• Effective immediately we will be deleting, without notice, any negative threads or posts that deal with the use of encryption and streaming of scanner audio.

    We've noticed a huge increase in rants and negative posts that revolve around agencies going to encryption due to the broadcasting of scanner audio on the internet. It's now worn out and continues to be the same recycled rants. These rants hijack the threads and derail the conversation. They no longer have a place anywhere on this forum other than in the designated threads in the Rants forum in the Tavern.

    If you violate these guidelines your post will be deleted without notice and an infraction will be issued. We are not against discussion of this issue. You just need to do it in the right place. For example:
    https://forums.radioreference.com/rants/224104-official-thread-live-audio-feeds-scanners-wait-encryption.html

Feed Delay

Status
Not open for further replies.

WX9RLT

Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2006
Messages
376
Location
N. Illinois
Has anyone found a way to delay our scanner feeds yet?

There is a 30 second delay as of right now, but for officer safety, it needs to be longer.

For us who owns scanners, we hear it right away. But for officer safety, there needs to be more of a delay in the feeds than 30 seconds. So, criminals and others, do not hear the call, until officers are already on scene.

yes, this is highly debatable subject.

As a scanner feed provider, I would like the option, or know how to, implement a delay in the feed.

Any info. much appreciated, thanks
 

jtech48

Member
Joined
May 5, 2009
Messages
246
Location
OVB
I'd Have To Agree, I wouldnt want my feed to provide a criminal the heads-up that officers are on the way and like you said 30 seconds is still not much of a delay
 

WX9RLT

Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2006
Messages
376
Location
N. Illinois
oh wow, thanks

Would like to know the reason for it though?


I have heard many officers complaining about not having a delay, because of their safety. Thats why I asked. I know many officers aren't going to be happy when they see that.

I am sure he has a good reason behind his logic.

Anyone know if a delay causes more load on the servers? Or a personal preference by him?
 
Last edited:

W8RMH

Feed Provider Since 2012
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jan 4, 2009
Messages
7,855
Location
Grove City, Ohio (A Bearcat not a Buckeye)
Bull. It has nothing to do with officer safety. I worked the streets for over 20 years and never encountered an officer safety incident related to somone monitoring our communications. To the contary, we received a great deal of intelligence from scanner listeners. Many times a citizen had warned me, and probably saved my life, because they knew the suspects description and advised me of his location upon my arrival, where otherwise I could have been a sitting duck. I wish every one had a scanner. It was a lot easier to listen back then too. No digital, no trunking, no encryption. Crystal scanners were very common and cheap too.

People have been listening to police calls since the thirties. This is nothing new people.
I think what this has become is that these agencies do not want anyone hearing their traffic because thay do not want to be held accountable. Period.
They quickly forget who is paying for their new toys. The Taxpayers.

If it's that big a deal, let them buy the encryption (and waste more of our money). I would not want to live in a city where the police were witholding information from the public anyway. If there is some nut with a gun in front of my house I have the right to be aware of it.

I say leave the dispatch in-the-clear. Have a few tactical channels. If it is something sensitive switch channels or use the phone. It's worked fine for the last 70 years. The police need to work WITH the citizens and not against them.
 

digitalanalog

Member
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
401
Agreed , Nicely Said...

Bull. It has nothing to do with officer safety. I worked the streets for over 20 years and never encountered an officer safety incident related to somone monitoring our communications. To the contary, we received a great deal of intelligence from scanner listeners. Many times a citizen had warned me, and probably saved my life, because they knew the suspects description and advised me of his location upon my arrival, where otherwise I could have been a sitting duck. I wish every one had a scanner. It was a lot easier to listen back then too. No digital, no trunking, no encryption. Crystal scanners were very common and cheap too.

People have been listening to police calls since the thirties. This is nothing new people.
I think what this has become is that these agencies do not want anyone hearing their traffic because thay do not want to be held accountable. Period.
They quickly forget who is paying for their new toys. The Taxpayers.

If it's that big a deal, let them buy the encryption (and waste more of our money). I would not want to live in a city where the police were witholding information from the public anyway. If there is some nut with a gun in front of my house I have the right to be aware of it.

I say leave the dispatch in-the-clear. Have a few tactical channels. If it is something sensitive switch channels or use the phone. It's worked fine for the last 70 years. The police need to work WITH the citizens and not against them.
 

jeatock

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jul 9, 2003
Messages
580
Location
090-45-50 W, 39-43-22 N
In total agreement.

Remember that anything said, be it via radio, telephone, face-to-face conversation, or tin cans and string is subject to being overheard. Any communication begins with thinking about what you say before you say it.

This is the age of AVL and MDTs. At home, we use Yahoo! instant messaging- technically not very secure, but it works on any platform and is free. All it takes is a smart phone or an air card in the laptop.

If real-time internet monitoring becomes such a big issue in running (literally) down a perp, delay the internet 60 seconds. If that one in a million perps is carrying a scanner, see paragraph one. I monitor my agency over a real radio at home, and over the Internet when I'm away- when I'm away a 60-second delay wouldn't bother me one bit. I don't need to hear the deep-dark Secret Squirrel stuff anyway.

Merry Christmas to all!
 
Last edited:

webstar22

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 21, 2003
Messages
830
Location
Earth Sector 001
Has anyone found a way to delay our scanner feeds yet?

There is a 30 second delay as of right now, but for officer safety, it needs to be longer.

For us who owns scanners, we hear it right away. But for officer safety, there needs to be more of a delay in the feeds than 30 seconds. So, criminals and others, do not hear the call, until officers are already on scene.

yes, this is highly debatable subject.

As a scanner feed provider, I would like the option, or know how to, implement a delay in the feed.

Any info. much appreciated, thanks
RR.com has said they wouldn't allow this but I am sure if someone found a way to do it other then shoot themselves and start turning off feeds RR.com wouldn't do much. Also there really isn't a way for someone to tell there is a delay unless someone near you with a scanner tells on you that your feed is X mins behind his scanner.

Once way I could think if is run your own icecast server and tweak the settings to make a longer delay which is possible. But then you need to get RR.com to pull from your server.
 

talkpair

Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2009
Messages
918
Location
Clinton County, MO
Would like to know the reason for it though?
One problem I can see with delaying the audio on the feed provider's end, is that the audio in the files created in the audio archives would not correspond to the times listed on the download menu.

This could result in complaints of archived audio files being labeled incorrectly.
 

WX9RLT

Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2006
Messages
376
Location
N. Illinois
True, but if they label the archives with the corresponding delay, then they wont have that problem.





One problem I can see with delaying the audio on the feed provider's end, is that the audio in the files created in the audio archives would not correspond to the times listed on the download menu.

This could result in complaints of archived audio files being labeled incorrectly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top