Not to sure if that is rally the main problem :roll::roll::roll::roll: there are things that they say over the radio that should be sent by the MDT.The complaints name , victims name ,suspect name ,phone numbers should be sent by MDT yet some police officers and dispatchers give it out over radio.So I don't think that really is the main problem because they would use the MDT lot more.When I was in Toronto and Peel the dispatchers did broadcast lot of information over the radio .Other cities I have been to in the US and Canada some dispatchers did use radio bit less .
Peel is little picky of broadcasting names and phone numbers and personal information over radio than some other departments in US and Canada I have been to.
I think there really may be some government mandate that is pushing police in southwestern Ontario or the GTA area that needs to upgrade to digital system and be secure.Or some kind of sales advertising for police in southern Ontario .*Other parts in Ontario NOT in the southwestern Ontario have switch to ProVoice* Sudbury police ,Ottawa police and Thunder Bay police.
*
Also so many police departments going to encryption the word is out now and is trendy thing that many other police departments are saying sure that do it everyone else is doing it. A proper analysis would look back into the late 90's when I believe London police and Durham regional police where first than around 2005 Regina police and Saskatoon police.
I'm not sure but London police and Durham regional police may have been showing off look at us we are the first to get encryption now the word is out and temptation is way too high.
My you certainly do talk allot.. How much do you really know? Clearly you do not know what really is going on, you are just guessing. With that said, I don't know everything, however I do know quite a bit more than you.
Ever consider the reason information is aired over the radio VS being sent to the MDT? Its called efficiency of information conveyance. Also if the officer is enroute to a call, or multiple officers are enroute to a call (aka additional units), would you want them distracted reading from a computer screen, or just listening to a voice over the radio? If an officer is on scene... do you want them running back to the patrol car and not paying attention to the situation? Also it is better practice for other officers to be able to hear "what else" is going on in the area/district/zone, just in case something gets out of hand and additional units are required, they are already somewhat "in the know". If only the officer assigned to a call was given the info over a MDT.. Well.. And before you argue other officers could get the same info via the MDT.. See my points above (again) and also the following points.
MDT's are known to freeze and/or go down or not have a good data signal.. or simply not work. They do have their place, however they cannot replace a radio, nor will they anytime soon, if ever. Oh and bike patrol, marine, snowmobile, ATV units.. You guessed it, no MDT.
Sidenote about OPP- they do not have many vehicles with MDT's- and the ones that do.. well.. they don't always work... Or are forgotten at the office. So they air pretty much everything. I know this has not been discussed much, just making a point. Mind you would you really want ANY police officer doing 130km (or more) paying attention or trying to pay attention to a computer screen...?
Another reason any agency does not care about airing personal details- As someone else already mentioned- The Radiocommunication Act of Canada. Sure you can listen- but you cannot do anything with what you hear- at all. Do people? Sure, however its illegal.
Radiocommunication Act
Prohibition
(1.1) Except as prescribed, no person shall make use of or divulge a radio-based telephone communication
(a) if the originator of the communication or the person intended by the originator of the communication to receive it was in Canada when the communication was made; and
(b) unless the originator, or the person intended by the originator to receive the communication consents to the use or divulgence.
Marginal note:Idem
(2) Except as prescribed, no person shall intercept and make use of, or intercept and divulge, any radiocommunication, except as permitted by the originator of the communication or the person intended by the originator of the communication to receive it.
One of the key reasons for encryption is its very cheap now as its (most of the time) software based VS hardware based. When agencies are upgrading radio systems (which needs to happen every so often- stuff does break and/or become obsolete) the cost to be "secure" is next to nothing in the long run; compared to encryption via additional hardware needing to be purchased/added to the radios in the past. This is why you can now find landscaping companies and other general business users with encryption. Plus its just "better" for police by their very nature to go encrypted (the media airing of a Cst. Styles death, scanner apps, physical scanners, etc). I personally know of more than a few times criminals have been arrested and they had scanners (or more recently) scanner apps in use or had someone monitoring on their behalf. This has been going on for many, many years, well before Radio Reference was even created. I'm talking Haruteq times. This is why some agencies opted to go encrypted years ago. You need to understand- the police are not trying to exclude the good guys, its the bad guys they are truly worried about.
It makes sense to go encrypted. I'd also suggest you listen to what others on here are saying, quite a few people here are in the "know" and don't mind offering some information.
