DId Capital police Move over to the state system or they still on the Hartford system?
Capital police
- Thread starter 55engine
- Start date
OK so I’m wondering if they use channel 2 is the main Dispatch or have you heard them in the clear I come to Hartford once in a while I just haven’t heard them
It’s my understanding the SDS100/200 scanners ignore most common types of encryption as per the FCC Communications act as amended. That may be why you aren’t hearing them, if they have moved to Dispatch 2 because the scanner will continue scanning once it recognizes encryption, seamlessly in the background. But you didn’t state what scanner you are using… Just a guess on my part as I don’t remember hearing them on CLMRN. But don’t take my word for it as it’s primarily Fire I listen to. Are they still listed on Hartford’s EDACS system on RR?
Sorry I have UNIDEN sds 100 and 536
If I'm not mistaken, the 536 behaves the same way - ignoring encrypted traffic.
Sounds correct…
The 436 and 536 as well as sds mute the encryption and pass by it. It was a feature demanded by scanner enthusiasts and they listened. Though a button or option to toggle it off would have been nice.
I hope that I’m not confusing anyone I’m just trying to figure out if anybody is here capital police anyone that lives in the Hartford area
Reading the Communications Act of 1934 as amended will spell out where the manufacturers are required to include ignoring encrypted signals where technically feasible. Some forms/modes of encryption are difficult to recognize, allowing the signal to be monitored (I’ve even heard a Motorola P25 Phase II encrypted signal on my SDS200 on occasion when the scanner never should have passed it on… nothing is 100% perfect. Scanner enthusiasts demanded it? More likely just a story made up to support passage of the legislation. Besides, scanner owners already had the ability to ignore an encrypted channel/TG… it’s called “Avoid”, or lockout.
Bob Grove was asked to testify at a congressional hearing that was called when a certain congressman was looking to cover up the fact he was caught using unencrypted analogue type cell phones in direct violation of regulations regarding the use of these devices for sensitive and/or classified conversations as they could be monitored in-the-clear on a scanner. When it was revealed his conversations were being recorded and publicized, this congressman tried to make the whole affair go away by blindsiding Mr. Grove, who thought he was being asked to address the positive aspects of scanning as an expert on the topic. Instead, the whole afffair was made out to be a spectacle, all in an attempt to muddy the waters and cover up his failure to abide by the rules, and then introduced legislation that amended the act to include some of the most ludicrous wording ever, including it’s a violation to even listen to an encrypted signal, which is un-intelligible anyway!
The sorry part is none of it was even necessary, unless you include saving someone’s posterior, given technology changed shortly afterwards to a digital mode and method that prevented monitoring cell phones with a scanner, making the amendments unnecessary, not to mention the time and money spent on congressional hearings… all to cover someone’s butt. Our tax dollars at work. Way to go Newt.
Capitol PD is active on the system. They are a very small department and not real active. There is also security that are on a different network.
A pointless rant about encryption does nothing except get a thread locked.
A pointless rant about encryption does nothing except get a thread locked.
CG do you know what security company Capital is using or do you know their frequency reason I’m asking I do security out in the Hartford area I do the Bushnell and some overnighters
Discussing encryption isn't a RadioReference forum violation. Discussing encryption in relation to live scannner feeds on the internet is.
Merely background on poster’s assumed reason for what we are talking about. It has nothing to do with any “rant” concerning encryption. It’s a feature of the radio and a discussion of features is totally acceptable. I saw a discrepancy and addressed it. No opinion, pro or con was offered by me as it’s not allowed per forum rules, which I agree with.
I respect your knowledge and look forward to your input, especially where CLMRN is concerned and don’t want to alienate myself in your eyes. But read what I wrote. Going forward, I’d appreciate that same respect I try to show you and all others on this forum. What I wrote is all a matter of factual congressional record and Mr. Grove’s letter of explanation. I only dispelled an incorrect assumption of why the latest amendment was enacted. It has nothing to do with any scanner community’s “demands” made to manufacturers, if in fact any were made.
