According to FBI stats, when my Dad came on the police force in 1970 there were 100 US officers killed that year as the result of crime. That jumped to 134 in 1973. The annual totals decreased slowly but steadily throughout the 70s, 80s, and 90s. By the 2000s, those annual totals began to hover around 50. The first iPhone was released in the middle of 2007 and the scanner app was born. Since that time, we've continued see much lower statistics of police officers killed by crime than during the traditional radio scanner years.
US officers killed as the result of crime:
2000 51
2001 70
2002 56
2003 52
2004 57
2005 55
2006 48
2007 58
2008 41
2009 48
2010 56
2011 72
2012 49
2013 27
2014 51
2015 46
Source:
US police shootings: How many die each year? - BBC News
There are plenty of talk groups that deserve to be encrypted. But the routine patrol channels should never be. Many on the Radio Reference forum feel that if Terre Haute was to encrypt their dispatch channel that they would "win" the war. Is that really winning? Is cutting off access to real-time public safety information traditionally available to the public the message that police departments really want to send right now?
To address the social media aspect. Most people would probably prefer that if a loved one were involved in a tragedy that they would be tracked down and notified through another loved one or an authority who would accurately inform them about the situation. But, if someone close to me were in peril, I truly would not care how I found out as long as it was sooner than later. Perhaps there are some people who can't properly process crisis information and act appropriately, but should the government take steps to slow the flow of information in an effort to protect that segment of society at the expense of all the others?
An example, on Sunday at 5:15 PM there was a water main break near my brother's family's house during a snow storm. I heard about it from a neighboring town on my scanner when police were called to assist traffic around the flooding hazard. I called my brother's house as they were rapidly losing pressure and it went out shortly thereafter. They were able to call around and inform all their neighbors well before the boil order notices were distributed and just over two hours before the village posted it on their Facebook page. Their information phone tree helped to alleviate a lot of concern, all because of open police patrol communications.
With regards to the legality of streaming, the FCC doesn't define streaming as an actual "broadcast", so the technical aspect preventing public safety transmissions from being rebroadcast is moot. Radio Reference cites that "since all of our feed broadcasts and archives are not encrypted, and are public safety (Part 90 FCC Licenses), marine (ships), aircraft, or amateur radio -- disclosure of these communications is legal and they can be intercepted and divulged, since all of these communications are considered by law to be readily accessible to the general public and specifically authorized by Chapter 119, Title 18 § 2511."
Source:
http://forums.radioreference.com/1313618-post1.html
Encryption in today's digital radio world is easy, but an agency's decision to encrypt traditionally scanable channels shouldn't be. With it comes suffering. Situational awareness for off-duty manpower and that of neighboring towns both on and off-duty suffers, as does that "inter-operability" buzzword. Citizens who enjoy having the peace of mind that all is well in the outside world suffer. Citizens who want to know if something dangerous is headed towards their house and desire the ability to keep watch suffer. The ability of the news media to efficiently cover breaking news suffers, as does the overall transparency of the department.
Internet streamers are demonized by some members of the scanning hobby as "killing the hobby." Others have pointed out that streaming IS the hobby. Should scanning be reserved only for those willing to spend $500 on a radio and posses the skill necessary to program it? We are indeed lucky to live in a country where it is legal to monitor public safety communications. Unfortunately agencies are just as free to decide to encrypt. I'd like to see the leaders of those agencies reevaluate where the greater good exists. I prefer to live in a community that I can monitor. I'd like to see the people who've been shut out from their area's patrol efforts become more vocal in getting the airwaves back. And I'd certainly prefer to see Radio Reference hold the line when it comes to any unconstitutional orders they receive, even if it means another agency turning its back on the community.
