heard jenks on tulsa 800 system

[mfolta1]

wow, im glad for her. shes the one who when she worked at 6 went and did that story on the mounted patrol, i think it was new york but am not sure, thats some of the best photojournalism ive ever seen though...

later.

 

[AsstChief]

Hey tomokla, If we had FD dispatchers instead of both FD/PD we could monitor that talkgroup for you. It would be really nice to be a FD ONLY dispatcher.

 

[crayon]

I know of one former member here who was actually disciplined by his department for his postings, even though he discussed nothing that wasn't readily available in the public domain, such as on the FCC website.

Remember USA vs. Larry Gass up in Tulsa?

The court correct found:

Any "electronic communication" that is "readily accessible to the general public" may be intercepted. 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(g)(i). Moreover, any governmental "radio communication" that is "readily accessible" to the general public may be intercepted, regardless of any expectation of privacy. 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(g)(ii)(II).

When your in the right .. your in the right, regardless of what some pencil pushing blockhead in a department says about that departments expectation of privacy.

Lest we also forget about the time when BA sends two thugs from their gastopo force to talk to (threaten) the webmaster of scantulsa.com about pubically available information contained within scantulsa.com.

He did the right thing for him at the time, and I totally respect him for the decisions that he made. However, had it been I in that situation I would have told them, to quote a somewhat famous phrase now, "shove it."

 

[smoken731]

I'm with crayon on that one. It's the public's airwaves, the fcc regulates them, but they belong to the public.

 

[tomokla]

Smoken731 - Just wanted to give you a hats off for your updates on the SSFD-6A channel last evening. Between the several calls run overnight you impressed many firefighters and I received several "atta boys" for your proactivness in letting them know the ETA and location of the units responding, etc. Your word, as promised, ended up being gold. Much appreciated.

Look forward to meeting you

T

 

[K5MAR]

I know of one former member here who was actually disciplined by his department for his postings, even though he discussed nothing that wasn't readily available in the public domain, such as on the FCC website.

Remember USA vs. Larry Gass up in Tulsa?

The court correct found:

Any "electronic communication" that is "readily accessible to the general public" may be intercepted. 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(g)(i). Moreover, any governmental "radio communication" that is "readily accessible" to the general public may be intercepted, regardless of any expectation of privacy. 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(g)(ii)(II).

When your in the right .. your in the right, regardless of what some pencil pushing blockhead in a department says about that departments expectation of privacy.

Lest we also forget about the time when BA sends two thugs from their gastopo force to talk to (threaten) the webmaster of scantulsa.com about pubically available information contained within scantulsa.com.

He did the right thing for him at the time, and I totally respect him for the decisions that he made. However, had it been I in that situation I would have told them, to quote a somewhat famous phrase now, "shove it."

Don't know about the BA thing, but in the Larry Gass incident, it was Criminal Charges for reprogramming radios to receive the new Tulsa TRS. Not the same thing.

In both the Larry Gass case and the incident you describe regarding the Scan Tulsa website, these were outsiders. The incident I mentioned concerns a public safety agency employee. Many departments have limitations on what their people do outside the department. Believe it or not, you can be required to at least partially surrender some civil rights when you are employed in sensitive positions. The department I worked for had a list of proscribed activities that we, both sworn and unsworn police employees, had to agree not to do. We couldn't engage in political activities, or discuss department activities with outsiders (without prior authorization). Ask any law enforcement professional on here, they'll tell you the same thing. After all, the public has a right to expect that police don't go blabbing the personal information to the public. I won't get into specifics, you are smart enough to figure out that many people have interactions with law enforcement they'd rather not have publicized, things that are personally embarrasing but not criminal.

Yeah, he could have told them to "take this job and shove it", but that would effectively end his career in law enforcement. He made a decision, and I respect his action. It's just a shame it happened in the first place. It was the result of a bit of back-stabbing by another agency's employee. Probably said more here than I should have, but that's all I'll say about it.

Mark S.