Heard Deputy warning about internet feeds...

Status
Not open for further replies.

conve36

Member
Joined
May 5, 2008
Messages
161
Location
Menifee/Lake Elsinore, Ca
This is regarding my Riverside County Sheriff online scanner feed;

http://ca.scanamerica.us/index.php?county=Riverside

So I just heard two deputys talking on an "I-Call" (idividual call), one guy was warning the other guy that all individual calls are being monitored via the internet as well as most talk-groups. Telling him to be careful what he says. He said a website in particular but I didnt catch it cause it kept scanning...he was saying deputys are giving out "codes" to these "people". Obviously this guy doesnt know what hes talking about, we dont need special codes. All this IS legal right? As far as I know, my scanner is the only one that particularly monitors the Lake Elsinore and Perris area of Riverside County.

If you go to my scanner feed (the link on the top of the page) and go to the scanner archive for Riverside County Sheriff you will hear parts of that conversation. Go to the file; 7/29/2008 4:04pm - 4:19pm fast forward to 5:10

So let me know your input on this. Kinda interesting...
 

clanusb

Member
Joined
May 2, 2008
Messages
280
Location
Northern CA
one guy was warning the other guy that all individual calls are being monitored via the internet as well as most talk-groups. Telling him to be careful what he says.
that should be in the dept's SOP and rules about radio traffic.. they should know not to say anything that they dont want the public to hear over the radio. anything private should be done face to face or cell phone.
 

RolnCode3

Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2004
Messages
2,260
Location
Sacramento/Bay Area, CA
So by posting the actual conversation they had about this, you're hoping to accomplish?????

What if those two deputies figure out their conversation is posted? Don't you think they'll be slightly pissed that you're trying to embarrass them? You can bet they - and everyone they know, will never discuss anything important on the radio again - if they can help it.

Who knows who they'll tell? Maybe someone on some technology steering committee? Purchasing committee?

Trying to embarrass someone, and then publicizing it, isn't going to do anyone any favors. To be honest, if I knew anyone who worked there, I'd drop a dime and tell them to check out the conversation, and be careful in the future. Only because you've taken the time to record and post that specific item.
 

btritch

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Nov 27, 2006
Messages
1,895
Location
Paragould/Greene County AR
Hmmm....I wish you'd got the rest of that conversation....I bet it proved interesting...you're right, They had NO IDEA anyone could possibly be listening.. Rememer, Although even illegal in some instances, The only "secure" conversation is face to face communication...
 

conve36

Member
Joined
May 5, 2008
Messages
161
Location
Menifee/Lake Elsinore, Ca
So by posting the actual conversation they had about this, you're hoping to accomplish?????

What if those two deputies figure out their conversation is posted? Don't you think they'll be slightly pissed that you're trying to embarrass them? You can bet they - and everyone they know, will never discuss anything important on the radio again - if they can help it.

Who knows who they'll tell? Maybe someone on some technology steering committee? Purchasing committee?

Trying to embarrass someone, and then publicizing it, isn't going to do anyone any favors. To be honest, if I knew anyone who worked there, I'd drop a dime and tell them to check out the conversation, and be careful in the future. Only because you've taken the time to record and post that specific item.
True, I really didnt look at it that way.

And by the way, I am not trying to do anyone any favors. From some of the things I have heard on "I-Calls", they should be lucky this is the only thing I have pointed out.
 

SCANMUNCIE

Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2002
Messages
157
Location
Delaware Co, Indiana
I don't think it was your link they was talking about since i heard them say ".com" and the scanamerica website ends in ".us"

However the conversations is funny.. i remember when my agency first went to a trunked radio system, and officers thought nobody could hear anything and thought the talkgroup codes was secret.. There are still alot of officers that have no idea about radios...

I even took unitrunker into my roll call one day and showed them how a scanner and a little software could identify talkgroups and there own radios and show when there radio transmited and on what channel.. they was complete shocked that it was possible.. it was even more funny when i had them randomly change there channel knob and i could tell them what channel (talkgroup) they was on..

Some got really mad that it was even possible.. Some really have no idea about technology..
 

Cowthief

Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2003
Messages
102
Location
Texas
10-35 and all that jazz.

Hello.

10-35 simply ment talk-around in San Antonio in the era of UHF GE PE radios.
And, by what I heard, this was a discussion intended to make people think that they (police) do not know.
This is a very common ploy, throw out a few tiny tidbits that are of no real value, details that are easily traced, perhaps one digit off on a house number, that type of thing.
The usual use for this is to "track" informants, is the guy really on the inside track or just a good scanner buff?
Remember, police officer training deals in no small part on how to use the radio.
 

cpd38

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Aug 24, 2004
Messages
149
Location
Dane CO WI
It kind of sounds like a reason that a lot of places are pushing for full time encryption
 

conve36

Member
Joined
May 5, 2008
Messages
161
Location
Menifee/Lake Elsinore, Ca
Hello.

10-35 simply ment talk-around in San Antonio in the era of UHF GE PE radios.
And, by what I heard, this was a discussion intended to make people think that they (police) do not know.
This is a very common ploy, throw out a few tiny tidbits that are of no real value, details that are easily traced, perhaps one digit off on a house number, that type of thing.
The usual use for this is to "track" informants, is the guy really on the inside track or just a good scanner buff?
Remember, police officer training deals in no small part on how to use the radio.
Wow, never would have thought of that. Your good!

Been scanning long? ...jk.
 

WX4JCW

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jun 26, 2006
Messages
2,592
Location
All Over USA
It kind of sounds like a reason that a lot of places are pushing for full time encryption
They Can Encrypt all they want, then one day when the community is completely alienated, not by the encryption but by the attitude that the departments get when they know they aren't being scrutinized, well what has been accomplished.
 

rdale

Completely Banned for the Greater Good
Feed Provider
Joined
Feb 3, 2001
Messages
11,380
Location
Lansing, MI
What was accomplished? They are encrypted so nobody can listen in... Nothing more, nothing less.
 

cousinkix1953

Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2007
Messages
518
They Can Encrypt all they want, then one day when the community is completely alienated, not by the encryption but by the attitude that the departments get when they know they aren't being scrutinized, well what has been accomplished.
Fortunately, I live in a city where the police got rid of their analog voice inversion scramblers in the late 70s. They haven't bothered with modern MOTOROLA DES systems either. Our cops learned not to say certain things on their radios! The FEDS are are about the only scrambled traffic that I hear once in awhile.

Most of our public agencies are using convential VHF and UHF repeaters! The state of California is using two MOTOROLA SmartNet II trunking systems in the area. These are easy to program and monitor, if I wanna hear Cal-Trans or what's going on at the college campus. We have no EDACS and just commercial junk using the LTR systems.

The sheriff's dispatcher in a neighboring county is the only one actively using an APCO 25 digital system which is simulcasted on another analog frequency. So, there's no big loss here either...
 

DPD1

Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2005
Messages
1,994
True, I really didnt look at it that way.

And by the way, I am not trying to do anyone any favors. From some of the things I have heard on "I-Calls", they should be lucky this is the only thing I have pointed out.
Lucky? I don't think it's our job to decide what people should say and not say on their own radios, is it? WE are the ones that are lucky, because we live in a country where you're even allowed to do things like monitor police. There's many other countries that don't allow anything like that, and would throw you in prison for trying. It's a free country and you can do what you want... But personally, I don't know how great an attitude this is to have. Bottom line, the more people that get ticked off about people listening, the harder they're going to work to make it so nobody can listen. Which seems counterproductive to the hobby. I've talked to people in the military and had them tell me that the main reason why they've worked harder to make communications in the states more secure in the last ten years, is because of info distributed on the internet, including streams. And you can forget about public outcry about things being encrypted, because 99% of the public has no idea how any of that stuff works to begin with and couldn't care less. Most people would probably support encryption.

I'd rather live without streams and recordings and still have something to hear 10 years from now... Just my opinion.

Dave
www.DPDProductions.com
Antennas & Accessories for the RF Professional & Radio Hobbyist
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top