Madison, WI - Cost-sharing plan supported for county emergency radios

[Thunderbolt]

MADISON, Wis. -- Despite objections from police, fire and municipal officials outside Madison, the Dane County 911 board approved a cost-sharing plan for the county's new $30 million radio system Wednesday.

Cost-sharing plan supported for county emergency radios

[idontknow82]

I would of liked to know how they pulled this fiasco off....And I would be betting thats its a encrypted system as well. I wouldnt want to be a taxpayer down there.

[N_Jay]

Originally Posted by idontknow82

I would of liked to know how they pulled this fiasco off.

Why do you say it is a "fiasco"?
I would guess the newspaper article is missing a few facts.
New Dane County 911 Director has Challenges Ahead

Originally Posted by idontknow82

And I would be betting thats its a encrypted system as well. .

Why do you think so?

Originally Posted by idontknow82

I wouldnt want to be a taxpayer down there.

I can think of much worse places.

[idontknow82]

Originally Posted by N_Jay

Why do you say it is a "fiasco"?
I would guess the newspaper article is missing a few facts.
New Dane County 911 Director has Challenges Ahead

Why do you think so?



I can think of much worse places.

Oh....you again....Well why do you think taxpayers want to pay for something they can't hear?
Well N_jay, whats your view on encryption?

[N_Jay]

Originally Posted by idontknow82

Oh....you again..

Sorry for the questions, but I am not a "Know-it-all" like you are.

Originally Posted by idontknow82

Well why do you think taxpayers want to pay for something they can't hear?

1) other than wild guesses, do you have ANY information supporting your ASSumption that it will be encrypted full time?
2) Personally, I think most people care how public safety does their job and does not care at all about being able to eavesdrop on them.
3) as for the small minority that enjoys the hobby of scanner listening, I return to #1.

Originally Posted by idontknow82

Well N_jay, whats your view on encryption?

My "view"?
Kind of a open ended question, not being a Know-it-all like you are, I don't know exactly how you want me to answer, so feel free to ask more specific questions.

Of course we are getting off-topic, so maybe (yet another) new thread on encryption is needed.

EDIT:
I just noticed, while you had no trouble commenting on my post, you did not bother to answer any of the questions posed.
Hmmm, conversationalist, or troll?

[idontknow82]

Originally Posted by N_Jay

Sorry for the questions, but I am not a "Know-it-all" like you are.


1) other than wild guesses, do you have ANY information supporting your ASSumption that it will be encrypted full time?
2) Personally, I think most people care how public safety does their job and does not care at all about being able to eavesdrop on them.
3) as for the small minority that enjoys the hobby of scanner listening, I return to #1.


My "view"?
Kind of a open ended question, not being a Know-it-all like you are, I don't know exactly how you want me to answer, so feel free to ask more specific questions.

Of course we are getting off-topic, so maybe (yet another) new thread on encryption is needed.

EDIT:
I just noticed, while you had no trouble commenting on my post, you did not bother to answer any of the questions posed.
Hmmm, conversationalist, or troll?

Well first off, I don't claim to know it all. But thanks anyways.

When you say "public safety" it should be just that, public!

When any law enforcement or public safety wants to upgrade that usually seems to equal "we don't want anyone to hear us".

I was evading questions like, government and law enforcement does.

Absolutely getting off topic, but thats fun isnt it?

[N_Jay]

Originally Posted by idontknow82

Well first off, I don't claim to know it all. But thanks anyways.

Yet, you are confident in your assumptions.

Not a great combination.

Originally Posted by idontknow82

When you say "public safety" it should be just that, public!

Kind of a meaningless statement, unless you are going to go down the old (and very incorrect) "We bought it therefore we have a right to listen to it" path.

Originally Posted by idontknow82

When any law enforcement or public safety wants to upgrade that usually seems to equal "we don't want anyone to hear us".

Just one more unfounded assumption.
Don't both with the examples, and there are plenty on both sides.
Maybe you should look up "selective perception".

Originally Posted by idontknow82

I was evading questions like, government and law enforcement does.

Once again, you let your bias lead you down the wrong road.

Originally Posted by idontknow82

Absolutely getting off topic, but thats fun isnt it?

Sometimes but not always.

Since this is not the tavern, why don't you take a little time and actually find out a thing or two about the system being referred to before making off-topic and wrong statements about a system you know nothing about in a thread specifically about news on the system.

EDIT:|
Guess the last question in my previous post has been answered.

[idontknow82]

Originally Posted by N_Jay

Yet, you are confident in your assumptions.

Not a great combination.


Kind of a meaningless statement, unless you are going to go down the old (and very incorrect) "We bought it therefore we have a right to listen to it" path.


Just one more unfounded assumption.
Don't both with the examples, and there are plenty on both sides.
Maybe you should look up "selective perception".


Once again, you let your bias lead you down the wrong road.



Sometimes but not always.

Since this is not the tavern, why don't you take a little time and actually find out a thing or two about the system being referred to before making off-topic and wrong statements about a system you know nothing about in a thread specifically about news on the system.

EDIT:|
Guess the last question in my previous post has been answered.

Well golly...They don't seem to have that information saying its open or closed.

When government and law enforcement want to upgrade communications they want to suprress information. Why do you want it to turn into george orwells 1984?

Once again you seem to side with law enforcement.

You must work for the government or something.

I don't do taverns.

[N_Jay]

Originally Posted by idontknow82

Well golly...They don't seem to have that information saying its open or closed.

They, who?
I know you don't, but I am quite sure that 'they" (those involved in the process) do in fact know.

Why would you be so presumptuous to assume that whatever you don't know,m is unknown by all?

Originally Posted by idontknow82

When government and law enforcement want to upgrade communications they want to suprress information.

Says who? (Other then you acting as a know-it-all)

Originally Posted by idontknow82

Why do you want it to turn into george orwells 1984?

Where did I say I did?
What set of unfounded assumptions lead you to such a conclusion?

Originally Posted by idontknow82

Once again you seem to side with law enforcement.

Why don't you double check.
It may only appear so because you side against at every opportunity.
(P.S. When did this become a "police" discussion? I thought it was a public safety system.)

Originally Posted by idontknow82

You must work for the government or something.

Really? Why do you say that?
Do you think that everyone who thinks rationally (unlike yourself) works for government?

Originally Posted by idontknow82

I don't do taverns.

You don't do rational discussions either,obviously, so this is over.

[idontknow82]

Originally Posted by N_Jay

They, who?
I know you don't, but I am quite sure that 'they" (those involved in the process) do in fact know.

Why would you be so presumptuous to assume that whatever you don't know,m is unknown by all?


Says who? (Other then you acting as a know-it-all)


Where did I say I did?
What set of unfounded assumptions lead you to such a conclusion?


Why don't you double check.
It may only appear so because you side against at every opportunity.
(P.S. When did this become a "police" discussion? I thought it was a public safety system.)


Really? Why do you say that?
Do you think that everyone who thinks rationally (unlike yourself) works for government?


You don't do rational discussions either,obviously, so this is over.

Well N_Jay...You yourself have gotten your own self into this by replying. I am simply giving my own opinion. If no one questions what the government is doing who will? Sure not you! You don't seem to have a problem with giving liberty away for security. You yourself are not rational either. And i'm sure you will be back to reply!