Pasadena, CA - New radio system to streamline first-responder communications

[kma371]

But I'd love to see statistics on how many criminals have been caught in possession of a scanner. Less than 1/10 of a percent? Even less?

I've been in law enforcement over 10 years and Ive never come across a person using a scanner to commit a crime. The ones I've caught anyway

I've only come across a scanner three times, all inside someone's home.

 

[N0WEF]

There is probably just as much right to monitor government radio traffic real time as there is listening to their live telephone calls.

That is incorrect. Phone calls fall under Federal wiretapping laws.

Simply stated, one is illegal, one isn't.

 

[bfperez]

My objection (if you can call it that) is basically a goose/gander thing.

The police are discovering the 'value' of concealing their (assume for the sake of argument) normal, legitimate, perfectly legal everyday conversations. By bringing up things like robbers as the justification, they're embracing the idea that stopping even a 1-in-a-million misuse of the information in departmental communications is worth any of the downsides of encryption.

How wonderful for them. I'm sure the police (and especially the feds) will now understand why we average citizens don't want all of our day-to-day communications monitored and recorded by people who may misuse it...

 

[LowBat]

That is incorrect. Phone calls fall under Federal wiretapping laws.

Simply stated, one is illegal, one isn't.

I think monitoring radio traffic can be illegal too if it's being used in the commission of a crime (depending on state law), but that wasn't my point. What I was saying is I don't know of any "right" to monitor the airwaves as some are suggesting. It would be interesting to see if some private organization or media group takes the matter to court.

Let me take this a little off topic for the sake of debate:

One could argue the airwaves are supposed to be free (but regulated by the FCC) in this country, unlike places like England where you have (or had) to buy a license to be able to receive a television transmission.

I remember old commercials from the cable companies trying to "strongly suggest" it was illegal to decode their signals with equipment that wasn't being rented from them. If someone tapped in at the telephone pole, sure that was illegal, but if someone paid for basic cable into their home and the cable company also piped in premium channels along with their basic channels, would it be illegal to decode them? I've never seen a law that says you couldn't. True these aren't "over the air" signals unless you look at modern satellite providers too.

On a similar topic are WiFi signals. Some will say it's illegal to tap into someone else's open WiFi while others say if it's open there is no crime. One of the differences here is WiFi isn't just passive, it's active (both transmit and receive).

Then there are utility company smart meters which transmit RF to the dislike of many. Some claim they have a right not to have these transmitters on their property.

A topic for the future might be a taxation on using solar panels as mentioned by a humanities professor I had 30 years ago. Paying for sunlight sounds as ridiculous now as it did then, but who knows what will happen in another 30 years from now as solar continues to become a common source of power.

The arguments of who has a right to what and what is or isn't illegal seems to vary a lot with perception.

 

[zerg901]

MTS2000des recommends a few officially sanctioned scanner feeds

That sounds like turning in all the guns and having a few officially sanctioned gunmen - which kinda does work here in Massachusetts

 

[MTS2000des]

I think monitoring radio traffic can be illegal too if it's being used in the commission of a crime (depending on state law), but that wasn't my point. What I was saying is I don't know of any "right" to monitor the airwaves as some are suggesting. It would be interesting to see if some private organization or media group takes the matter to court.

Let me take this a little off topic for the sake of debate:

One could argue the airwaves are supposed to be free (but regulated by the FCC) in this country, unlike places like England where you have (or had) to buy a license to be able to receive a television transmission.

I remember old commercials from the cable companies trying to "strongly suggest" it was illegal to decode their signals with equipment that wasn't being rented from them. If someone tapped in at the telephone pole, sure that was illegal, but if someone paid for basic cable into their home and the cable company also piped in premium channels along with their basic channels, would it be illegal to decode them? I've never seen a law that says you couldn't. True these aren't "over the air" signals unless you look at modern satellite providers too.

On a similar topic are WiFi signals. Some will say it's illegal to tap into someone else's open WiFi while others say if it's open there is no crime. One of the differences here is WiFi isn't just passive, it's active (both transmit and receive).

Then there are utility company smart meters which transmit RF to the dislike of many. Some claim they have a right not to have these transmitters on their property.

A topic for the future might be a taxation on using solar panels as mentioned by a humanities professor I had 30 years ago. Paying for sunlight sounds as ridiculous now as it did then, but who knows what will happen in another 30 years from now as solar continues to become a common source of power.

The arguments of who has a right to what and what is or isn't illegal seems to vary a lot with perception.

Most states already have statues that cover this. In Georgia it's known as possession of tools to facilitate a crime. We also have another charge which is criminal use of telecommunication devices. So use a phone, radio, scanner, pager- anything- and commit or attempt a crime, and you've got another felony to add to your stack o' charges.

WiFi, OTOH, is by nature an open access mutual connection. by it's design, WiFi devices seek out and connect to other devices, without user intervention. So by the same argument, I could say your WiFi access point connected to my laptop without my consent. It works both ways. At the end of the day, the FCC considers 802.11x devices to operate under part 15, which means they have no protection when it comes to getting interference or interception, it is up to the user to limit the range or use encryption to prevent unwanted connections.

Back to the encryption of public safety, we have no right to demand total access to radio traffic. It's just been the nature of the beast that in the past, communications were easy to intercept. Now with digital modulation and cheap software encryption, this isn't the case.

What does trouble me is the attitude some in law enforcement have. Recent legislation (the unPatriot Act) gives the government the ability to snoop, in realtime, on our electronic communications without warrants. Public photography is now unlawful in some places. Yet the government doesn't want it's citizens to be able to have the same freedoms to observe it's activities, all under the guise of "preventing terrorism"...am I the only one who has a problem with the government being able to do things to it's citizenry but yet the government is exempt from the same?

Most police departments uses audio and video recording in their cars on traffic stops, yet countless officers claim it's wiretapping and have even CHARGED people for using recording devices, in public- on the citizens. This is total guano. You're in public, on the public dime, doing the public's work. What do you have to hide? You are recording me...why do I not have the same liberty to make my own recording (after all, it's not like police tapes haven't turned up missing or edited after something happens.)?

Is this the society we want for our grandchildren? Is this what our forefathers intended?

 

[MTS2000des]

MTS2000des recommends a few officially sanctioned scanner feeds

That sounds like turning in all the guns and having a few officially sanctioned gunmen - which kinda does work here in Massachusetts

no, don't twist my words.

the bottom line is many agencies are looking at feeds provided by strangers as a threat. if all these agencies turn to encryption, there will be no feeds.

working WITH not AGAINST them is the key.

and I don't live nor would ever step foot into Mass. In my state, Georgia, we actually are considering doing away with concealed carry permits, so ANY citizen who can lawfully possess a firearm (no felonies, a citizen, and not crazy) can pack- which is how it SHOULD be.

Glad I live in a state where we still recognize the 2nd amendment for what it is.

 

[N0WEF]

I think monitoring radio traffic can be illegal too if it's being used in the commission of a crime (depending on state law)

:roll: Yes, and having sex can be illegal too.

It's also a federal crime to tell a third person what you heard... If we're going to bring up things not associated to the argument.


You're EXACT quote was, "There is probably just as much right to monitor government radio traffic real time as there is listening to their live telephone calls."

 

[LowBat]

:roll: Yes, and having sex can be illegal too.

It's also a federal crime to tell a third person what you heard... If we're going to bring up things not associated to the argument.


You're EXACT quote was, "There is probably just as much right to monitor government radio traffic real time as there is listening to their live telephone calls."

Not sure why the emphasis on my exact quote but it sounds like we are in agreement.

 

[LowBat]

Back to the encryption of public safety, we have no right to demand total access to radio traffic. It's just been the nature of the beast that in the past, communications were easy to intercept. Now with digital modulation and cheap software encryption, this isn't the case.

What does trouble me is the attitude some in law enforcement have. Recent legislation (the unPatriot Act) gives the government the ability to snoop, in realtime, on our electronic communications without warrants. Public photography is now unlawful in some places. Yet the government doesn't want it's citizens to be able to have the same freedoms to observe it's activities, all under the guise of "preventing terrorism"...am I the only one who has a problem with the government being able to do things to it's citizenry but yet the government is exempt from the same?

Most police departments uses audio and video recording in their cars on traffic stops, yet countless officers claim it's wiretapping and have even CHARGED people for using recording devices, in public- on the citizens. This is total guano. You're in public, on the public dime, doing the public's work. What do you have to hide? You are recording me...why do I not have the same liberty to make my own recording (after all, it's not like police tapes haven't turned up missing or edited after something happens.)?

Is this the society we want for our grandchildren? Is this what our forefathers intended?

Have to agree with you too MTS2000des.The same monitoring/recording standard should apply to everyone.

 

[jhooten]

...am I the only one who has a problem with the government being able to do things to it's citizenry but yet the government is exempt from the same?

Do you mean, for example, making it illegal for me to talk on a cell phone because it is distracted driving and therefore unsafe, while the officers are going well over the speed limit with no emergency equipment in use, with a cell phone propped on the shoulder talking to dispatch and clip board across the steering wheel writing notes while weaving in and out of traffic?

 

[N0WEF]

Not sure why the emphasis on my exact quote but it sounds like we are in agreement.

There was emphasis on your exact quote because, at no point in it did you say "A criminal has as much right to monitor....."

You posed a question, I answered it as posed, then you threw in something that has nothing to do with the question, as posed, to begin with.

I'm not trying to argue, or be a jerk, but if you want a legal question answered, ask it the exact way you expect an answer for. Don't ask it one way, then imply someone is wrong because you throw in hypotheticals after they answer.

 

[DPD1]

I'm not one of those people that thinks I have a right to be made privy to every single thing under the sun that my government does. I'm not one of those people that thinks we should all be able to stroll into Groom and get a tour, just because we're tax payers. But I do believe it's in the better interest of the government to try and maintain at least some level of transparency when possible, to STOP those types of people from becoming paranoid... and I do think the government should lead by example. It's kind of like when you see a cop driving like a nut all over the road, just because they can. So complete transparency is not possible, nor should it be... But I think it crosses the line when some level of transparency is possible, yet the organization chooses not to go that route, and seemingly can't give any legit explanation for doing so. At least not one that they can back up with any real data to prove.

 

[LowBat]

There was emphasis on your exact quote because, at no point in it did you say "A criminal has as much right to monitor....."

You posed a question, I answered it as posed, then you threw in something that has nothing to do with the question, as posed, to begin with.

I'm not trying to argue, or be a jerk, but if you want a legal question answered, ask it the exact way you expect an answer for. Don't ask it one way, then imply someone is wrong because you throw in hypotheticals after they answer.

Sorry, but you're not making a lot of sense. If you want to disagree that's fine. Let's leave it at that shall we and move on.

 

[N0WEF]

Ok, I did miss a sentence it your initial reply... My mistake for going off on an erroneous tangent.

I just had a problem with your initial comparison. In comparing something illegal to something legal, we do have a right to do one but not the other. But you meant Constitutional Right.

 

[RadioDaze]

:roll: Yes, and having sex can be illegal too.

But only when done correctly.

 

[N0WEF]

But only when done correctly.

LMAO!! I guess he's into blonds

 

[RadioDaze]

LMAO!! I guess he's into blonds

They HAVE to be doppelgängers. Just look at the hair!

And they say opposites attract... hmph.

 

[N0WEF]

They HAVE to be doppelgängers. Just look at the hair!

And they say opposites attract... hmph.

:lol: You're so Baaaaaaaaaad

 

[karldotcom]

There's a bit more to it than that. Think media coverage, for example. During major incidents and natural disasters, dissemination of important information quick can make a difference. The common response to that, of course is, "when officials think you need to know something, they'll notify the media." You can imagine the problems...

I took some video when I was decoding the Pasadena system this past Fall....

New System 10 Pasadena ICIS radio system - YouTube