ibagli said:
Actually, if you're stopping people from listening for any reason, to stop them from hearing anything, you are by definition hiding what is being transmitted. It may not be for nefarious, tinfoil hat reasons, but it meets the definition of "hiding." (Sorry for the nitpick)
True! You hit on what I was trying to get at in what I put in bold. Too often there are conspiracy theorists or cynics ready to level accusations of an agency having something sinister worth hiding because they choose to go with an encrypted/unmonitorable system. While I'm not suggesting that every person in every agency is perfect or without fault, the idea of there being agency-wide corruption as the motivating factor for using this type of system is just silly.
Sometimes we just don't want people listening to us, simple as that! It's a screwed up, politically correct and uber-sensitive world we live in, where almost everyone has a recording device of some sort that is always rolling. Couple that with the fact that people are so quick to criticize or bring litigation based on usually nothing more than circumstantial or anecdotal "evidence", and it's no wonder so many agencies are moving towards these unmonitorable technologies!
JoeyC said:
Encryption is simply a option to buy on the radio system. If the agency wants to buy the option thats their business.
If I'm buying a car I have no obligation to consult with other drivers as to the options I purchase for my car.
:roll:
Good analogy, although in fairness I would suggest that if you are a resident taxpayer within a jurisdiction that is spending the money for these technologies (not cheap), you do have a right to question it using the proper forum to do so. By all means, keep them honest. Also realize and accept that in the end, they're going to do what they feel is best for their own wellbeing and, in this case, the good of the general public they are charged with protecting.
It's the people who are always crying foul because these technologies are killing their monitoring hobby that I can't quite understand. Listen, I'm not an insensitive bastard, I sympathize with the fact that it sucks if there's nothing to listen to, but it is what it is. If I hear someone exclaim one more time that it's their God given RIGHT to monitor all our communications, I'm going to puke. While it may be legal (in most cases) to monitor those transmissions which are sent "in the clear", it by no means implies any rights above and beyond that!