Publishing of ?sensitive? frequencies - your input.

[mtindor]

I don't really consider our 911 system frequencies as being sensitive, but I'm sure that in the eyes of the agencies using the system it would be considered sensitive.

With that said - We all publish the frequencies we hear, and it likely has no effect on decisionmaking processes of the entities using those systems.

However, let's say there is a live stream online somewhere for your county's 911 system. Then lets further imagine that somebody in your county has a very popular website up - a community website for people of the county. Then let's assume you jump on those forums and say "hey, if you want to hear the Police/Fire/EMS traffic for the county, go listen to this live feed." Suddenly, potentially hundreds or more local people not only know the frequencies but have easy access to monitor the system without ever buying a scanner.

Then imagine the 911 system committee hearing about this via complaints from local Police/Fire/EMS who know their traffic is being monitored. You can bet that encryption or moving to an unmonitorable platform will be a topic in the future.

What do you all think? I ask because we have a very lively message board/site devoted specifically to one city in the county but with many visitors to the site from around the county. If they learned about it, went and listened to the live feed and liked it, they are probably going to tell quite a few other people about it. Not many people have scanners - but everybody and their mother has internet access.

So even though a part of me would love to see people enjoying the monitoring aspect via a live feed, I'd never be the one to publicize it because I feel that in the end it would only be detrimental to those of us in the scanning hobby - I feel that attempting to really publicize something like a live feed will bring all kinds of scrutiny across the board and would end with demands from the agencies and the commissioners to encrypt the system and/or encourage them to do something to make it more difficult to monitor.

- Mike

 

[jonny290]

It's not as if law enforcement isn't perfectly aware that they are likely being monitored by civilians on every transmission they make. Moreoever, they know of the scanner streams. It's the PD's job to ensure they are as effective as possible, and this entails taking into account possible countersurveillance measures.

This falls into "security through obscurity" and as such will not work in a scalable environment.

 

[n8myc]

If an agency is worried about being monitored then they are probably already encrypted. As far as the regular citizen goes they probably wouldn't spend too much time listening online anyhow.If they did find it interesting enough I would venture to guess a scanner purchase is in their future. Lastly I've seen the moderators here on RR not publish sensitve information that could have a potential backlash on the hobby. The only area I have a problem with is the FED Monitoring threads here, a lot of those posts could tick off some agencies. My 2 cents worth.

 

[jpryor]

We might as well censor the media as well:

http://www.cleveland.com/policescanner/ ('unmonitorable' platform)
http://wcpo.com/video/policescanner.html
http://www.oregonlive.com/policescanner/
http://www.azcentral.com/news/scanner.html

With all the main stream newspaper, TV and other media outlets openly providing and publicizing this type of content, I am not concerned. The "Live Scanner" audio delivered via the Internet and VoIP isn't any different than the content available over the air. Also, hoping that "no one is listening" is not a substitute for appropriate use of encryption. Considering "Not many people have scanners", I'd be interested to hear from folks who do all of their monitoring via the Internet only. Just be cautious of folks wandering around your neighborhoods late at night with a crow bar in one hand and laptops tucked under the other arm . . .

 

[mtindor]

It's not as if law enforcement isn't perfectly aware that they are likely being monitored by civilians on every transmission they make. Moreoever, they know of the scanner streams. It's the PD's job to ensure they are as effective as possible, and this entails taking into account possible countersurveillance measures.

This falls into "security through obscurity" and as such will not work in a scalable environment.

I would disagree. I'm sure there is law enforcement that believe (or are led to believe) that the systems they are using are 'secure.' And I'm sure many don't know about scanner streams.

I guess what I was merely trying to point out was my thought that the more it is made known to the agencies and operators of the system that they are being monitored, the greater likelihood that they are going to be doing something about it sooner than they may have otherwise. Granted, most of these 911 systems hvae already had the monies issued to them for planning/build/maintenance, and if they don't have encryption available it would likely take them a while to get the grants to do so.

Scanning itself is not as much of an issue because it costs a bit of money for somebody to get into the hobby and to monitor some of these systems. I'm specifically talking about the live feeds on the internet that allow anybody with internet access (and zero additional money) to listen in.

I'm not saying the feeds shouldn't be there - I'm all for them - I like listening to them, I like having something available for my area when I'm not near those systems to listen to them - It's great to tune in and listen to what is going on locally when you are out of hte area. I just suspect that if specific attempts were made to publicize the live feeds whenever and wherever one can, it would call undue attention to what is or should already be a sensitive matter to the agencies using and operators running the systems.

So - on one hand I know a way to get some information out to a lot of people who may or may not end up buying a scanner to listen but may much more often tune in and listen - but I won't do it because I wouldn't want to be the largest motivating factor in some 911 system upgrading to prevent monitoring

Mike

 

[jpryor]

I'm specifically talking about the live feeds on the internet that allow anybody with internet access (and zero additional money) to listen in.

Except the $2000 for the laptop I'm listening on and that darn $15 a month charge AT&T (Ma Bell is Back) insists on charging for DSL . . .

Also, users of the up and coming Lucas County P25 system are being told their system can't be listened to easily because the conversations will hop from frequency to frequency. Now that's a blast from the past (that scary thing called Trunking from the 1980s) and a shame from the marketing perspective. It's too bad they couldn't afford the encryption options.

 

[jonny290]

I would disagree. I'm sure there is law enforcement that believe (or are led to believe) that the systems they are using are 'secure.' And I'm sure many don't know about scanner streams.

Then it's not the 'scanner listener's' job to do their securing for them. Not publishing the information on a personal basis can have only the mildest of effects. If somebody wants to listen in to commit crimes, they will.

I guarantee you that every single authority that has a radio system and has traffic that could be sensitive or important has been briefed and trained on proper use of the radio system. People have to learn to use the radios, I'm certain that officers have a day or two of classes to learn the codes and protocols. It's a simple matter to take thirty seconds and say "Now, look, there are going to be listeners. Be tactful and mindful of security when you speak on the radio."

Scanning itself is not as much of an issue because it costs a bit of money for somebody to get into the hobby and to monitor some of these systems. I'm specifically talking about the live feeds on the internet that allow anybody with internet access (and zero additional money) to listen in.

It sounds as though you're under a couple of misconceptions:

1: That scanner listeners and live feed listeners are two separate groups - they often aren't.
2: That somebody intent on violating security of a 911 system or commiting crimes by listening to the scanner is going to listen to a stream off their desktop computer, rather than, oh, say, a portable scanner that they can take with them as they commit those crimes.

I'm not saying the feeds shouldn't be there - I'm all for them - I like listening to them, I like having something available for my area when I'm not near those systems to listen to them - It's great to tune in and listen to what is going on locally when you are out of hte area. I just suspect that if specific attempts were made to publicize the live feeds whenever and wherever one can, it would call undue attention to what is or should already be a sensitive matter to the agencies using and operators running the systems.

So - on one hand I know a way to get some information out to a lot of people who may or may not end up buying a scanner to listen but may much more often tune in and listen - but I won't do it because I wouldn't want to be the largest motivating factor in some 911 system upgrading to prevent monitoring

Mike

That's unfortunate, but I hope this thread can bring you to change your position on the subject. I also don't really understand why you're pushing the 911 angle so hard - DEA and antidrug ops are monitored 100 times more closely than fire department calls, and they're fully aware of drug dealers having scanners. Yet just last night I listened to a juicy three-hour meth lab stakeout on regular old narrowband FM - not even voice inversion.

Departments upgrade because a: vendors lock them out, b: the feds roll out new guidelines, or c: they get fat Homeland Security grants that they will lose if they don't spend. Almost every PD I know has the ability to use encryption at will, but they don't for 99.9% of ops.

 

[SAR923]

Actually, it's not police officers that make decisions about things like encryption and what type of radios systems to use. It's the communications director, along with the agency comm techs and, sometimes, outside consultants. I doubt there is one comm tech worth his salt that doesn't already know about things like scanners and scanner streams and how they might affect the ability of the general public to monitor broadcasts. Most departments already have encryption available for things like surveillance and undercover ops. Some departments choose to use full-time encryption. Others don't feel the need to ever use encryption. I doubt that the relatively small group of people that monitor police broadcasts play a significant role in this type of decision making. I just feel like it's a rare department that wakes up one morning and says "Hey, there are people listening to what we say on the radio". I know we were always told, in every briefing, to consider anything we said on the radio as public record. Even if no one was listening, all it takes is a subpoena and everything you said is public record, encryption or not.

 

[Jay911]

I don't really consider our 911 system frequencies as being sensitive, but I'm sure that in the eyes of the agencies using the system it would be considered sensitive.

If you haven't, yet, check out the various threads posted by Lindsay regarding suppression of systems/data from agencies which have requested so via a letter. His policy is pretty straightforward and will allow some agencies to suppress their info, but not others. Here's one particular thread, in which Lindsay provides links to the policy and requests received, a few posts in.

Then imagine the 911 system committee hearing about this via complaints from local Police/Fire/EMS who know their traffic is being monitored.

The bigger problem with this rather than having agency directors' feelings hurt because they're being monitored is getting in grief because you are rebroadcasting a radio signal. I don't know the actual letter of the law in the USA, but here in Canada, you may listen to any frequency all you want, so long as you don't repeat what you hear (unless it is a broadcast, or a distress call), or use what you hear for personal gain. Locally, we used to have a feed for one particular agency, and the public affairs representative (kind of like the PIO) learned of it. The feed was shut down shortly thereafter..

I feel that attempting to really publicize something like a live feed will bring all kinds of scrutiny across the board and would end with demands from the agencies and the commissioners to encrypt the system and/or encourage them to do something to make it more difficult to monitor.

At the risk of sounding militant and acting entitled to hear this stuff, I sort of agree with the people who say that agencies who want to encrypt for the sole purpose of hiding their actions from their taxpaying public are just looking for a way to hide. I have no problem with my agencies' traffic being unencrypted - both of the ones I work for - because anything that's truly sensitive is carried across transmission methods that are (more) secure.

As for publishing frequencies, if it's in a publicly accessible database, like the Canadian TAFL or the USA's FCC database, as far as I'm concerned, all bets are off. It's not our duty to police what the people do with the information this site provides. It would be like Verizon (etc) having to closely monitor/restrict their cellphone sales to ensure they weren't being purchased by drug dealers for arranging deals/buys on. It's not their business to worry about that.

 

[mtindor]

Yeah but average joe who might be informed of a live stream but who does not own a scanner most certainly didn't invest the money in a computer and connection to listen to a live stream - whereas a person who invested $500 dollar in a scanner capability of hearing most of what can be heard has specifically forked out the money for that.

Like I said, Jeff, I'm all for live feeds - as you already are well aware. I'm not suggesting that they not be available for listening. I just wondered if anybody else thought of how making something that would be considered so sensitive to some available to anybody/everybody who has an existing computer/connection to the internet

But I digress. I think the point I was making, or the question I was asking about whether anyone else would have a similar concern that came to mind for me, has not been understood rofl. So I'll drop it.

- Mike

Except the $2000 for the laptop I'm listening on and that darn $15 a month charge AT&T (Ma Bell is Back) insists on charging for DSL . . .

Also, users of the up and coming Lucas County P25 system are being told their system can't be listened to easily because the conversations will hop from frequency to frequency. Now that's a blast from the past (that scary thing called Trunking from the 1980s) and a shame from the marketing perspective. It's too bad they couldn't afford the encryption options.

 

[mtindor]

Then it's not the 'scanner listener's' job to do their securing for them. Not publishing the information on a personal basis can have only the mildest of effects. If somebody wants to listen in to commit crimes, they will.

Agree that it's not our job to do any securing for anyone. And in fact, I have absolutely no desire to do that. I just don't want to see the handy dandy analog rural 911 county system of five channels that I can monitor on My 2030, PRO-90 or my digital scanners to be changed over to a system using encryption or a proprietary architecture any sooner than it would otherwise be destined to - just because I post a link to a live feed in a forum that has thousands of active people in the local community (including LEO/FF/EMS personnel) and those people then realize that the transmissions are all too easy to listen in on and start raising a fuss about it and attempt to get some sort of mechanisms in place to stop it from being monitored so easily. Why would I want to do that? Because I find it interesting and I think a lot of other people would - and potentially some of them would actually get interested in the monitoring hobby itself and start buying equipment. I could care less who else is listening from the standpoint of security. I'm not a LEO and I don't care if drug smugglers are listening in to the police staking them out.

It sounds as though you're under a couple of misconceptions:

1: That scanner listeners and live feed listeners are two separate groups - they often aren't.
2: That somebody intent on violating security of a 911 system or commiting crimes by listening to the scanner is going to listen to a stream off their desktop computer, rather than, oh, say, a portable scanner that they can take with them as they commit those crimes.

A-1: Agreed, the often are not - in fact most of the time they are the same people. But if you read what I'm saying above, you'll see that in the instance I was referring to, 95+% of the people who would then be aware of the live feed are likely not scanner/monitoring enthusiasts.

A-2: I wasn't even thinking about people committing crimes - was the farthest thing from my mind.

That's unfortunate, but I hope this thread can bring you to change your position on the subject. I also don't really understand why you're pushing the 911 angle so hard - DEA and antidrug ops are monitored 100 times more closely than fire department calls, and they're fully aware of drug dealers having scanners. Yet just last night I listened to a juicy three-hour meth lab stakeout on regular old narrowband FM - not even voice inversion.

Well, I'm not sure my position needs changing. I didn't say I wouldn't pass along that information to anyone - I just said there was a specific circumstance where I thought posting the information would 'go over big' but at the same time could cause some unwanted backlash from the standpoint of scanner/monitoring enthusiasts in my local area - including myself. And I push 911 angle only because the system I'm referencing is a county 911 system and we don't have DEA/FBI/etc transmissions occurring on a regular basis anywhere in the vicinity of this rural county. I have no problem with sharing any information I learn with anybody else in the hobby that I find on this board and in a few other places... but I have a problem making the general public aware of it (personally, in my local area), even though on one hand I think many people would find it interesting and I think it could be a way to get a few more people interested in the hobby.

I mean if this information is exchanged on RR or other scanner enthusiast sites, it almost always stays predominantly within the scanner/monitoring enthusiast community. If information like this is posted in other places where people may really be interested in checking it out but they are not monitoring enthusiasts, things could turn sour.

Granted, in a city of 600,000, it isn't going to make a difference at all. But in a whole county of 70,000 people, there is a bigger risk (to monitoring enthusiasts in that area) if more of the non-monitoring enthusiast population hear about it.

Mike

 

[mtindor]

[I feel that attempting to really publicize something like a live feed will bring all kinds of scrutiny across the board and would end with demands from the agencies and the commissioners to encrypt the system and/or encourage them to do something to make it more difficult to monitor.

At the risk of sounding militant and acting entitled to hear this stuff, I sort of agree with the people who say that agencies who want to encrypt for the sole purpose of hiding their actions from their taxpaying public are just looking for a way to hide. I have no problem with my agencies' traffic being unencrypted - both of the ones I work for - because anything that's truly sensitive is carried across transmission methods that are (more) secure.

As for publishing frequencies, if it's in a publicly accessible database, like the Canadian TAFL or the USA's FCC database, as far as I'm concerned, all bets are off. It's not our duty to police what the people do with the information this site provides. It would be like Verizon (etc) having to closely monitor/restrict their cellphone sales to ensure they weren't being purchased by drug dealers for arranging deals/buys on. It's not their business to worry about that.

I dont think that sounds militant. We're taxpayers (or at least many of us are), and it is our money that gets funneled into these systems. I feel I'm entitled to hear it. And I also agree that if information is so sensitive that it shouldn't be heard by us, then it is the job of whomever plans/maintains the system to make sure that the agencies who need privacy are given that privacy - or that they use another more secure form of communication for those transmissions.

I wasn't speaking of what this site provides, or what X, Y or Z's live feeds server provides. I was _only_ speaking of what I provide - and only to the extent that if I personally overpublicize something to people in the specific region where I predominantly monitor comms and this garners more attention by those who are paranoid, power tripping, or hurt because somebody is monitoring their system because of their poor planning, then it could be detrimental to _my_ future listening as well as the future listening of other local enthusiasts as it could potentially stir more people to be more concerned [than they need to be] and rally for a change in the systems that I monitor, making them impossible for me to monitor.

Trust me, it's not like I have a beef with RR, or any of the live feed servers out there. I'm thankful that it's all here and I support them 100%. I was just talking about a specific scenario.

- Mike

 

[kf4pep]

Several factors come in to play here:

Publishing information... if anyone has a problem with it, they best take it up with the FCC first, because any and all licensed frequencies are listed there as public record. The only exceptions are for low power surviellance uses, and those should already be encrypted as well as swapped around often. If not, thats the agencies fault.

Senstive frequencies... if its sensitive, it shouldn't be out unencrypted, period. If anyone gets mad of anything transmitted in the clear, waah.

If this is fire/ems users you are concerned about, double waah. Nothing is sensitive about that.... HIPPA info shouldn't be sent over radio anyway, so if thats the case its a matter of poor policy.

 

[SCANdal]

Don't look for encouragement from me...

Mike,

We are up to 14 posts already on this topic and starting to go 'round and 'round with this.

The decision is yours. I'm not sure how well you know the members of this "911 system committee," but I'm not so sure who is being more "paranoid" here. From what I've gathered so far, it appears that you are uncomfortable with setting up an online scanner feed listening to radio traffic in your rinky-dink little county based on some perceived potential for backlash (i.e.: very expensive encryption capability being added sooner then later - if ever at all) by some, to use your words - power tripping - "911 system committee." If this is the case then, by all means, don't set one up. Assuming there is anything in this jurisdication that's interesting to listen to in the first place, someone else who is less afraid will just end up setting up a stream up later on down the line for all to enjoy.

SCANdal

 

[mtindor]

Mike,

We are up to 14 posts already on this topic and starting to go 'round and 'round with this.

The decision is yours. I'm not sure how well you know the members of this "911 system committee," but I'm not so sure who is being more "paranoid" here. From what I've gathered so far, it appears that you are uncomfortable with setting up an online scanner feed listening to radio traffic in your rinky-dink little county based on some perceived potential for backlash (i.e.: very expensive encryption capability being added sooner then later - if ever at all) by some, to use your words - power tripping - "911 system committee." If this is the case then, by all means, don't set one up. Assuming there is anything in this jurisdication that's interesting to listen to in the first place, someone else who is less afraid will just end up setting up a stream up later on down the line for all to enjoy.

SCANdal

15 posts and counting You don't have to read it.

I'm not afraid of providing a feed. I have a scanner feed up for the very system in question, for all too enjoy. I have no problems with it. I'm not taking it down. But I also know that probably two people in their lifetime will listen to it unless the word gets out to 'local' people who may have an interest in it. But then, before I posted it in a forum where 'local' people would know about it and would come and listen to it, I thought hmm "the forum in question is a high volume forum of local people. If I post this and too many people listen and the word gets around too much, somebody is going to catch wind who has nothing better to do than start raising concerns in other places regarding why the system can be monitored for everyone to hear." If you think I'm exxagerating the potential ramifications, so be it. That's why I posted to ask what others think. But i didn't think that the point of the post would go so far above everyone's head that they would start reading more into my post than what was in there.

Bah. Some moderator needs to close this thread, because the whole point of the thread has been overlooked by almost everyone reading it.

- mike

 

[SkipSanders]

Well, the most likely potential results of your local law/politicos becoming aware of a streaming audio site are:

1) Possibility of them going encrypted. Hey, folks, police are institutionally paranoid (rightly, most of the time), and I can pretty much guarantee that they WANT to do this, whether or not you're running a stream, at least on 'sensitive' stuff. Problem? Money, what else? Should be noted that many police outfits at least partially encourage this sort of thing, feeling that an 'involved' citizenry is good. And that the citizens hearing how overworked they are will be good for them come budget time, or bond votes. Usually this type does have encryption available for truely necessary channels/messages, anyway.

2) Politicos moved to pass laws against mobile scanning by the attention to 'peons listening to us' talk. Not really much to do with 'streaming', but I suppose it could come up.

3) The agency involved simply comes to you and orders you to stop doing it. They have that right, it is illegal to rebroadcast them, 'on air' or via streaming audio.

Los Angeles Fire Department takes this view, though they say they're hoping to put up their OWN audio stream -- they say they're worried about 'uncontrolled' streamers editing or otherwise faking something that would fall on them. They contact anyone streaming their audio, and order it stopped, and it is. At most, you might find a temporary stream somewhere if there's something truly massive going on in LA, but the multi-stream servers (teamspeak) for this type of audio are aware of LAFD's rules, and won't allow such streams.

Why is it illegal? The department involved holds copyright to their broadcasts, just like the NFL. That's one. The other is the 'no disclosure' rules of the Communication Act, which allow 'listen but don't tell'. Either one is enough to nail you if an agency objects.

 

[jonny290]

I feel I'm entitled to hear it.

This kind of makes me bristle, given the context of this thread, and I'll leave it at that.

This is a 'soft skills' issue, meaning that human contact and social engineering is in play. You're not concerned about *all* 911 systems, you're concerned about your particular one. It sounds as though there's some 'drama' or conflict in your town, possibly involving this 911 system, that you haven't let on to, something that makes this an important issue.

Why, in your opinion or experienc, would large numbers of people listening to 911 dispatches in your small town cause them to go encrypted? Stuff repeated over the airwaves is not secure, generally - you'll notice that they can't repeat patient names or SSN's over the air (only initials). Do they violate HIPAA on EMS dispatches? Do they read off suspect's names and serial numbers? I just don't understand what the threat is that we need to mitigate by keeping the streams from the general public.

My parting thoughts, and I'll leave this thread at that - The decision to encrypt or not encrypt systems is based on many more factors than public availabilty of online scanner streams, and you should not be worried about a local forum's scanner stream causing the authorities to go buy $LARGE_NUMBER worth of encryption gear.

 

[DaveNF2G]

It is not illegal to stream scanner reception over the internet. The FCC does not have a problem with it. Period.

There are no data to support the assertion that scanner use correlates in any significant way with people getting away with crimes. Period.

As someone else mentioned, streamed audio is not going to be used by criminals who might be bright enough to listen to the police while trying to commit crimes. A scanner is a better tool. However, listening to a scanner will not help the average crook to evade capture. (Think about this the next time you are monitoring your local police. Do you really think that the information you know at any given moment can make it safe for you to go out and commit a crime?)

The OP in this thread is the type of person who really scares me. Not only is he perfectly willing to stop doing something that is perfectly legal if some local "official" sneezes, but looking for a reason to stop doing it before anyone even objects.

Here is an alternative view of publicizing online feeds. What if people who don't already own scanners tune in to online feeds, become interested in what's going on, realize that online monitoring is not very flexible (you don't get to choose what you hear once you're on a stream), and decide to go out and buy scanners of their own? Now the scanner manufacturers have bigger markets and can spend more R&D money on improving the hardware and software. Better for us all!

 

[mtindor]

This kind of makes me bristle, given the context of this thread, and I'll leave it at that.

This is a 'soft skills' issue, meaning that human contact and social engineering is in play. You're not concerned about *all* 911 systems, you're concerned about your particular one. It sounds as though there's some 'drama' or conflict in your town, possibly involving this 911 system, that you haven't let on to, something that makes this an important issue.

Why, in your opinion or experienc, would large numbers of people listening to 911 dispatches in your small town cause them to go encrypted? Stuff repeated over the airwaves is not secure, generally - you'll notice that they can't repeat patient names or SSN's over the air (only initials). Do they violate HIPAA on EMS dispatches? Do they read off suspect's names and serial numbers? I just don't understand what the threat is that we need to mitigate by keeping the streams from the general public.

My parting thoughts, and I'll leave this thread at that - The decision to encrypt or not encrypt systems is based on many more factors than public availabilty of online scanner streams, and you should not be worried about a local forum's scanner stream causing the authorities to go buy $LARGE_NUMBER worth of encryption gear.

In no particular order...

I am well aware of the fact that agencies using a system finding out that people within that system's service area are monitoring them in and of itself would likely not be the catalyst for some action by the decisionmakers. But it could potentially play a role, no? At any rate, the whole topic was a question, nothing more. You're reading more into it than you should and for some reason being very defensive about the whole topic. Not sure why this discussion is rubbing you the wrong way.

It makes you bristle that I feel I'm entitled to hear something? If it's not encrypted and the radio waves are passing my airspace, I'm entitled to hear it. In fact, I believe I'm entitled to hear anything passing through the walls of my house if I can decrypt it - but I am both intent on not breaking laws and I do not possess the knowhow to decrypt even if I wanted to. I mean I prefer to stay out of jail and I have better things to do than investigate ways to decrypt traffic, but because I know what I heard would not be used illegaly or passed on, I see no reason why I shouldn't hear it

As far as repeating SSNs - I have always (before the trunked system) and still often do hear various law enforcement, as recently as today, reading off SSNs and names - at least in the sense that a mobile unit might read off an SSN and the base will come back with the name of the person. A lot of times somebody may not have ID on them and they'll try various means to figure out who it is by passing name/dob and/or ssn. It would bother me to know that if I were pulled over, my information might be going over the air unencrypted. But that's not what this post is about - I don't have a beef with however things are done around here.

Most importantly - You act like my post is some sort of mandate that we all cease live feeds and all cease publishing information. That is far from the truth, and in fact totally false. Nowhere in my posts have I encouraged anything of the sort. And I feel that in the numerous posts I've made I have made it absolutely clear that I am speaking about me and what my current stance is - simply in an effort to see if others think I'm overexaggerating anything [and obviously they do].

You're right - I'm not concerned about all 911 systems, government systems, federal systems, or any other system I monitor - I am not 'concerned' about any particular system including our local 911 system. I am just thinking that I personally shouldn't make an attempt to overpublicize the easy availability of some content that would lure a substantial number of people around here [my area] into monitoring conversations - as you have already recognized, this is not a huge metro area. I wouldn't want to see local people making a ruckus and causing eyebrows to be raised all because I posted something in popular local forums that encouraged a bunch of people to listen in - people who would otherwise be clueless about the ability to monitor. That's all man, nothing more.

There is no conflict in my town, having to do with the 911 system or otherwise, that I am aware of. I choose to steer clear of any bureaucratic garbage and politics that go on just about anywhere. The only thing that would make this an important issue [to me, personally] is the fact that I recently spent over $1000 dollars to monitor mostly local traffic that I'd prefer remain unencrypted for years to come, because I enjoy this hobby so much and because I want to protect my investment - and I wouldn't want to, in my overzealousness to entice a lot of local people into the monitoring hobby, cause the various agencies I monitor to adjust the way they do things. Remember again that this is podunk ohio - everybody knows everything about everyone - word spreads fast. Places I could post to try to get some new people into the hobby to discuss local scanner enthusiast stuff are the same places that members of all these agencies likely read from time to time.

Ok, so I'm paranoid about nothing. We have established that. But many of the people who have replied, including yourself, have read entirely too much into my original and subsequent posts and are now suddenly feeling that they must defend the hobby in some way because me posing this question is in some way threatening that hobby. I am not the bad guy here - although part of me feels a sick satisfaction from being looked upon as one.

Mike

 

[mtindor]

It is not illegal to stream scanner reception over the internet. The FCC does not have a problem with it. Period.

I never questioned the legality of it - Get this - I am feeding audio of the system I have previously talked about, as we speak, to a teamspeak server - and was doing so before I made this post. I am an advocate of online scanner feeds - I think there should be more.

There are no data to support the assertion that scanner use correlates in any significant way with people getting away with crimes. Period.

I haven't even discussed this - Others may have in this thread, but this was not part of my discussion. I didn't claim there was data to support it, and I don't believe there is.

The OP in this thread is the type of person who really scares me. Not only is he perfectly willing to stop doing something that is perfectly legal if some local "official" sneezes, but looking for a reason to stop doing it before anyone even objects.

Huh? Wow. Left field man, that's where you are coming from. First off, I am not and never planned to stop streaming audio unless (a) I found a better use for my equipment, (b) it suddenly was deemed against the law, or (c) I suddenly woke up one morning totally disinterested in the hobby and wanted to sell off what I have. If I wish to, have the ability to, and am not prohibited from streaming audio, any local 'official' sneezing is not going to cause me from doing otherwise. I'm not looking for a reason to stop before anyone objects. Thanks for yet another close_to_personal attack from yet another member, Dave.

Here is an alternative view of publicizing online feeds. What if people who don't already own scanners tune in to online feeds, become interested in what's going on, realize that online monitoring is not very flexible (you don't get to choose what you hear once you're on a stream), and decide to go out and buy scanners of their own? Now the scanner manufacturers have bigger markets and can spend more R&D money on improving the hardware and software. Better for us all!

I feel exactly the same way - and to add to that, if it happens to be that one or more of those people happen to local to one of us, then we've found someone else to pool resources with to help get more reliable and interesting information.

I merely wondered if posting that information [in an effort to entice more people into scanner listening] into highly-read local forums could possibly have the bad side effect of causing the very things I enjoy monitoring so much to suddenly become unavailable for my listening pleasure. That's all man, really.

Mike