• Effective immediately we will be deleting, without notice, any negative threads or posts that deal with the use of encryption and streaming of scanner audio.

    We've noticed a huge increase in rants and negative posts that revolve around agencies going to encryption due to the broadcasting of scanner audio on the internet. It's now worn out and continues to be the same recycled rants. These rants hijack the threads and derail the conversation. They no longer have a place anywhere on this forum other than in the designated threads in the Rants forum in the Tavern.

    If you violate these guidelines your post will be deleted without notice and an infraction will be issued. We are not against discussion of this issue. You just need to do it in the right place. For example:
    https://forums.radioreference.com/rants/224104-official-thread-live-audio-feeds-scanners-wait-encryption.html

Orlando Police To Begin Scrambling Radio Scanner Signals

Status
Not open for further replies.

IdleMonitor

Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2005
Messages
2,411
Location
The Ottawa Valley - Eastern Ontario
Story by wftv.com

ORLANDO, Fla. --

In about two weeks, Orlando police will operate in a form of radio silence. The public won't be able to hear the Orlando Police Department respond to crimes using police radio scanners. The department is scrambling their signal and they say it's to keep criminals from listening in.

Critics say they use police scanners to be a watchdog and not being able to listen will allow cops to become the "secret police" with less accountability. Law enforcement says its about safety.

Joe Mattern has been listening to police scanners for 30 years. He says they kept him safe when a wanted criminal on the run was taken down by deputies in his backyard. Mattern heard the crook was coming his way and immediately locked the doors.

"If I didn't have the scanner, I couldn't equip myself and better understand harm was coming toward me," he said.

http://www.officer.com/online/article.jsp?siteSection=1&id=40552
 

GM

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
927
When the PBA asks you for a donation, send it back saying: "Oh well."

When they ask you for help, say "Oh well." (cause most agencies that are encrypted already 'don't want your assistance' [that's what one local PD officer told me this week]).

As they say at my job: "Oh Well."

Edit: I have to add this though: it seems like instead of working as a team for the common good, it's all about "WE got 'em." All levels of Gov't are guilty of this. I love to assist if/when I can, since I work out in the field six days a week; but how can I if all I get is R2D2 for the location of the motor vehicle collision so I can avoid it??
 
Last edited:

bpckty1

Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2000
Messages
957
To add to GM's comments:

There are many people in the crowd, but there are no witnesses to the crime . I wonder why...

Oh, Well.
 

N8IAA

Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
6,736
Location
Fortunately, GA
bpckty1 said:
To add to GM's comments:There are many people in the crowd, but there are no witnesses to the crime . I wonder why...Oh, Well.
The funny thing though, the perps still don't care about where the cops are. They'll keep on doing what they do. Belief is that cops are more concerned about the media hounding their butts. My thought is see if they go digital instead of encrypted.
They don't want our help--Oh Well:>P
Larry
 

KB9LIQ

Completely Banned for the Greater Good
Banned
Joined
Dec 19, 2003
Messages
0
Location
Central IL
To me it should be our right as taxpayers to hear normal day to day traffic from the police departments in the US. Yes there are some things we should not be hearing like drug stakeouts and other investigations. Most bad guys don't even know how to work scanners. But then Motorola makes allot more money selling this stuff
 

Larry27

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jan 25, 2004
Messages
41
Location
Winston Salem, NC
Why?

What are they doing that they don't want the public to find out about?

The police become less of a public service and more of an army of occupation every day.
 

Searay

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Apr 2, 2003
Messages
181
Location
York, SC
Why is everyone so paranoid?

It seems like every time an agency starts using encryption, everyone jumps on the bandwagon about, what are "They" hiding? Or what are they doing that they don't want the public to know. Encryption is nothing new. It is just a fact that more and more will be going that way. We use encryption in our agency regularly. We have some talkgroups that are strapped secure and others that are selectable. We have our investigations, narcotics, SWAT Teams and Bomb Squad are strapped secure. We use secure on our dispatch channels during critical call, alarm calls, high risk calls, or calls where names of suspects are also given out. Especially anytime officer safety might come into play. That does not leave a whole lot when you really look at it. I think this is justified, do you? Federal regulations also restrict us from giving out a persons criminal history information if it is unsecure. So with the use of encryption, this allows officers to be more productive in the field without having to get information by coming to the station.

I have been a scanner enthusiast much longer than I have been in Law Enforcement but understand that this is a reality. The encrypted talkgroups have really broadened our ability, communications wise, from what we had in the past. I think anyone in law enforcement would agree. We know scanner enthusiasts are the least of our concerns, but we have in fact apprehended robbery suspect with scanners in their car.
 

Searay

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Apr 2, 2003
Messages
181
Location
York, SC
mikeh said:
what about fire are they included
Only the Command and Investigations talkgroups. The Command is Admin Command, not fire incident command.
 

jaymatt1978

Member
Joined
May 18, 2003
Messages
1,593
Location
Cape May,NJ
I have said this in the past and will continue to say it. I consider it highly offensive that the government is making it easier to obtain access on us (i.e. wiretapping laws expanded, warentless wiretaps, etc.) but is making it hardr for us to listen to them. It doesn't make sense to me that the news media hasn't picked up on this philosophy and used it against police going encrypted. When we see news articles about this we as scanner listeners should be writing to media outlets who are reporting about cities going encrypted and pointing this fact out. The people who want to keep the airwaves open have yet to utilized this powerful and effective arguement. Until we start speaking up this trend will continue!
 

N5TWB

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Apr 20, 2003
Messages
1,031
Location
Sand Springs OK
Searay said:
It seems like every time an agency starts using encryption, everyone jumps on the bandwagon about, what are "They" hiding? Or what are they doing that they don't want the public to know. Encryption is nothing new. It is just a fact that more and more will be going that way. We use encryption in our agency regularly. We have some talkgroups that are strapped secure and others that are selectable. We have our investigations, narcotics, SWAT Teams and Bomb Squad are strapped secure. We use secure on our dispatch channels during critical call, alarm calls, high risk calls, or calls where names of suspects are also given out. Especially anytime officer safety might come into play. That does not leave a whole lot when you really look at it. I think this is justified, do you? Federal regulations also restrict us from giving out a persons criminal history information if it is unsecure. So with the use of encryption, this allows officers to be more productive in the field without having to get information by coming to the station.

I have been a scanner enthusiast much longer than I have been in Law Enforcement but understand that this is a reality. The encrypted talkgroups have really broadened our ability, communications wise, from what we had in the past. I think anyone in law enforcement would agree. We know scanner enthusiasts are the least of our concerns, but we have in fact apprehended robbery suspect with scanners in their car.
I find it interesting that the larger city of which Rock Hill is part of the SMSA does not encrypt when, given the larger population, they would likely have a larger exposure on the laundry list of locks you have in RH.

Just for the education of the unwashed masses here that listen to items from their local constabulary that is on the Rock Hill laundry list of lockdowns, please let us know the federal regulation that our officials are in jeopardy from and just how soon might we see them in orange jumpsuits for said offenses?

Since I am sure your sarcasm meter has now pegged off the scale, I can assure you that you are safe to put me in the column for not thinking that the absolute source of justification of encryption is simply because "we got some dough from the feds for an upgrade so we should encrypt so we can be sure to spend the grant".
 

43g70

Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2006
Messages
150
So you say as a taxpayer you should be able to listen?

Well you pay for the tractor they mow with, can you use it? No.

The radio is a tool just like that tractor.

If you don't like what they spend, run for local office than.
 

Searay

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Apr 2, 2003
Messages
181
Location
York, SC
N5TWB said:
I find it interesting that the larger city of which Rock Hill is part of the SMSA does not encrypt when, given the larger population, they would likely have a larger exposure on the laundry list of locks you have in RH.

Just for the education of the unwashed masses here that listen to items from their local constabulary that is on the Rock Hill laundry list of lockdowns, please let us know the federal regulation that our officials are in jeopardy from and just how soon might we see them in orange jumpsuits for said offenses?

Since I am sure your sarcasm meter has now pegged off the scale, I can assure you that you are safe to put me in the column for not thinking that the absolute source of justification of encryption is simply because "we got some dough from the feds for an upgrade so we should encrypt so we can be sure to spend the grant".
No, my sarcasm meter is not pegged off the scale. If it sounded that way, my apologies, it was not intended to sound that way. And there was no Federal Grant money that payed for our radio upgrade. We have been using encryption since the early 1990's and use it today in about the same fashion as we have since the 90's. I have not heard any complaints locally from the scanner enthusiasts around hear. Our agency has a great working relationship with over 50 neighborhood associations and business organizations. Our community is very supportive of our department.

Not trying to ruffle any feathers. Any locals that monitor can attest that 85%-90% of all our dispatch traffic is in the clear.
 

kc2nll

Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2006
Messages
5
Location
Newburgh,NY
Orlando to scramble radio signals

Scrambling radio signals allows police to transmit sensitive information not meant for the public to hear for security and safety reasons. Your head is in the sand if you dont think criminals use scanners to listen in to where police are. They use them to see if the police are responding to their area or to the crimes they commit. It happens more times than you realize. In my opinion, ALL police transmissions should be scrambled. There is enough things to listen to such as fire and ambulance transmissions. As a scanner hobbyist, we can listen to the world. Police transmissions are a small part of what is out there.
 

mikeh

Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2003
Messages
362
Location
fremont calif
ok let see if i have this right

ok so let me see if i have this right the fire incident command.
groups are the ones that are used at the the fire for tac comms
like fire attack ETC......
 

rankin39

Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2004
Messages
367
Location
Western Leavenworth Co., KS
The Lawrence, KS police tried encryption back in the '70's for certain transmissions. I recognized the inversion system for what it was and built a balanced modulator with 4 diodes and decoded them. 95% of encrypted transmissions were of a CYA nature and had to do with potty breaks, lunch, stopping off at home, etc. Very little use for professional confidentiality at all. I'd suggest that that is the general rule with such encryption. When Kansas City talked about digital encryption some years back, some in the media began making noises about reporting every single negative thing they could dig up about the police until the police commission learned its lesson. Not much ever came of that because the PD finally decided to encrypt VERY little, if anything. I dare say the press and TV will just start keeping a closer eye on the cops in jurisdictions that do encrypt, and you'll all learn who was caught taking a nap behind the local Walmart late at night. :)
Bob, w0nxn
 
Joined
Jun 12, 2005
Messages
149
Location
Southern Illinois
You say federal regs restrict reading back of a CQH on a person without a secure channel?

If so someone better tell that to the Illinois SP, and every local PD and Sheriff's dept south of I-64 in Southern Illinois...


Searay said:
It seems like every time an agency starts using encryption, everyone jumps on the bandwagon about, what are "They" hiding? Or what are they doing that they don't want the public to know. Encryption is nothing new. It is just a fact that more and more will be going that way. We use encryption in our agency regularly. We have some talkgroups that are strapped secure and others that are selectable. We have our investigations, narcotics, SWAT Teams and Bomb Squad are strapped secure. We use secure on our dispatch channels during critical call, alarm calls, high risk calls, or calls where names of suspects are also given out. Especially anytime officer safety might come into play. That does not leave a whole lot when you really look at it. I think this is justified, do you? Federal regulations also restrict us from giving out a persons criminal history information if it is unsecure. So with the use of encryption, this allows officers to be more productive in the field without having to get information by coming to the station.

I have been a scanner enthusiast much longer than I have been in Law Enforcement but understand that this is a reality. The encrypted talkgroups have really broadened our ability, communications wise, from what we had in the past. I think anyone in law enforcement would agree. We know scanner enthusiasts are the least of our concerns, but we have in fact apprehended robbery suspect with scanners in their car.
 

sjcscanner

Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2007
Messages
505
KB9LIQ said:
To me it should be our right as taxpayers to hear normal day to day traffic from the police departments in the US. Yes there are some things we should not be hearing like drug stakeouts and other investigations. Most bad guys don't even know how to work scanners. But then Motorola makes allot more money selling this stuff
amen to that!

darn they had to go encrypted a week before i traveled there :/ is orange county enc yet?
 

Bravo10

Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
49
You are incorrect.

mikeh said:
ok so let me see if i have this right the fire incident command.
groups are the ones that are used at the the fire for tac comms
like fire attack ETC......
I will see if I can make this easier to understand regarding the fire. All calls are dispatched on "Dispatch". They are assigned a "Fire ops" talkgroup, from either Fire OPs 1 through Fire Ops 7. The Command is for administrative matters between the battalion chiefs. No fire operations are handled on the command talkgroup.

Hope this helps clarify.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top