no. Yes, lots of agencies use mobile data terminals or > computers in vehicles. They work very well for dispatches and things > like license and registration checks. What they don’t work well for is > tactical traffic, and obviously not for anything when the officer is out > of the vehicle. If you are hearing nothing on the radio channels, most > likely they moved to new channels or systems. I can’t give any specifics > about Ohio since I am not there. > > > To give you an idea how true this is, I run a regional trunked > radio system that is used by several dozen cities. Some cities have all > city services on the system and some are just public safety. Almost all > of the police agencies have mobile data terminals of one sort or another > in their vehicles. I just ran a report of the busiest 50 talkgroups for > the past 24 hours. Here is a summary of the results: > > > #1 – #8 were all police dispatch talkgroups (all different agencies), > > > #9 was a police tac talkgroup, > > > #10 was a police dispatch talkgroup, > > > #11 was a regional fire dispatch talkgroup (dispatches for 12 > cities plus one airport fire), > > > #12 – #19 were all police dispatch talkgroups, > > > #20 was a police tac talkgroup, > > > #21 was the first non-public safety talkgroup – it was trash > collectors for one of the cities. > > > Total radio time for the top 20 was 551 minutes for #1 down to 125 > minutes for #20 (out of 1440 minutes for a full day). So the least busy > of those still talked for just over two hours out of the last 24. Hardly > what I would call silent. > > > > > > BTW, almost universally, even though dispatches are sent out via > data terminal, they are also sent out by voice (sometimes a summary > version). The reason for this is situational awareness, It lets other > units in the area know what’s going on. I can’t tell you how many times > that I heard a dispatch, and it was almost immediately followed by > another unit (who is closer, but already on a call) say something like > “I’ll be clear in a minute and can take that call on xxx street”. > Happens all the time. > > > > > > > > > Jim Walls - K6CCC ? City of Glendale > > > Information Services ? Wireless Communications > > > 120 N. Isabel St. ? Glendale, CA 91206 ? (818) 548-4804 > > > jwalls@... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Untitled Document > > > <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> > Virus-free. www.avg.com > <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> > > > <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> >
|
|
|
|
Re: P25 for Cheap
Michael Harpe
I ha w to disagree. Some lunatic typing all the traffic and publishing it isn’t going to be a big problem for long. Taxpayers have a right to know what the police are doing in all but unusual dangerous situations. Those needs can be met with encrypted channels used for that purpose. In this day and age accountability trumps other things.
|
|
|
|
Re: P25 for Cheap
Joe Polcari
100% agree. (I'm also politically triggered, but beside the point.)
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
-----Original Message-----
From: main@Uniden.groups.io [mailto:main@Uniden.groups.io] On Behalf Of Joe M. Sent: Friday, November 08, 2019 11:30 PM To: main@Uniden.groups.io 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). <soapbox mode on - if you are easily offended stop reading now. What 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. <soapbox mode off> Joe M. On 11/8/2019 11:11 PM, Mark Lassman via Groups.Io wrote:
|
|
|
|
Re: P25 for Cheap
starbasessd@...
Not exactly real-time for a newspaper to publish that kind of comment...
|
|
|
|
Re: P25 for Cheap
limey77
And radio mfg,s are loving it $$$$$ kg4gwb80
From: main@Uniden.groups.io <main@Uniden.groups.io> on behalf of Teton Amateur Radio Repeater Association (TARRA) <tarra@...>
Sent: Friday, November 8, 2019 9:43:27 PM To: main@Uniden.groups.io <main@Uniden.groups.io> Subject: Re: [Uniden] P25 for Cheap 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." To: main@Uniden.groups.io 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!”. > > > > --
|
|
|
|
Re: P25 for Cheap
John Svensson
Years ago, the Oregon State Supreme court ruled against the city of Eugene in a case and said that because the radio frequencies that are used by any one are in fact owned/controlled by the Federal Government, that anything broadcast by them is a matter of public record and cannot be refused to the public
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
-----Original Message-----
From: main@Uniden.groups.io <main@Uniden.groups.io> On Behalf Of Joe M. Sent: Friday, November 8, 2019 20:30 To: main@Uniden.groups.io 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). <soapbox mode on - if you are easily offended stop reading now. What 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. <soapbox mode off> Joe M. On 11/8/2019 11:11 PM, Mark Lassman via Groups.Io wrote:
|
|
|