I have never been a fan of police feeds. As stated above - Criminals could get the streams quite easily. This is our hobby and I think most of us respect law enforcement. I agree that we should be able to monitor , to be aware of what is going on.
Fight Against Encryption
- Thread starter Bolt21
- Start date
- Status
LetterX
Member
It's very elitist to suggest that scanner owners should be allowed to listen to LE, but people listening to internet streams are "morons." The way I see it, either it should be available to everyone, by any means, or it should be encrypted so nobody can receive it. You're saying that you want to listen to LE for your own safety. Shouldn't people who can't afford a scanner be entitled to that same safety benefit? Why should you get special privileges just because you spent a few hundred dollars on a scanner? On the flip side, there's nothing stopping criminals from going to Radio Shack and buying a scanner, so you're not a "safe" listener just because you own a scanner.
FWIW, I'm a Floridian who has owned scanners, and listened to internet scanner streams.
FWIW, I'm a Floridian who has owned scanners, and listened to internet scanner streams.
Great posts Bolt.
You'd think people who post on this site would be offering suggestions on how to stop encryption rather than arguing with you.
The problem with feeds, they are rebroadcasting an audio signal. I see it the same as it's against the law to rebroadcast a television programs.
You'd think people who post on this site would be offering suggestions on how to stop encryption rather than arguing with you.
The problem with feeds, they are rebroadcasting an audio signal. I see it the same as it's against the law to rebroadcast a television programs.
dugan
Member
I didn't say that "all people listening to Internet streams are morons". Certainly some will be. Ok, "moron" was a poor choice of words, but my point is streaming brings police feeds to much larger numbers of people. Let's be realistic, your average criminal is not the sharpest stick in the pile and may not have the patience or ability to program a digital scanner.
As for elitist, I wouldn’t say that, but the people who spend some money and invest some time are more likely to be at least a bit more thoughtful about what they do with the information they hear. On the other hand if all you had to do is download an app and suddenly you are able to hear the police activities around you (if your town has a feed), by sheer numbers alone you have increased the chances of abuse.
Just because the technology of the Internet makes it possible to bring a feed to anyone with a phone, doesn’t mean you should provide it. I have an extra scanner and I could provide a feed for my town, but I don't. Too many of my friends work in the police service and I don't want to make things any more complicated for them. Even if I didn't know any officers, I wouldn't do it. I am a fan of RR, except for the feeds provided here.
I don’t think we would be having this discussion if feeds were not online. The police services are used to scanners being around; it is the feeds that are causing the extra concern.
Last edited:
elk2370bruce
Member
"Let's be realistic, your average criminal is not the sharpest stick in the pile and may not have the patience or ability to program a digital scanner." If this statement is true, why do so few of them get caught? Most semi-professional or professional criminals are far sharper than you might think and our false impression of their ability is what keeps them successful and on the street with our belongings. Only the stupid, the junkies, the lazy, and the complacent enjoy three hots and a cot at our expense. Besides, the currently available and inexpensive/free software makes is quite easy to program cost effective digital scanners without the need for a PhD from MIT.
khzairwave
Member
The thought of waking one day and finding nothing but encryption scares me , to be sure. I have thought in a perfect world that I would submit to even a background check to allow me to continue with this hobby. After all, my intentions are pure; as would be my actions (i.e. extra eyes).
However, it is my belief that the bigger the push against encryption, would only be used as proof for the need to encrypt. I can hear them now 'see there 8000 people complaining already so their must be 20000 listening and we have no control who....'. I really think the result would end up becoming a scanner ban long before an 'open' system.
As someone on this forum has said before: 'they have seen the enemy; and it is us' I am sorry to say.
However, it is my belief that the bigger the push against encryption, would only be used as proof for the need to encrypt. I can hear them now 'see there 8000 people complaining already so their must be 20000 listening and we have no control who....'. I really think the result would end up becoming a scanner ban long before an 'open' system.
As someone on this forum has said before: 'they have seen the enemy; and it is us' I am sorry to say.
Last edited:
Bolt21
Spark Chariot Driver
I guess they'd rather hang on to their beloved feeds than to figure out a way to stop the march to encryption. Unbelievable. I'm such a naughty elitist.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7E18 Safari/528.16)
It's more about not wanting to pry open there wallets and get a scanner
It's more about not wanting to pry open there wallets and get a scanner
LetterX
Member
So, your argument is that fewer people can listen if internet streams are prohibited, and therefore LE officers are safer because fewer people are listening. In other words, security by obscurity. Be careful making that argument, because it's only logical to carry it a step further and say that LE officers are even safer if nobody can listen. You're ultimately making the argument FOR encryption, or even prohibiting scanners all together, and not against it. Imagine if there was a law requiring new scanners to have the 800MHz public service band locked out, like there was with the old AMPS cellular frequencies years ago? That's the kind of nightmarish situation you're inadvertently promoting by saying that fewer people should be allowed to listen in order to keep LE safer.
Besides, the truly motivated - those who have the most to gain by listening in - will just go out and buy a scanner anyway if they want to listen to LE while committing a crime. I don't buy the argument that criminals aren't smart enough to do that. If a criminal has a smartphone and is downloading/installing apps, odds are they can afford and figure out how to program a digital scanner, especially with all the step-by-step guides there are online.
I still see your argument as an excuse to put yourself into a group with exclusive access. If people with scanners can listen to LE, then everybody should be allowed to listen. People who don't own scanners can make the argument that the radio waves are unencrypted, and passing through their body just as much as they are yours, and their tax dollars paid for the radios that are transmitting just as much as yours did. You don't need any kind of license to buy or use a digital scanner. Owning one doesn't put you in a group that gets special privileges. I'm not a lawyer, but legislation specifically prohibiting scanner streams probably raises some sort of a legal rights issue.
Just so you know my perspective, I'm a digital scanner owner, but I also listen to internet streams when I'm away from home or I want to hear the activity in a different region of the country. Whether the sound comes out of the scanner speaker or the computer speakers, I don't see a difference between the two listening activities, and I don't see how you can fairly argue that one should be permitted and the other prohibited. It's just a fundamentally unfair argument.
eorange
♦RF Enabled Member♦
Can anyone cite an actual case where encryption was implemented as a direct result of the discovery of a stream?
dugan
Member
Of course smart crooks can buy a scanner and get it set up, which by the way, seems almost beyond the ability of many readers of these forums judging by all the "Help me" posts. I got my PSR500 from a ham operator that couldn't be bothered figuring it out after he bought the thing. I don’t buy the argument that most criminals are bright people, some are unfortunately.
In a nearby town, that RR has a feed for, there is a university. In that university are a lot of potential mischief makers who have easy access to the local police feeds. Most of these youths would not have the inclination or money to get into scanning, but many may have the inclination to use the info they get off their Blackberry scanning app. It just kind of makes the thing too much of a free for all and I can see why LE would be uncomfortable.
When you hear an officer say “give me a 21” they are usually disclosing some information they don’t want public. Once in a while they make a mistake and say something they shouldn’t over the air. The names of young offenders, the name of a deceased party (before the next of kin has been notified), and information about a legal grow-op are all examples of information that would be better kept private and that is exactly what they do when they use the cell phone. In my neck of the woods I don't hear all that much that I feel I shouldn't.
I don’t know if online LE feeds actually cause the problems that I think they might, but I am guessing they multiply the problems that may already exist and therefore it should not surprise anyone when LE agencies demand more privacy. The door has been flung wide open and LE does not like it.
In a nearby town, that RR has a feed for, there is a university. In that university are a lot of potential mischief makers who have easy access to the local police feeds. Most of these youths would not have the inclination or money to get into scanning, but many may have the inclination to use the info they get off their Blackberry scanning app. It just kind of makes the thing too much of a free for all and I can see why LE would be uncomfortable.
When you hear an officer say “give me a 21” they are usually disclosing some information they don’t want public. Once in a while they make a mistake and say something they shouldn’t over the air. The names of young offenders, the name of a deceased party (before the next of kin has been notified), and information about a legal grow-op are all examples of information that would be better kept private and that is exactly what they do when they use the cell phone. In my neck of the woods I don't hear all that much that I feel I shouldn't.
I don’t know if online LE feeds actually cause the problems that I think they might, but I am guessing they multiply the problems that may already exist and therefore it should not surprise anyone when LE agencies demand more privacy. The door has been flung wide open and LE does not like it.
Speaking in very general terms -
Some gun owners want guns for everyone. Some police want no guns for anyone except the police. In the USA, the legal battles between gun owners and police have resulted in some (rural) areas where nearly every home has a gun, and some (urban) areas where hardly any homes have guns. Maybe the same scenario will play out between police and scanner owners.
Peter Sz
(PS - all the police in the UK went encrypted in 2005 - police officers are still dying in the line of duty over there).
Some gun owners want guns for everyone. Some police want no guns for anyone except the police. In the USA, the legal battles between gun owners and police have resulted in some (rural) areas where nearly every home has a gun, and some (urban) areas where hardly any homes have guns. Maybe the same scenario will play out between police and scanner owners.
Peter Sz
(PS - all the police in the UK went encrypted in 2005 - police officers are still dying in the line of duty over there).
LetterX
Member
@dugan - Would you be open to a law that allowed only licensed amateur radio operators to monitor local LE? How about only Government employees? The problem with allowing only certain groups of people to monitor, in the name of "less people listening is better," is that It only seems like a good idea until you're excluded.
Fact of the matter is that it's probably only a matter of time before all LE radio traffic is encrypted, simply because there's very little reason not to switch to an encrypted system as equipment gets replaced. Making it an issue won't help, and may actually cause it to happen faster. That said, eventually technology may exist that allows scanner owners with the right equipment to listen to encrypted systems. It wasn't long ago that some people believed the switch to digital trunks would mean the end of monitoring. Only time will tell.
Fact of the matter is that it's probably only a matter of time before all LE radio traffic is encrypted, simply because there's very little reason not to switch to an encrypted system as equipment gets replaced. Making it an issue won't help, and may actually cause it to happen faster. That said, eventually technology may exist that allows scanner owners with the right equipment to listen to encrypted systems. It wasn't long ago that some people believed the switch to digital trunks would mean the end of monitoring. Only time will tell.
Ban Encryption would be my vote for main channels! Make all LE stream dispatch!
Ok, then what about the radio reference information loaded home patrol?( HomePatrol ) It won't give dumb criminals a way to listen to the Law Enforcement?
Can we ban this website as it makes it easier for criminals to program the radio instead of searching thru FCC files long and wide?
Also you stated Licensed Hams... I know of one who was charged with possession of a scanner during a felony, he held his license for many years after being charged, does that still give him the right to have a scanner?
I've heard in areas local press going to police chief's who have gone encrypted and asking for untransmittable police radios to monitor the action under freedom of the press. What do we say to them?
Police encrypt yes for the criminals, but I have had dealings with good and bad law enforecement in my time and some use the encryption to hide what they want to say IMO good or bad.
Many APCO 25s that I know of are only encrypting the swat and DEA duties from what I see as those have been hidden before. I lived in a town where scanner people helped the police and many police in rural areas are volunteers who don't get paid and are expected to shell out $2000 for one of these new digital radios (The county my Mom lives in, the LE agency there makes the police officers get insurance out of thier own pockets for the radios or they are liable for the radio even if damaged in the line of duty!)
I love to listen to scanner feeds back home, where I am now, and all over. I see no problem with it . If need be have them register for this site like I did.
Ok, then what about the radio reference information loaded home patrol?( HomePatrol ) It won't give dumb criminals a way to listen to the Law Enforcement?
Can we ban this website as it makes it easier for criminals to program the radio instead of searching thru FCC files long and wide?
Also you stated Licensed Hams... I know of one who was charged with possession of a scanner during a felony, he held his license for many years after being charged, does that still give him the right to have a scanner?
I've heard in areas local press going to police chief's who have gone encrypted and asking for untransmittable police radios to monitor the action under freedom of the press. What do we say to them?
Police encrypt yes for the criminals, but I have had dealings with good and bad law enforecement in my time and some use the encryption to hide what they want to say IMO good or bad.
Many APCO 25s that I know of are only encrypting the swat and DEA duties from what I see as those have been hidden before. I lived in a town where scanner people helped the police and many police in rural areas are volunteers who don't get paid and are expected to shell out $2000 for one of these new digital radios (The county my Mom lives in, the LE agency there makes the police officers get insurance out of thier own pockets for the radios or they are liable for the radio even if damaged in the line of duty!)
I love to listen to scanner feeds back home, where I am now, and all over. I see no problem with it . If need be have them register for this site like I did.
Wow, this reminds me of having to write a paper the teacher said HAS to be 500 words minimum.
Less really appears to be more
LetterX
Member
Wow, this reminds me of having to write a paper the teacher said HAS to be 500 words minimum.
Less really appears to be more
Well, it's a complicated issue.
FLA2760
Member
The agencies that want Federal grants to "upgrade" their radio systems should have to agree not to encrypt dispatch and routine channels, talkgroups or no Federal money.
Last edited:
Some of you guys crack me up. I can pretty much tell you that:
1. No FSS will ever be passed that will require local LE to be in the clear for routine operations.
2. The Feds will not hold back grant $ if a system is encrypted. Actually a fully encrypted system would look more favorably to them in the name of Homeland Security as long as it is standards based.
3. Not all agencies "own systems", like SLERS for instance. Those agencies are encrypted by default because the "owner" of the system requires if of all of its subscribers.
4. In the day of cheap encryption ($10.00 ADP) you will begin to see more and more agencies going that route. I have un-named agencies on my system that have shown an interest to do just this when I light up P25.
In short, they do not care about the scanning public that is a very small part of the population. If something happens and you want to know what was said, do a public record request on the recording of the specfic incident on that day and time. Those are typically held for 1 year like 911 calls.
1. No FSS will ever be passed that will require local LE to be in the clear for routine operations.
2. The Feds will not hold back grant $ if a system is encrypted. Actually a fully encrypted system would look more favorably to them in the name of Homeland Security as long as it is standards based.
3. Not all agencies "own systems", like SLERS for instance. Those agencies are encrypted by default because the "owner" of the system requires if of all of its subscribers.
4. In the day of cheap encryption ($10.00 ADP) you will begin to see more and more agencies going that route. I have un-named agencies on my system that have shown an interest to do just this when I light up P25.
In short, they do not care about the scanning public that is a very small part of the population. If something happens and you want to know what was said, do a public record request on the recording of the specfic incident on that day and time. Those are typically held for 1 year like 911 calls.
Scanner Saves Officers Life
Some times scanners can save a police officers life. I was having lunch with my girl friend on her lunch break from work. We were listening to Spokane PD on my ham radio (scanner) and heard an officer request help in a low voice, giving his location and saying he had been stung by a bee and couldn't breath. His dispatcher didn't hear the officers call for help, saying unit calling, unit calling.
I realized no one else had heard the officers call, and being less than a mile away I headed to his location. When I arrived the officer was slumped over the steering wheel in severe respiratory distress. Being a former paramedic I pulled him from his car to the ground and opened his airway.
He could hardly talk, but I asked his unit number and used it to request EMS, telling dispatch that I had an officer down. I used his unit number so I didn't confuse dispatch as to who was on their frequency and why. Fire, EMS and several PD units soon arrived and took over.
A couple funny things happened on this event. First, this was on 29th near Grand, both busy streets in Spokane, and no one thought a thing about me dragging an officer out of his car onto the ground.
Also, all this made my girl friend late getting back to work. When she told her boss what happened, he didn't believe us, and said can't you come up with something better than that. Like someone would make up dragging a cop out of his car as an excuse for being late for work.
So scanners can help police, even saving an officers life.
Some times scanners can save a police officers life. I was having lunch with my girl friend on her lunch break from work. We were listening to Spokane PD on my ham radio (scanner) and heard an officer request help in a low voice, giving his location and saying he had been stung by a bee and couldn't breath. His dispatcher didn't hear the officers call for help, saying unit calling, unit calling.
I realized no one else had heard the officers call, and being less than a mile away I headed to his location. When I arrived the officer was slumped over the steering wheel in severe respiratory distress. Being a former paramedic I pulled him from his car to the ground and opened his airway.
He could hardly talk, but I asked his unit number and used it to request EMS, telling dispatch that I had an officer down. I used his unit number so I didn't confuse dispatch as to who was on their frequency and why. Fire, EMS and several PD units soon arrived and took over.
A couple funny things happened on this event. First, this was on 29th near Grand, both busy streets in Spokane, and no one thought a thing about me dragging an officer out of his car onto the ground.
Also, all this made my girl friend late getting back to work. When she told her boss what happened, he didn't believe us, and said can't you come up with something better than that. Like someone would make up dragging a cop out of his car as an excuse for being late for work.
So scanners can help police, even saving an officers life.
dugan
Member
A lot of good points have been made. My argument is not about me having exclusive access. It is more about the idea that if the scanner listening community grows exponentially, then the interest in encryption does the same. I suppose since the feeds exist, the genie is out of the bottle, so that's that.
I don’t believe that anyone in authority will care about or listen to any argument we might make. I have heard a police chief express the idea that by not encrypting his officers are held to a higher standard of conduct and that is a good thing, but that idea will probably be outweighed by the security concerns. Don’t forget the sales pitch of the radio makers. I am sure they are pretty good at their jobs and will effectively sell the idea of encryption.
I will enjoy it listening while I still can and will miss it when it is gone.
I don’t believe that anyone in authority will care about or listen to any argument we might make. I have heard a police chief express the idea that by not encrypting his officers are held to a higher standard of conduct and that is a good thing, but that idea will probably be outweighed by the security concerns. Don’t forget the sales pitch of the radio makers. I am sure they are pretty good at their jobs and will effectively sell the idea of encryption.
I will enjoy it listening while I still can and will miss it when it is gone.
- Status
Similar threads
