mrdquick
Member
Has Edmond Fire gone encrypted. I haven't heard anything from them in quite awhile. Also, is Edmond planning on going encrypted as well?
Edmond going encrypted?
- Thread starter mrdquick
- Start date
im hearing Edmond just fine do you have your radio programmed right and also haven‘t heard of in Edmond going encryption
mrdquick
Member
Have you heard Edmond Fire Dispatch at all?
Yes I have
people thats alot of money and requires a vote do a petion to get this reveresed we the people control what they can do they can have secondary encrpted channels for sinsetive stuff but primary by law has to be un encrypted push back
I’m not aware of any law requiring the primary to be unencrypted. Can you cite the specific regulation? If not, I believe your statement may be incorrect.
this issue came up years ago ill research the supreme court rulling for you but it rulkes freedom to observe our civil servants with transparency was a right so sensative data could be with held they ruled that encription was a form of hiding basic info that ws covered under civil libirties
There’s no law or Supreme Court case that says police can’t encrypt their primary channels. FOIA covers records, not live scanner access. Encryption is legal, common, and used for safety and privacy. If you have a case name and docket number, post it—otherwise, it’s just a rumor.
well thats a argument on transparency and those are the laws used to stop these public agencies from running rogue and encripting non secure needed info and if they didnt have something to hide they wouldnt so why are they afraid that the master might here what the servants are doing this should be the outrage yes the transparency laws are what is used and the constinutions says we have a right to monitor and observe all civil servants and goverment officials in the capacity theres jobs and if they encript basic channels that enfringes on that right like i said the people in these places need to push back
mmckenna
I ♥ Ø
Let me know when they let you just hang out in the oval office or Pentagon and listen in…..
hey if you can sue mcDonalds for serving hot coffee then this is way far more of a reasonable legal matter for sure lol
The Constitution does not grant an unlimited right to listen to all government radio traffic; in fact, the Fourth Amendment protects everyone, including police, from unauthorized interception of private communications. FCC regulations (47 CFR §15.9, §90.425) make scanners legal to own but prohibit using or rebroadcasting non-public transmissions for unauthorized purposes. Transparency laws apply to official records, not live tactical or sensitive communications that could endanger lives or compromise investigations. Encryption isn’t about “hiding” wrongdoing—it’s about complying with privacy laws and keeping officers and the public safe.
no it doesnt i never said that it did however basic information and the right to transparentcy is and thats the argument about primary channels and sensative info not all info is considered sensative just because it police thats coruption to think all info is and remember if you can freedom of information it it is public so that info shouldnt be incripted its a no brainer sensative data should be on secondary channels and get secret but regular traffic can help keep the community safe its not just about this OFFICIER SAFTY sometimes we have to use common sence and keep the community safe as well theres tons of arguments but all channels incripted is not a officier safty issue those needeing to be kept secret can use secondary channels encripted fine put basic should be open period thats my take on the constitution and transparency laws apply to monitoring all activitys not just official records yes sensative by nature can be secret but NOT all the right to monitor and watch and observe is the peoples right as long as they dont interfere with that process i know alot of LE argue this but good LE wont
just my and several constitutionalist opinion but as i said we the people can deside what and where we allow the incription we are the masters they are the servants .
just my and several constitutionalist opinion but as i said we the people can deside what and where we allow the incription we are the masters they are the servants .
You absolutely have a First Amendment right to express your opinion on encryption, even if the legal and practical realities don’t support it. That’s the beauty of free speech—it protects everyone’s voice, not just the ones who are correct. That said, there are important, concrete reasons why encrypting police dispatch channels is not about “hiding corruption” but about protecting people.
1. Personal Information: Dispatch calls often include names, addresses, license plates, dates of birth, and other identifiers for victims, suspects, and witnesses. Broadcasting that in real time gives anyone—including bad actors—instant access to private details.
2. Victim Safety: A victim of domestic violence, stalking, or assault could have their location and situation broadcast to their abuser in real time if channels were open. Encryption prevents this life-threatening leak.
3. Innocent People’s Reputations: Someone stopped, questioned, or even arrested may later be cleared. Without encryption, their name could be instantly linked to criminal activity in the media or community gossip, with damage that can’t be undone.
4. Witness and Informant Protection: Dispatch traffic can reveal the identities of people providing tips or testimony. In criminal investigations, that can lead to harassment, intimidation, or violence against those individuals.
5. Criminal Countermeasures: Open channels make it possible for criminals to monitor police movements and evade capture, putting officers and the public in danger.
6. Legal Compliance: Laws like HIPAA, state victim protection statutes, and confidentiality rules require keeping certain information private. Encryption ensures agencies follow the law while still doing their jobs.
So while transparency in government is vital, live unencrypted police dispatch is not the same as an open public meeting or a released report. It’s real-time operational traffic with immediate safety and privacy consequences for citizens—something the First Amendment doesn’t override when balanced against those risks.
i agree and those calls can be done on secondary channels and keep the primary open as ive said .....and i too am happy about you being able to voice your opinion about things even if it differes from others and even if they dont hold mustar also as i said alot can be argued about what is private and what is not and what is protected and what is not and we have had open channels without encription for well over 75 years without problems and just now with all the law suits against coruption NOT HIPPA now there appears to be a need for encription well opinions are like bellybuttons everybody has one and most stink but it is what it is just my opinion but ive seen alot of frequncys get opened back up because the masters i mean the people said no and at the end of the day its we the peoples choice not le
I appreciate your view—‘we had unencrypted channels for 75 years without problems.’ I’ve spent over five decades in public safety comms, and that history is valuable. But my experience also tells me that when threats and tools change, we need to adapt.
Just last month, in Idaho, two battalion chiefs were killed and another firefighter critically wounded in a brutal ambush. They were on unencrypted channels—calls for help went out, but so did a real-time alert of their location. This was not a theoretical risk—it was deadly and immediate.
That doesn’t erase the value of open systems, but it shows that balance is needed. Encryption exists to protect the line when it matters most—not to block accountability, but to keep accountability alive.
Just last month, in Idaho, two battalion chiefs were killed and another firefighter critically wounded in a brutal ambush. They were on unencrypted channels—calls for help went out, but so did a real-time alert of their location. This was not a theoretical risk—it was deadly and immediate.
That doesn’t erase the value of open systems, but it shows that balance is needed. Encryption exists to protect the line when it matters most—not to block accountability, but to keep accountability alive.
- Firefighters Ambushed—Encryption Could Save Lives
On June 29, 2025, in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, a gunman intentionally set a brush fire to lure firefighters into a trap. Two battalion chiefs and a firefighter were shot, and others were pinned—forced to call for help over open radio channels.
This wasn’t decades ago—this happened last month. And it underscores that unencrypted channels can be weaponized. - Media Exposure and Sensitive Operations
Unencrypted radio can live-stream incidents—including dispatch audio just seconds after a horrific attack. In the Idaho case, firefighters cried out, “Send law enforcement… everybody’s shot up here,” over open channels, before loved ones or leadership were informed. - Encryption Isn’t New, but Its Urgency Has Risen
It’s true that for decades, open channels posed fewer perceived risks. But today’s world is different: someone can now stream your police frequencies online in real-time, coordinate an ambush, or relay victim addresses before dispatchers even reach them. - Not About Hiding—But About Safety and Trust
Encryption doesn’t block public safety transparency—it protects those who call for help from being targeted. Real transparency includes protecting responders, victims, and the integrity of operations. - Officers Ambushed While Using Open Channels
- The Longmont (CO) Police encrypted soon after officers faced targeted ambushes enabled by open radio. One assailant even called dispatch complaining he couldn't hear police transmissions—and asked their location. That confirmed radio access was being misused to set up attacks.
- As recently as July 2025, an Ohio officer (Officer Phillip Wagner) was killed—and two more wounded—in a lunch ambush triggered by suspect monitoring of police radio.
- Victim, Witness, and Tactical Intelligence Exposed
- The open scanning of police radio has endangered victims in sensitive calls (domestic violence, sexual assault, child abuse). In one case, kidnappers timed their abduction using scanner data. In another, crooks destroyed evidence or evaded arrest by “reading” the police schedule.
- 4. Open Channels Have Led to Overshared Personal Info
- Media and public listener groups exposed real-time, unfiltered emergency transcripts—sometimes before families were notified. In one Canadian case, an officer's distress call was streamed and rebroadcast widely before loved ones knew.
- 5. Transparency Must Be Balanced with Safety
- Cities like New York are encrypting due to concerns that open channels compromise operations and officer safety. Surveillance experts pointed out that scanner-based reporting played a role in uncovering misconduct (e.g., Eric Garner, Amadou Diallo), but they also model how encryption is becoming a response to rising threats.
Also not true. "Without problems" implies there was NEVER one. As early as 1981 that I can personally attest to, the "bad guys" were using scanners in cars to listen to a small town police department to arrange home break ins. While with multiple police cars in many even smaller localities now it's not the situation it was in 81, to that end, yes, it's been going on a long time. I'm sure even prior to that when you still spun the dial to listen to the local PD, it was happening.
@wizzardproduction I was wondering how long you spent on the back side of a badge, just curious.
I am also not necessarily in favor of encryption on all LE frequencies. Many, if not most of us are here at this very site because we enjoy monitoring various things, law enforcement one of those things. That being said in this day and age, I can see why it's happening especially when one doesn't even need a scanner in many many locations, a simple cell phone makes it pretty easy and a ALOT of people have cell phones vs scanners or the live feeds wouldn't be nearly as popular as they are.
And yet look at all the live streaming. I'm sure they're "authorized". By at least some interpretation of this, live steaming really stretches this.
The "rule" I remember from my early days in the hobby was "It's OK to listen, but do not divulge what you hear".
Seems like that's gone right out of the window now. People not only live streams but there's Facebook pages where people put out what comes across their radios or streams. No wonder everyone is going encrypted.
Similar threads
