I have decided that this post as usual is going nowhere.
As always
I have my beliefs and right to say what I believe,
Yes, but it is important to keep track of which are beliefs and not facts.
if some one doesn't like it-TOO BAD.
Mostly true, except I would say that when a false belief is presented as a fact, we have the right (and some might say the social responsibility) to point that out so others don't mistake it for fact and become misinformed.
I've chosen at the appropriate time to make my beliefs known to my local representatives, and it worked.
All very good. Probably the most effective thing any of us can do is to work with local officials towards having systems stay open.
What needs to be encrypted or transmitted over another form of medium is. As far as some one to decide what is tactical or not I would leave it to someone elected by the people, not LE.
This seems very presumptuous of you.
I would trust LE (or most other professional) to know what is best for doing their profession. To think that the political structure around them knows better has got us into a lot of bad situations at many levels. Why is this different than (to pick a particular hot topic) healthcare?
. . . , and yes you do have a RIGHT to receive them, or have their transmissions made available to the public. All phone calls, radio transmissions, documents, and paperwork ARE to be made available to the public. Its call Freedom of Information Act, a Federal Law.
Here is where your "beliefs" start becoming incorrect, and also where you start presenting incorrect information as fact.
First, FOIA applies primarily to Federal Information, and very little at the state or local level.
Second, each state has its own open records laws and I don't think any (or many) are as all encompassing as you imply.
Third, you do not have the RIGHT to "all" information, and certainly not on a real-time basis.
Encryption is an option, not a right.
How do you figure?
Unless specifically disallowed, the use of encryption is just as much a right (or maybe more so) than your right to listen.
Maybe in some states LE and others have been able to hoodwink the public into thinking that they will be safer if no one knows what the police are doing. I'm not convinced.
OK, you are not convinced, but you are also not the premier expert on the subject. Your use of the word "hoodwinked" makes it appear that you BELIEVE that some how this was/is done by way of trickery or deception. I do not believe this is a fact.
Even though I live in a state with the most unfriendly scanner law on the books, but I go through the motions of getting the permissions allowable by law. I have worked on both sides, in LE and as a Comm Tech. I am not afraid to stand up to the bullying from some LE that think it is their right(it's not) to keep all LE documentation and radio transmissions secret.
It may or may not be their right depending in the laws of the state and the circumstances.
However, it is completely within there rights to restrict the dissemination of real-time information, and that is what encryption does.
As usual some people miss the point that once you lose something it will be very hard to get it back,
AND others miss the point, that they DO NOT have the RIGHT to demand open radio systems.
AND the agencies DO HAVE TEH RIGHT to implement encryption if they so desire and without explanation.
I believe that's whats going to happen to ALL radio monitoring.
I also believe that over time many more systems will become unmonitorable. But I chalk it up to the evolution of technology making receiving more difficult and less rewarding for the average listener, and the slow shrinking of the market, rather than the loss of some inalienable right by subversion.