Are Scanner Feeds Killing The LE Monitoring Hobby?

[steveinny]

I recently purchased a Uniden BC346XT & BCT15X instead of their digital equivalents (BCD396XT & 996XT) because of the significant cost savings. I live in an area where the police are APCO 25 and fortunately there is a feed available that I stream from my smartphone/tablet/pc. In my opinion the streams are probably a concern for law enforcement but the money is not there to encrypt a large agency considering the current economy. For us hobbyists the streams can help us monitor with little or no cost & this is the reason it has become an issue for LE. A Catch 22 since I would not want encrypted transmissions yet the streams are convenient, easy and saved me hundreds of dollars in my scanner purchases. Just my perspective on the topic.
Steve

[RadioDaze]

But you also have a lot less control over what you can listen to. Or the ability to monitor if the feed is affected by a power outage.

[Jimru]

I have yet to find a feed in the areas of interest for me that isn't mixed with something else that is of no interest to me.

Not really useful compared to a scanner where you can just park on a talkgroup or channel and follow the action.

That is why I find it so hard to believe that the bad guys are really able to make much use of these feeds while perpetrating their nefarious deeds.

[rdale]

Many areas do have one talkgroup/freq per feed, so in that case it is fairly easy to stay on a conversation. Look at Chicago / NYC / etc. where precincts are broken down individually. Or county sheriff's office. You name it... ScannerLive and smartphone apps that scan add value to those individual feeds.

[Jimru]

Originally Posted by rdale

Many areas do have one talkgroup/freq per feed, so in that case it is fairly easy to stay on a conversation. Look at Chicago / NYC / etc. where precincts are broken down individually. Or county sheriff's office. You name it... ScannerLive and smartphone apps that scan add value to those individual feeds.

This is definitely true about NYC, so, in my case, having moved from NYC to Cape Cod, MA, I will be able to keep an ear on things there, at least in some areas. More than likely I will just select the citywide channels.

However, in the case of Oakland, CA, where my brother lives, the coverage is too general and therefore it is a bit harder to keep track of any one particular conversation.

I understand the reasoning behind the broad coverage by feed providers. It's the nature of the beast.

[gmclam]

I don't think it is so much the "bad guys" who are the problem. If you're a real crook, you've got a real scanner, etc. I think the problem the feeds cause are the "ambulance chasers", looky-loos and other average citizens that interfere with calls. Certainly not all people who listen to streams are guilty, but enough do that it has caught the attention of public safety people.

[cronst10]

The "bad guys" are the problem. What has caught the attention of public safety people is that technology today is much greater than it was twenty years ago to monitor their transmissions. Some states have laws now regarding scanners, whether used in commiting a crime, that is possesion of one on you to even a scanner in your vehicle. But no laws as to a cell phone capable of receiving a live feed, so if you where a "real crook" with half a brain you would use your cell phone connected to a live feed. So the real solution is to encrypt such transmissions, so now the law abiding scanner user suffers from the "bad guys" actions. Cell phones capable of receiving a live feed suffer also, those using a PC suffer also, the bottom line is say "Thanks" to the "bad guys" .

[Jimru]

Originally Posted by cronst10

The "bad guys" are the problem. What has caught the attention of public safety people is that technology today is much greater than it was twenty years ago to monitor their transmissions. Some states have laws now regarding scanners, whether used in commiting a crime, that is possesion of one on you to even a scanner in your vehicle. But no laws as to a cell phone capable of receiving a live feed, so if you where a "real crook" with half a brain you would use your cell phone connected to a live feed. So the real solution is to encrypt such transmissions, so now the law abiding scanner user suffers from the "bad guys" actions. Cell phones capable of receiving a live feed suffer also, those using a PC suffer also, the bottom line is say "Thanks" to the "bad guys" .

What if there were laws adding penalties to charges while using an app during the commission of a crime?

It's not so far-fetched, as you have stated it is illegal to use a scanner as such in most states.

They can't make possession of a smart phone a crime (yet), but the above scenario is something that some jurisdictions might already be considering.

This would be more practical, in my view, than the idea of "registering" app users by law enforcement; it's only enforced if you are caught committing a crime!

[JoeyC]

Originally Posted by cronst10

The "bad guys" are the problem. What has caught the attention of public safety people is that technology today is much greater than it was twenty years ago to monitor their transmissions. Some states have laws now regarding scanners, whether used in commiting a crime, that is possesion of one on you to even a scanner in your vehicle. But no laws as to a cell phone capable of receiving a live feed, so if you where a "real crook" with half a brain you would use your cell phone connected to a live feed. So the real solution is to encrypt such transmissions, so now the law abiding scanner user suffers from the "bad guys" actions. Cell phones capable of receiving a live feed suffer also, those using a PC suffer also, the bottom line is say "Thanks" to the "bad guys" .

It is a very little bit the bad guys, and very much so the casual looky loos and other reasons.

Since when does someone committing criminal activity care to remain within the law by not using a real scanner because it is illegal to use a scanner in the commission of a crime but instead use a cell app simply because the cell app is not addressed in the law? That makes no sense.

[DaveNF2G]

Originally Posted by Jimru

What if there were laws adding penalties to charges while using an app during the commission of a crime?

This is in fact the most practical solution. Lawmakers, however, are more impressed with image and campaign donations than with practicality.

This would be more practical, in my view, than the idea of "registering" app users by law enforcement; it's only enforced if you are caught committing a crime!

Exactly what they want to do now with guns. After they are all registered, confiscation will be a snap. Wanna give up your scanners some day without compensation? Just "register" them with some government agency and wait.

[Jimru]

Originally Posted by DaveNF2G

This is in fact the most practical solution. Lawmakers, however, are more impressed with image and campaign donations than with practicality.



Exactly what they want to do now with guns. After they are all registered, confiscation will be a snap. Wanna give up your scanners some day without compensation? Just "register" them with some government agency and wait.

Eggzactly!

[cronst10]

Joeyc, you make a good point, criminals don't care, but it's a lot easier to carry a cell than a scanner. We recently had several homes broken into before the county law happened to catch our "bad guys" in the act, a deputy paying attention to a certain vehicle in the area of such break ins questioned the operator sitting in that area, much to his surprise the operator left his cell on speaker, I think you can figure out the rest of the story.

[Arizona_Scanner]

I really don't think a scanner app does much good to a criminal trying to watch certain frequencies / talk groups, since you have no way of controlling what is playing, and you can't stop on or seek out specific channels or talk groups. I just can't see it being of any value in this regard unless you live in a very small town with two or three frequencies used, no encryption, and there just happens to be a feed for that small town.

I personally feel that the main concern is that with enough people listening to the feed of a major department (like Phoenix PD in my case), one or two bad apples will hear a major event, and then go out a be a nuisance (or worse) at the scene.

[rdale]

What would they do at a scene which would cause trouble?

[Jimru]

Originally Posted by rdale

What would they do at a scene which would cause trouble?

Just being there gawking?

[rdale]

I've been at scenes with dozens of people outside the line and I've never noticed a problem, so I guess I'm not seeing what you're trying to say?

[pb_lonny]

This has been talked about for ages. I agree that it might be seen as a bit of a problem for some people / agencies but at the end of the day what will happen will happen.

[loumaag]

Originally Posted by rdale

What would they do at a scene which would cause trouble?

Originally Posted by Jimru

Just being there gawking?

Originally Posted by rdale

I've been at scenes with dozens of people outside the line and I've never noticed a problem, so I guess I'm not seeing what you're trying to say?

Merely being present at a scene causes problems. The more people (gawkers) the more resources have to be committed to making sure the scene stays secure. I guess, Rob, you need to spend some time on the inside of the tape to understand the problem. That said, I don't think that those folks listening on the mobile device go to a scene they hear about unless it is around the corner. I think, most folks who are a scene and listening, didn't start listening until they were attracted to the scene and are trying to figure out what is going on.

I do believe that the online scanner feeds may not "kill" the hobby, but they are definitely affecting it. It seems like on a daily basis I see some reference here on the forums about someone who is looking for a specific place to have a feed or asking about where a feed went and at least 3/4 of the time the individual is local to that feed. My thought every time I see such a post is: Go Buy A Scanner. You see, I think the more scanners that are sold, the lower the price and the bigger the hobby becomes; the more folks don't have to invest in something, the less they think of it. I could go on with that thought, but it really isn't part of the OP's question.

[milf]

What does being at a scene do? Your held up by traffic snarls on the interstate: why? What we used to call rubberneckers. They HAVE to slow down and LOOK til thier necks SNAP! Thats just a basic example. Ever been near a homicide scene? Everyone and thier momma just has to look at the "scene of the crime", even if they have no reason to even be involved at all. Human nature.

As to the Live Feeds issues: At least on our affiliated sites there are NO tactical/scene/swat/specops freqs/tg's allowed to be fed as a general rule. Some feed softwares have at least a 1 minute built in delay. As fast as the speed of life is, delay doesn't matter anyway so thats just bogus bullsheet. Almost EVERY PS agency has an dedicated freq/tg for "sensitive" operations. If they really want to do things the right and responsible way they will use them for ALL sensitive ops, never do tac on dispatch! And if your really going to be secure, ENCRYPT those freqs/tg's!

The actual 3 main reasons agencies end up going end to end encryption is slick salesmen, paranoia, and goood old misinformation!

We all know the story of several systems that had PD fully in clear, and Animal Control fully encrypted. Heres a fact, that has actually happened on several systems.... Makes no sense whatsoever, but hey, thats life... There are agencies that encrypt dispatch, but leave all else clear.... Then some go overboard in everything they do.

[Jimru]

Originally Posted by milf

We all know the story of several systems that had PD fully in clear, and Animal Control fully encrypted.

I saw a raccoon with a scanner sitting in a tree, quite disgusted that Animal Control was encrypted....