keeton155
Member
Did Estas Park go to encrytion too or are they just being ditial this afternoon? Also I've notice the lately that on sheriff tac 3, dispatch is fine but cars/packsets are ditial.
Rick
Rick
Estas Park
- Thread starter keeton155
- Start date
- Status
ScannerSK
Member
The following is posted on the Estes Park audio feed:
"It's a sad day for listeners of the Estes park Police dept feed. As of Aug 18 2014 the dept turned on the encryption for all Police Radio Traffic. Please help me get this reversed. Please send emails to the Mayor and all town trustees of Estes park."
Shawn
"It's a sad day for listeners of the Estes park Police dept feed. As of Aug 18 2014 the dept turned on the encryption for all Police Radio Traffic. Please help me get this reversed. Please send emails to the Mayor and all town trustees of Estes park."
Shawn
Spitfire8520
I might be completely clueless! =)
Yep, we had a little bit of a discussion right before and after it happened over in the http://forums.radioreference.com/colorado-radio-discussion-forum/296553-here-my-email.html topic. Last intentionally clear traffic was transmitted at 18:01 on August 18, 2014.
Loveland is going encrypted this year too.
Ensnared
Member
Silence
I wonder why?
I wonder why?
Kevin_N
Member
Yeah, but they still don't need to do all channels unless they're corrupt.
They use the unmentionable as an excuse.
If they had a channel or 2 that would be enough for when they can justify it. Going all out means you're corrupt.
They use the unmentionable as an excuse.
If they had a channel or 2 that would be enough for when they can justify it. Going all out means you're corrupt.
Just Loveland PD or Loveland PD and Fire?
As far as I know just PD. They use encryption now, but just for SWAT and other stuff. I guess when your neighbor to the north does it you have to too. :roll:
Spitfire8520
I might be completely clueless! =)
Do you happen to know an approximate date for this?
Published a few years ago:
Loveland police consider use of encrypted radio channels - Loveland Reporter-Herald
Loveland police consider use of encrypted radio channels - Loveland Reporter-Herald
I wouldn't be surprised if a few don't take exception to that statement, Kevin. Saying this 'means' you're not thinking creatively enough. The old saw is "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." In this case, let's change that up to "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by laziness".
Have you ever talked to any LEO about this? I think you may find the answer is much simpler and less sinister than you think. Many of them whose jobs don't have them 'living' on encrypted channels as a matter of course just don't want to be bothered to switch channels when something gets 'interesting' enough to warrant moving to an encrypted channel.
Kevin_N
Member
I suspect you're right that probably many would take exception. And I kind of hope they do. Then maybe they want to prove it wrong. I don't mean any disrespect to officers and I'm glad we have them. It's the bosses that make these decisions.
I have actually talked to officers about it over the years. I'm old. And it seems to be mixed. Some don't care, some think it's not possible to listen, some think it shouldn't be allowed, some think it should be allowed. It's really the policy of the Chiefs and the people right below them, which means it's up to the random thoughts on the subject. Different departments have different cultures, unfortunately we are seeing more turn to the dark side.
I'm old enough to be really sick of government entities talking about being "open and transparent" and doing things like this at the same time. How can you take that seriously at a minimum and it's like you're being lied to. Not to get into politics.
On the thing about not wanting to change channels, that's a really bad reason if they're even serious. First the point is that it should be rare that they even need to do that based on the ratio of calls that don't justify it to the ones that do. Secondly they could talk to the agencies that change channels all the time, encrypted or not. Or maybe they could ask the Fire guys (and gals) how they turn a knob when they get to a scene, even a busy right away scene.
I have actually talked to officers about it over the years. I'm old. And it seems to be mixed. Some don't care, some think it's not possible to listen, some think it shouldn't be allowed, some think it should be allowed. It's really the policy of the Chiefs and the people right below them, which means it's up to the random thoughts on the subject. Different departments have different cultures, unfortunately we are seeing more turn to the dark side.
I'm old enough to be really sick of government entities talking about being "open and transparent" and doing things like this at the same time. How can you take that seriously at a minimum and it's like you're being lied to. Not to get into politics.
On the thing about not wanting to change channels, that's a really bad reason if they're even serious. First the point is that it should be rare that they even need to do that based on the ratio of calls that don't justify it to the ones that do. Secondly they could talk to the agencies that change channels all the time, encrypted or not. Or maybe they could ask the Fire guys (and gals) how they turn a knob when they get to a scene, even a busy right away scene.
I fully agree about the channel switching. I thought it to be a pretty lame argument myself, but have heard it expressed more than once.
It's a problem of how some agencies manage 'hot' calls that originally develop on a primary dispatch channel, and as things escalate, how regular traffic is moved to the secondary channel that is normally used for non-routine traffic. Suddenly and unexpectedly, you have a 'situation' in full flow on your normal (unencrypted) dispatch channel that you wish was encrypted. It's a function of how a given agency manages their emerging situation traffic. Some move everyone involved in the incident, and some move everyone else. In the latter case, nobody has to be bothered to twist a knob, but they sometimes dislike having that traffic unencrypted The department decides how it's managed.
If you think about it, you will understand. Everytime there is a channel change, you have three possible outcomes. 1) Everyone goes to the channel specified and everything is fine. 2) Someone goes to the wrong channel (easy if you are firefighter and are changing channels in the dark with gloves on). 3) Someone does not hear and gets left behind. Two of the three outcomes are not good. Kind of like the forward pass in football, two of the three outcomes are bad. In football, you lose a down or the ball. In public safety you can lose a life. The math does not support a channel change and virtually all agencies adhere to the concept of leaving hot calls where they are and move the less important stuff.
Odd how the officers that are NOT part of the hot traffic manage the transition so well to another channel. Paying attention to dispatch announcements certainly helps.
What's surprising is how SOME agencies seem to be able to manage the transition just fine -- because they are completely accustomed to it because it is and has been their standard approach to the problem.
However, you've just reinforced the perfect argument for encryption of ALL channels.
What's surprising is how SOME agencies seem to be able to manage the transition just fine -- because they are completely accustomed to it because it is and has been their standard approach to the problem.
However, you've just reinforced the perfect argument for encryption of ALL channels.
Kevin_N
Member
Aurora is really good at changing channels.
Yup. They're an example of how it seems to work well when everyone is accustomed to the channel swapping. With several tac channels per district, they have plenty of room to move around, too.
- Status
