Here we go.
I don't intend to address all of these comments to any poster in this thread specifically, but rather address this to those who have the knee-jerk "encrypt first, ask questions later"-mentality.
One of the posters here thought it was fine to stream fire/ems, but not police. Really? There are several counties in this country that extend their self-important "daddy" mentality to fire/ems communications and encrypt them as well. Why? Beyond "because they can" and fears of a watchful public and media listening in to keep them honest, the argument goes out -- "what if an arsonist was listening?" I've even heard the nonsense about members of the public using the scanner as some sort of beacon to rush on down to major incidents and "get in the way." (Evidently the smoke plume and screaming sirens can't compare to someone with a Radio Shack portable.)
I'd argue about as many people are familiar with scanner apps as those familiar with police and fire scanners -- it's a small minority. If they didn't have the scanner app, they could carry a portable scanner with them. It's been done before in a small number of cases -- too few in my opinion to allow for wholesale encryption of government communications, much less the shaming of volunteer streamers here. Anyone who tries to assign blame to a stream feeder here for someone else's criminal actions isn't just out of left field, they are miles from the ballpark.
The "story" linked here was a shoddy piece of TV journalism to begin with. Let's analyze:
"19 Action News has new details..."
I am quivering with anticipation.
"...about how two suspected serial bank robbers pulled off several bank jobs with ease."
With ease? Most bank robberies begin and end in a matter of minutes. No robber is going to sit around counting the cash at the teller window until they hear some police call dispatched. They grab the money and go. Perhaps they tried to use the apps to elude police, but let's reserve judgment on whether they were successful for a second.
"Instead of using guns during the robberies, the suspects downloaded police scanner apps to their cell phones to track police whereabouts."
What? Was there no room in their pockets for the guns because they were packing iPhones? What does one have to do with the other?
And, my friends, what good did the scanner apps ultimately deliver to our "high-tech" bandits?
"Richard Persa and Matthew Holland were arrested earlier this week after police followed their footprints in the snow."
I guess there isn't an app for that!
The obvious conclusion here is that 3G/4G access notwithstanding, criminals are generally stupid with or without technology, and their master-plan to outwit law enforcement feel completely apart by pesky shoe prints in the snow.
Now ask yourselves, would encrypting police communications:
a) convince the criminals it was too risky to commit bank robbery?
b) impact the dispatch of police?
c) have contributed to the police catching these master criminals, thanks to shoe prints?
I'm not convinced losing the ability to monitor our government in action is worth giving up because some nitwits held up a few banks. That being said, I'm not opposed to passing laws that increase penalties for those using these communications while engaged in criminal activity.
