I agree too with the majority of your response.
"Almost all public safety talkgroups/frequencies are in the clear. APD encrypts tactical and sensitive ops, a decision that Im 100% behind."
I haven't been in Anchorage for more then a year, and things could have changed. I did notice a majority of encyprtion occuring at that time though at the city level. From memory, one-way dispatch unencrypted traffic? shrugs... still, as somebody else stated already, encryption anywhere should not be used or needed... tend to agree too as a description of suspect is usually broadcasted from the officer side. As such, deterrs any extra-eyes on the street level helping.
I ran into an agency sometime ago with unencrypted undercover ops. But then realized a possible reason, "Do you want to focus on crooks and avoid people without criminal intent", as a possible reason for being unencrypted. In other words, it's likely common to run into people without intent whom get mixed up in undercover ops. Or, you're focusing on a specific class of individuals for providing aide & assistance. Also, having the scanning crowd listen in gets an extra set of eyes and ears. Of coures, I'm talking about the low-risk scenarios such as prostitution and street vendor drug sales. Also, could have simply been because it's what they were using... again, shrugs. ... or maybe to show people they're actually working. ;-)
I agree on the online feeds and cell phone feeds (as it has been the primary excuse for going encrypted), but when you sincerely spend some time thinking as I do on bits & bytes, it starts to sincerely seem more of an excuse to use encryption. Do some further research, and the idealogy becomes well grounded. I've noticed over the decade, this is a politicized debate on whether civilians should be able to listen to police traffic. But after awhile, you realize safety & health are primary, privacy becomes a minimal concern during communication as safety & health take priority. And, most seasoned people in this career field will likely aggre. If you were drowning, would you be happy to take assistance from a civilian or wait for AST with it's encrypted bandwagon to arrive? Most rural areas depend on the unecrypted radio net for public safety/health, as response times are lengthy for State assistance.
Of course, this is hypothetical and statistics might dictate unencrypted traffic helps little. It really gets down to, which is the righteous path. In other words, there was a time when the Bible wasn't allowed to be read by civilians or was always written in Latin. Since King James, it's been easily read. My accuracy might be a little lazy with Bible history, but I'm sure most will understand the point made.
Wonders can be performed with bits & bytes. As I've concluded, encryption seems to be more pushed or lazy method versus a well thought-out plan. I have Assembly & C experience, and computer programming knowledge since 1985. And then, if you talk to anybody within electronics or software field, you'll get another political or biased aspect. Proprietary folks or those coding encryption algorithyms will agree as it's their primary source of income or living.
I'm going out on a limb here, but if I were within the field, I would use the packets as a doorway. Simple as that. Same thing as being a cop and lurking around bars for info. The more info you get, the more cases you solve. The more people you can write-off as not being a primary suspect, etc. Or, follow the money scenario. But, at the same time, the theory "the less info people get, the less crimes people are able to committ." Two ideologies. I'll let people decide which is more social or anti-social, or righteous path. As for me, being honest seems to be the real money maker and I reserve keeping my mouth shut as a last resort. So, sort of like the definition of rational thinking here.
Anyways, I enjoyed your feedback. It's rare these days to not see somebody bashing another persons' beliefs. I've probably put myself out on a limb on this issue, but feel I had to since I suspect everybody else are chained to a job these days.
It would be really great to actually hear the debating within the policy making sessions on this issue or legislature sessions. But from what I already saw with HB80, I won't be surprised to see somebody actually pushing a bad intentioned issue. Shrugs, politics for ya.
Sorry for the ugly long passionate responses, but somebody has to say something. I, too, recently could not find the Alaska law covering scanner usage. And, from memory, it does also state it's "illegal to repeat anything heard within a police frequency" by the scanner. So it's there, I just can't recall it. But as everybody as already reiterated, it would be retorical to go after the honest or good intentioned civilians. If they did, it would be likely be the fast track to getting fired. ;-)
Just wish, what I wrote, was already stated elsewhere. But since I've heard nothing, I'm left to writing it myself. Of which, still might be useless and wasted typing.
