• 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

Last of the scanners: Are police security measures and new technologies killing an American obsession?

WeBeCinYa

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Apr 26, 2009
Messages
287
Location
NC
#21
If you enjoy listening, just move to a poor county where they still have VHF and no plans for infrastructure upgrades.
 

n9cqc

Newbie
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Apr 28, 2012
Messages
1
#22
I agree that the death of the scanner hobby is inevitable but it's still a shame. More and more our government and law enforcement officials take an 'us versus them' approach to the public and want to operate under a blanket of secrecy.
 
Joined
Oct 6, 2018
Messages
188
Location
Land of entrapment
#23
Out of sight out of mind however everyone wanting to be a facebook hero know it all for attention will also get eyes looking and the brain thinking. I know cause we will be migrating where I'm at toward it and honestly I'm for it. Idk how many calls people show up asking questions they shouldn't be or facebook scanner said this.

Just tell them it's a shark attack.

I went as far some time back of letting a provider know and they ignored. Soon it'll be moot and I am one of the few adding in the new strapped zones on our stuff. Pretty soon not even the dog catcher, public works will be monitorable since they opted in also.

I will say for fact in my time I have seen apps used to monitor and counter act LE where I am and it isn't in all aspects a bad place. But when there is narcotics and break ins using the apps to scanner then it just makes one weigh it all. Recently there was a arson where the person used a scanner, some storage facilities have been hit and one suspect dropped his scanner so this shown how they were able to evade every time.

As mts says pretty much every brand nkw offers a form of free encryption sometimes multi key and depending on the large order you could get discounts or the fee removed. It isn't back in day where it was a brick size radio module and low digital quality. With multi band available, multi modes a lot is moot anymore.
 

darkness975

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Nov 4, 2016
Messages
270
#24
"So basically we should all just close up shop" is the consensus I am getting from most of the posts on this topic around here.

Even though there is evidence of agencies doing the opposite (turning encryption off) and the recent Colorado proposal does indicate some attempt at push-back.
 

WeBeCinYa

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Apr 26, 2009
Messages
287
Location
NC
#25
"So basically we should all just close up shop" is the consensus I am getting from most of the posts on this topic around here.

Even though there is evidence of agencies doing the opposite (turning encryption off) and the recent Colorado proposal does indicate some attempt at push-back.
If anyone is closing up shop and has discounted scanners, send me a PM.
 
Last edited:

SteveSimpkin

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Apr 13, 2009
Messages
629
Location
Lancaster, CA
#26
If you enjoy listening, just move to a poor county where they still have VHF and no plans for infrastructure upgrades.
Like Los Angeles County:). They still have a LOT of analog FM radio in use for various agencies and probably will have for a long time. CHP will likely continue to use FM low-band until the end of days:)
 

PCTEK

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Nov 19, 2005
Messages
412
Location
Northern California, USA
#27
I'm lucky.. In San Mateo County most agencies are still analog, but the Sheriff's office is P-25 on 700Mhz. With nearly every patrol car having a CAD terminal, any sensitive information (Driver license, registration, 211, 459 hot, etc) is sent to the terminals and not over the air. With the FCC mandate to vacate the UHF-T band, our county will soon be switching / joining the 700 Mhz P25 on the SMCO system. We wait to see if they will leave the system open for non secure transmission. We how have adopted this as a hobby new encryption would end our enjoyment. We've had a good ride...
 
Joined
Dec 30, 2014
Messages
878
#28
Hear what?
If the police abuse their powers, do you really think the usable evidence would be what's on the radio? It's going to come to peoples attention some other way.
I know first hand of many cases where activists have known what records to request due to having scanner calls recorded. It's also been instrumental in demanding more complete records when agencies have left some out. Scanner calls have been used to show that some recordings had been deleted or edited by departments. Radio calls and bodycam footage can be synced to show editing and deletions.

Anything that happens on the radio that ends up in any sort of legal action will come VB is logged recordings with a carefully documented chain of custody.
Scanner recordings were an important part of my friend's case against a local agency. The agency tried to mischaracterize the arrest and flat out lied on reports. The radio traffic from scanners proved that they had done so. He bought himself another truck with the lawsuit proceeds and got the department to improve their training.

There is an assumption by the courts, juries, and the general public that law enforcement officers and agencies don't lie. Sometimes, it is only the scanner recordings that prove otherwise.
 
Joined
Feb 6, 2007
Messages
5,897
Location
175 DME, HEC 358° Radial
#29
I know first hand of many cases where activists have known what records to request ...

...Radio calls and bodycam footage can be synced to show editing and deletions.
I'd like to see body cams become mandatory. It's easy to see discontinuities in video.

Scanner recordings were an important part of my friend's case against a local agency.
He's lucky he had that. It's kinda sad that luck has to come into play in a legal proceeding against the police.

There is an assumption by the courts, juries, and the general public that law enforcement officers and agencies don't lie.
Unfortunately, the preponderance of fact shows that an accused criminal is far more likely to lie to the court than the police are. Not to say it never happens, but if one is a betting man, your odds are considerably greater if you bet on the police. The behaviors of judges and juries reflects that reality. And some percentage of the time, they're simply going to be wrong. Unless something changes, we're all going to have to learn to deal with the anomalies without scanner recordings.

Sometimes, it is only the scanner recordings that prove otherwise.
I wish there were some hard numbers on these things. You personally are aware of some cases. I have a good handful of decades in public safety communications, and I've never heard of a case where a scanner saved an innocent man, but I am aware of dozens of cases where one was used in a criminal act. It's not unheard of to have engineering staff help a LE agency determine what a device is capable of listening to.
 
Joined
Dec 30, 2014
Messages
878
#30
Unfortunately, the preponderance of fact shows that an accused criminal is far more likely to lie to the court than the police are. Not to say it never happens, but if one is a betting man, your odds are considerably greater if you bet on the police. The behaviors of judges and juries reflects that reality. And some percentage of the time, they're simply going to be wrong. Unless something changes, we're all going to have to learn to deal with the anomalies without scanner recordings.
No doubt. More than likely it's because I engage with more honest people than actual criminals that my experiences bias the other way. As such, I encounter far more agents of government lying and bending the truth than defendants and non-government investigators. Overall, it is incumbent on the agent of government not to lie. The criminal has no such mandate. Put another way, if confidence in government drops below a certain threshold, it could be devastating to the rule of law. Confidence in criminals generally would not affect the rule of law one way or another. Crooks gonna crook. When the general public sees government as no better than the criminals... watch out.

Overall, since I subscribe to the notion that it is better that ten guilty men go free than one innocent man be deprived his liberty for a day, I'm not as concerned about criminals lying. With as much openness as possible, the criminals lies are going to be revealed anyway. Without openness, the lies, regardless of who is telling them, can remain hidden.
 
Joined
Mar 15, 2010
Messages
985
#31
For how long? All the panic over LMR encryption will be moot.
FirstNET is 100 percent natively encrypted (AES-256) from end to end, LTE, and sole source and no denying it, LMR will be dwarfed by First NET and other LTE/5G networks. A 25 year contract. Ponder that one. LMR vendors are in a "last call at the bar" mode pumping and dumping what will be soon "deprecated" technology. Then what?
You'll be dead before that happens, at least wide scale.
 
Joined
Dec 4, 2018
Messages
66
#32
I'm not. I'm telling it like it is.

The tax payers have a right to see where their money goes, but there isn't an inherent right to eavesdrop on radio communication that isn't intended for the public. The argument that it's necessary to have oversight of the police is false. The mechanism for taxpayer oversight is via the grand jury. That's what it's for. That's what they do.

The relatively short time in American history that hobbyists have had access to scanners had not changed the law, the Constitution, or any charters that form any local governments.
So, do you think government-produced publications should have copyright protection?
 
Joined
Dec 4, 2018
Messages
66
#37
I'm not offended. I just don't see any connection. Do go on.
No thanks. Suffice to say that I disagree with you, and the fact that you see things a certain way doesn't mean that's just the way it is.
No debate necessary. I am under no illusion that you are going to come around to a different way of thinking, and you certainly aren't going to convince me.

I was just curious as to how far your belief along those lines went.
 
Top