Streaming makes departments and services look at encryption. They consider it a security breach. The radio manufacturers play up the need for encryption. They cite officer safety, operational security etc. They rely on the uninformed nature of the decision makers. They make statements like do you allow anyone to read your emails?
The reality is the decision makers are totally clueless and only pay attention to their experts when they are saying what the decision makers want to hear.
Case in point. A 100% AES system. A radio dealer went into a meeting with a scanner (Pro46) they entered in a talk channel and let everyone hear the data P25 bursts. They said see how easy it is to listen to this. They said there are scanners that decode P25 and provided the Uniden BCD436 sales brochure as proof. What was not mentioned was that the system was already using the 'state of the art' encryption. They failed to mention the trunking format. They failed to mention that a 436 would automute on encryption. they failed to demostarte the garbage that would be heard even if the automute was not used. Etc. It took weeks to show the decision makers they already had what the sales guy was selling. During that time there were memos about not using the comms, not saying anything sensitive etc. Accusations about incompetence (mostly theirs LOL). And demands for encryption and signals that could not be intercepted in any mannor. OH! the sales guy was trying to sell firmware updates (free with our MOL).
Myself I am all for encryption for tactical operations like surveillance, and investigations. I also believe that the day to day routine calls should be available to the public.The public is paying the bill, the agencies want public co-operation etc. To get this they need to include not exclude the public.
Encryption is cheap today. Scanners are cheap. My opinion is if you want to listen get a scanner, learn how to use it. Streaming audio is just handing out the communications to those too lazy to do the foot work or make the investment.