Just PS, really. I understand the desire to listen to Ham Radio streams from a distance. Plus, there's zero back-lash for the person hosting the stream.
Ottawa, ON - Police hope to end rebroadcasting of scanners
- Thread starter ibagli
- Start date
- Status
Just PS, really. I understand the desire to listen to Ham Radio streams from a distance. Plus, there's zero back-lash for the person hosting the stream.
I decided to provide a feed when the previous provider stopped. I work in a neighboring county and I like to stay in tune with what is going on around my house. It has also been a great tool for many last year while the area was hit by a tornado (dispatchers were advising of confirmations and possible paths). I find it sad and total disrespectful that a news channel would rebroadcast a dying officers last words. I do not agree with more government control, maybe the public should have boycotted the news channel on such poor judgment of journalism. If you are going to rebroadcast scanner traffic, at least edit personal and sensitive information out.
I use social media to interact with others who enjoy listening to the county scanner feed and have only gotten positive responses from the general public, firefighters and law enforcement officers. Some officers actually encourage the public to listen as a way to better understand the work they are doing to make our community safe. Banning scanner use to discourage use by those with criminal intent only stops the law abiding citizens. It is already illegal to use a scanner in commission of a crime in most places, but of course we know criminals do not obey the laws anyway, they would buy or steal police radios and find a way to et around encrypted traffic.
I use social media to interact with others who enjoy listening to the county scanner feed and have only gotten positive responses from the general public, firefighters and law enforcement officers. Some officers actually encourage the public to listen as a way to better understand the work they are doing to make our community safe. Banning scanner use to discourage use by those with criminal intent only stops the law abiding citizens. It is already illegal to use a scanner in commission of a crime in most places, but of course we know criminals do not obey the laws anyway, they would buy or steal police radios and find a way to et around encrypted traffic.
Last edited:
stlouisx50
Member
You would have thought they would have provided an online link at the very most, rather than playing it over the tv airwaves.
I love listening to the police feeds but I do agree that they need to be on at least a 10 minute delay. That would prevent the Police Departments from using the excuse of phone apps being used by criminals as a reason to use encryption.
As for the Canada media, that was just plain dumb what they did. They need to realize that posting the audio hurts the scanner hobby and themselves because it will make their job harder if they can't hear what's going on.
Jason
As for the Canada media, that was just plain dumb what they did. They need to realize that posting the audio hurts the scanner hobby and themselves because it will make their job harder if they can't hear what's going on.
Jason
stlouisx50
Member
A 10 min delay would be great for a criminal too, that way they could get a 10 min head start and not have the public out looking for them. I suppose the cat and mouse game of cop vs. robber has become a whiny battle once again. So we have to conform the rules so it's in the hand of the government and what they want.
Like surveillance cameras popping up all over the place yet people think it's a great idea. However have anyone in the public film and have the police on them questioning them like they committed a felony.
A delay in broadcast already happens with police departments and they end up missing the offender most of the time. How do you expect to get public's participation 10 mins later ?
Like surveillance cameras popping up all over the place yet people think it's a great idea. However have anyone in the public film and have the police on them questioning them like they committed a felony.
A delay in broadcast already happens with police departments and they end up missing the offender most of the time. How do you expect to get public's participation 10 mins later ?
KMD877-KMG983
Member
Here's my perspective on this issue, and anyone feel free to take a different position and tell me where I'm wrong. I base my opinions on a nearly 30 year career in public safety including command positions, assignments as public information officer (PIO,) on the emergency management and disaster preparedness teams, associated with the fire service. While the apparent unseemly misuse of Const. Styles' last transmissions by the media is an issue that involves media misconduct, in my opinion it does not involve the use of scanners, streaming (feeds) to rebroadcast local transmissions or even archiving by private citizens.
Here's my point.
I live out west. On a windy day we can have 3,000 or more acres burning, literally in minutes, sometimes in suburban and urban areas. Trying to evacuate 10,000 people on almost no notice is not unheard of here.
I have to tell you that the media isn't all that great in getting accurate information out to the public. Since I've retired, I'm involved in broadcasting and I'll be the first to admit that the media can send out some really bad information - including misidentifying areas being evacuated. Good luck trying to get through and get these folks to correct their broadcasts. Sometimes you can, sometimes you can't get past a busy signal.
Sometimes the feeds such as those provided by RadioReference are the only accurate sources of information that citizens with smart phones can get "on the fly."
We recently lost an elderly lady in Reno during a wide area wildfire. Her daughter was stuck in traffic trying to get to her and from the information she got she didn't realize the danger, so she didn't call authorities to go in and get her mother out.
Everyone could pack a scanner around but it's not really practical for a large number of people. However if they knew how to get radio feeds on their smart phones they could stay informed when an emergency develops using their blue tooth devices, even while at work, shopping, etc.
Some western police and fire departments provide links to radio feeds because they recognize the value in informing the public as to what's happening in their communities. Of course that doesn't extend to channels used for covert operations, and I have to agree that there are some sensitive channels that shouldn't fall into the public domain. However, in other instances the public is best served when they have the "clearest view" of what the agencies they support with their tax dollars are doing.
Regarding archiving - archiving is hugely beneficial when used properly. As a rookie who started out as a dispatcher, during classes we would listen to archives of communications center tapes. "Chelsea Box 2-1-5, Arlington and Third Street" (The Chelsea conflaguration of October 14,1973) is one that will be forever branded in my mind. I still have tapes of it somewhere. Most recently, the FDNY dispatch recordings from 9/11 are hugely educational to anyone involved in the fire service and/or disaster management, and by extension, to anyone who may some day want a career in public safety or even someone who is a buff. (I have those also.) How can we appreciate what our public safety agencies do if the only information we get is filtered?
Scanner and feed buffs generally aren't criminals. Some, like me, are retired or off-duty public safety personnel. Some, like many of you, may well find careers in fire, law enforcement or EMS. Others are just good citizens that can and will do the right thing if the opportunity arises.
I understand Ontario's concerns but let's not overreact. The failure of the media to behave responsibly is not a new thing and its conduct shouldn't adversely impact the "big picture." So I have to side with StoliRaz.
Just my two cents.
Let's put things into perspective here
Seeing how this whole controversy about shutting out the public and media from scanning came from one scanner buff streaming online, here's my opinion on this whole fiasco.
To pick out a single incident in which the media failed to act responsibly as a justification for killing off streaming, and potentially shutting out the media/public with encryption, is overkill.
It must be noted that crime reporters, as gatekeepers of information, hear sensitive details over the scanners all the time that they filter from the general public's ears. When it comes to reporting sensitive incidents, common sense, an understanding of the public trust, the public's need to know, and common decency is weighed. There is a reason why domestic assaults, personal phone numbers, child abuse calls, suicides etc. go unreported when they happen. Overly gory photos are omitted from print, and expletives are bleeped or edited out. Personal phone numbers, email addresses, exact address information, victim's names, and licence plate numbers heard over the scanners are withheld from reportage on a daily basis until confirmation is received. Even then, they are left out unless such information is indisputably pertinent to the story at hand.
It is true, the Toronto media failed to act responsibly in the Garrett Styles case. But it was a one-time mistake that the public have made clear they do not want to see happen again. It must be understood that this was a case in which a controversial situation was dealt with in the heat of the moment, and in the midst of time constraints. In hindsight, the best or safest decisions that could have been made clearly were not. I would expect the police - agencies which are no strangers to scrutiny over handling controversial situations themselves - to be the most understanding of this.
Would it be overkill to take all tasers away from all police officers because of a single fatality in which one was used? Many cops would argue it most certainly would be. Likewise, would be overkill to shut off the public and media from being able to hold our police to account, and from being able to be kept informed of public safety concerns, just because of a one-time mistake by the media and one scanner buff? Yes, it would be.
As noted by a previous poster in this thread, most scanner listeners (REPORTERS INCLUDED) are responsible with what they hear over the scanners. Even when it comes to divulging, or streaming scanner info, most people behave responsibly. Let's not let a knee-jerk reaction to one negative incident take a big bite out of democracy.
The Styles case was a one-time failure of judgement by the Toronto media that I hope for the sake of democracy, they will not be dumb enough to repeat. Otherwise, it'll be soon be encryption for all and democracy for none.
Seeing how this whole controversy about shutting out the public and media from scanning came from one scanner buff streaming online, here's my opinion on this whole fiasco.
To pick out a single incident in which the media failed to act responsibly as a justification for killing off streaming, and potentially shutting out the media/public with encryption, is overkill.
It must be noted that crime reporters, as gatekeepers of information, hear sensitive details over the scanners all the time that they filter from the general public's ears. When it comes to reporting sensitive incidents, common sense, an understanding of the public trust, the public's need to know, and common decency is weighed. There is a reason why domestic assaults, personal phone numbers, child abuse calls, suicides etc. go unreported when they happen. Overly gory photos are omitted from print, and expletives are bleeped or edited out. Personal phone numbers, email addresses, exact address information, victim's names, and licence plate numbers heard over the scanners are withheld from reportage on a daily basis until confirmation is received. Even then, they are left out unless such information is indisputably pertinent to the story at hand.
It is true, the Toronto media failed to act responsibly in the Garrett Styles case. But it was a one-time mistake that the public have made clear they do not want to see happen again. It must be understood that this was a case in which a controversial situation was dealt with in the heat of the moment, and in the midst of time constraints. In hindsight, the best or safest decisions that could have been made clearly were not. I would expect the police - agencies which are no strangers to scrutiny over handling controversial situations themselves - to be the most understanding of this.
Would it be overkill to take all tasers away from all police officers because of a single fatality in which one was used? Many cops would argue it most certainly would be. Likewise, would be overkill to shut off the public and media from being able to hold our police to account, and from being able to be kept informed of public safety concerns, just because of a one-time mistake by the media and one scanner buff? Yes, it would be.
As noted by a previous poster in this thread, most scanner listeners (REPORTERS INCLUDED) are responsible with what they hear over the scanners. Even when it comes to divulging, or streaming scanner info, most people behave responsibly. Let's not let a knee-jerk reaction to one negative incident take a big bite out of democracy.
The Styles case was a one-time failure of judgement by the Toronto media that I hope for the sake of democracy, they will not be dumb enough to repeat. Otherwise, it'll be soon be encryption for all and democracy for none.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
