The Official Thread: Live audio feeds, scanners, and... wait for it.. ENCRYPTION!

[zz0468]

Its my opinion that the streaming service should be completely shut down, before streaming does away with our hobby all together.

It's too late. The genie is out, and you'll never get it back in. Encryption is almost integral to new systems being put in, and implementation isn't really difficult. The incentives for NOT encrypting are almost non-existent, at least from a LE perspective.

Whine and complain all you want, these systems don't get built for our entertainment, and the users are motivated by other things. I'm not aware of any agency that turned away from encryption because of hobbyist complaints.

 

[KK4JUG]

I have many misgivings about social media, including Facebook. There is a substantial number of people who gauge their success in life by the number of "friends" they accumulate on Facebook. They think the whole world wants to know what they had to eat, when they go to the bathroom, what (or who) they did on a date last night and on and on and on. I don't really care.

I don't shop based on the number of "likes" a business has because I don't care.

Most of what I hear from friends and their Facebook connections I take with a grain of salt. The bottom line is, are you ready for this? I really don't care.

I understand there may be some valid uses for social media but I'm doing just fine without it and I think its affect on scanning and streaming are negligible,

 

[Hans13]

People now days and social media are insane!

The people are the same, the conditions just happen to be right to show and/or bring out their insanity. The fuel for a forest fire might be there but it requires the right conditions to bring it to a full burn.

It shocks regular type folks to observe crazy people on social media but more shocking is that they were already around to begin with.

 

[TailGator911]

I have to say I am fiercely against live scanner audio streaming. I think it is severely damaging the hobby on several fronts. Scanner sales have to have been cut in recent years. Why buy a scanner when u can get a free (or cheap) app on your cell phone? It gives bad guys a tool that they can use to commit crimes. This should be a moral dilemma for one who rebroadcasts public safety dispatches, but apparently it's not or so it seems. Those of us who participate in this wonderful hobby are willing to pay the price for the right equipment, and we know the expenses can add up, but are well worth it. To think that some crackhead punk with a cell phone app can hear what we hear without having to invest in the hobby is deplorable. Add to that he utilizes a live feed to plan and commit crimes.

I guess I just don't understand it. How can a scanner enthusiast rebroadcast a live feed and feel good about it. What's the point? Do they get likes or something like FaceBook? Do they get positive feedback that they accumulate like eBay or Etsy? Are they monetarily compensated? Do they communicate with their listeners and get positive back slaps, is it an ego thing? I don't get it. What is the payoff here?

As more and more public safety agencies go encrypted, the scanning hobby looks to have a bleak future. I hope rebroadcasters feel good about that. What are you going to do when you have nothing to broadcast? Is that the ultimate goal? (smh)

Just my $.02

JD
kf4anc

 

[Citywide173]

I guess I just don't understand it. How can a scanner enthusiast rebroadcast a live feed and feel good about it. What's the point? Do they get likes or something like FaceBook? Do they get positive feedback that they accumulate like eBay or Etsy? Are they monetarily compensated? Do they communicate with their listeners and get positive back slaps, is it an ego thing? I don't get it. What is the payoff here?

If they broadcast through Broadcastify, they get free access to site (RR and Broadcastify) resources that others pay for.

 

[TailGator911]

Ok, thanks for that, Ed. I have often wondered about that, if they were compensated in some way or another.

So, RadioReference compensates Broadcastifiers with free subscriptions that we pay for, to encourage them to rebroadcast and stream their scanners online, which is why some public safety agencies are going to encryption. How can that be? RR promotes behavior that is detrimental to the hobby that they sponsor and support. Isn't that an oxymoron?

I will never understand it, but it is what it is. I suppose there are other contradictions in the grand scheme of things that are much more serious and make about as much sense as this, but I haven't the energy to investigate them...pfffft.

 

[com501]

Again, no thanks button when you need it.

 

[flythunderbird]

Up until now, I have been reluctant to weigh in on the streaming-vs-encryption topic due to the strong feelings on each side, but I'd like to explain why I host feeds.

I stream because I enjoy the hobby and want to share it. I don't do it to "keep law enforcement honest," I don't do it to be a thorn in the side of public safety, and I don't do it to try and embarrass public safety. I've actually received a few comments from people in public safety thanking me for providing the feeds, and some of them have provided me with information - nothing proprietary or confidential, however - to improve the feeds.

Yes, the feed providers receive the incentive of a free RR premium subscription. In my case, the money I've put into my feed equipment, electrical usage, and Internet access will never be recouped in free premium RR access - so the incentive is really a moot point for me. If it was about freebies, I'd come out way ahead moneywise to drop the feeds, sell my equipment (at a loss), and pay the annual premium subscription fee. I suspect that a lot of other feed providers would agree with me on the freebie point.

With respect to social media, I am not on any such media - and that is by design. No "likes" or "retweets" for me! My feed descriptions specifically ask feed listeners to not post what they hear on the feeds to social media. Does it work? There's no way to know with certainty, but I can say that to the best of my knowledge, there has not been any mention in my local news media about streams of public safety agency radio traffic.

All of that being said, I understand the argument that streaming of feeds to share the hobby is destroying the hobby. I've read the arguments on both sides, and I've read the news reports of agencies choosing to encrypt their radio communications because of streaming. However, I have a hard time believing that streaming is singlehandedly driving agencies to encrypt their communications as a means of protecting agency staff because far more than encryption goes into staff protection. I am also of the opinion that absent streaming, many agencies would find other reasons to encrypt their communications; some agencies simply don't want anyone listening to them, and they will say whatever it takes to get there.

Further, I'm of the opinion that the immediacy of social media, hashtags, and text messaging make a significantly larger contribution to the endangerment of law enforcement than scanner feeds - the riots in Ferguson, Missouri being an example, yet we don't see anyone demanding the end of social media, hashtags, and text messaging. In addition, social media can be and is used to attack law enforcement on a daily basis in ways that feeds cannot be used.

I've said before on these forums, and will say again, that I have no issue with the encryption of tactical/surveillance/car-to-car comms, etc. frequencies/channels/talkgroups. I understand the purpose of those things and believe that encryption should be used as needed. I do think that dispatch should be in the clear; I fail to see what is gained by encrypting communications regarding a traffic stop for running a red light (for example).

I realize that what I've said here will probably not change any minds, and I don't think that arguing over streaming is going to move the needle for/against streaming to any appreciable extent.

I've spoken my peace here and will not speak of this again.

 

[seth21w]

It will only take one time for the media CNN or fox news to air an incident where a perp was using his smartphone to commit a crime and it is going to speed up the E progress. It hasn't happened yet but eventually it will. Just take the civil war monument nuts, tear down one monument and then airs on the news and all over the country they start tearing down our historical monuments. This is just one example of many.

 

[Citywide173]

All of that being said, I understand the argument that streaming of feeds to share the hobby is destroying the hobby. I've read the arguments on both sides, and I've read the news reports of agencies choosing to encrypt their radio communications because of streaming. However, I have a hard time believing that streaming is singlehandedly driving agencies to encrypt their communications as a means of protecting agency staff because far more than encryption goes into staff protection. I am also of the opinion that absent streaming, many agencies would find other reasons to encrypt their communications; some agencies simply don't want anyone listening to them, and they will say whatever it takes to get there.

It is not singlehandedly driving a move to encryption, and it never will. It provides an easy excuse to point to when asked why. I applaud your efforts to keep the traffic somewhat controlled, but as you said, you really can't be sure. What I can tell you is that if a major event happens and your feed captures the traffic, the media will be broadcasting the archive all over the place with credit to Broadcastify, which may tip the positive way in which your feed is received the other way if it doesn't portray the department(s) in a good light.

When I provided a feed, it was a continuation of one that was already set up on one of my websites. That feed could only handle 6-7 concurrent connections, so all of the infrastructure was present and there really wasn't any outlay on my part since I had all the equipment prior to setting up the feed, so the premium membership was a good deal for me. Until I realized that there could be negative repercussions from my actions, like being scapegoated as the reason a department went encrypted.

I, too, am a supporter of dispatch in the clear and tactical channels being encrypted. The salespeople are not, and will push encryption at all costs.

 

[Hans13]

To think that some crackhead punk with a cell phone app can hear what we hear without having to invest in the hobby is deplorable.

That sentence indicates the thinking of someone who has a problem with the inherent unfairness of life and that dissatisfaction being projected onto the current state of radio scanning.

Technology advances and some end up having to work harder than others. That's reality.

 

[Hans13]

Up until now, I have been reluctant to weigh in on the streaming-vs-encryption topic due to the strong feelings on each side, but I'd like to explain why I host feeds.

I stream because I enjoy the hobby and want to share it. I don't do it to "keep law enforcement honest," I don't do it to be a thorn in the side of public safety, and I don't do it to try and embarrass public safety. I've actually received a few comments from people in public safety thanking me for providing the feeds, and some of them have provided me with information - nothing proprietary or confidential, however - to improve the feeds.

Yes, the feed providers receive the incentive of a free RR premium subscription. In my case, the money I've put into my feed equipment, electrical usage, and Internet access will never be recouped in free premium RR access - so the incentive is really a moot point for me. If it was about freebies, I'd come out way ahead moneywise to drop the feeds, sell my equipment (at a loss), and pay the annual premium subscription fee. I suspect that a lot of other feed providers would agree with me on the freebie point.

With respect to social media, I am not on any such media - and that is by design. No "likes" or "retweets" for me! My feed descriptions specifically ask feed listeners to not post what they hear on the feeds to social media. Does it work? There's no way to know with certainty, but I can say that to the best of my knowledge, there has not been any mention in my local news media about streams of public safety agency radio traffic.

All of that being said, I understand the argument that streaming of feeds to share the hobby is destroying the hobby. I've read the arguments on both sides, and I've read the news reports of agencies choosing to encrypt their radio communications because of streaming. However, I have a hard time believing that streaming is singlehandedly driving agencies to encrypt their communications as a means of protecting agency staff because far more than encryption goes into staff protection. I am also of the opinion that absent streaming, many agencies would find other reasons to encrypt their communications; some agencies simply don't want anyone listening to them, and they will say whatever it takes to get there.

Further, I'm of the opinion that the immediacy of social media, hashtags, and text messaging make a significantly larger contribution to the endangerment of law enforcement than scanner feeds - the riots in Ferguson, Missouri being an example, yet we don't see anyone demanding the end of social media, hashtags, and text messaging. In addition, social media can be and is used to attack law enforcement on a daily basis in ways that feeds cannot be used.

I've said before on these forums, and will say again, that I have no issue with the encryption of tactical/surveillance/car-to-car comms, etc. frequencies/channels/talkgroups. I understand the purpose of those things and believe that encryption should be used as needed. I do think that dispatch should be in the clear; I fail to see what is gained by encrypting communications regarding a traffic stop for running a red light (for example).

I realize that what I've said here will probably not change any minds, and I don't think that arguing over streaming is going to move the needle for/against streaming to any appreciable extent.

I've spoken my peace here and will not speak of this again.

Excellent post. Thank you for providing feeds.

 

[TailGator911]

That sentence indicates the thinking of someone who has a problem with the inherent unfairness of life and that dissatisfaction being projected onto the current state of radio scanning.

Technology advances and some end up having to work harder than others. That's reality.

No, reality is coming when, as someone else posted, a perp gets caught using a scanner app during the commission of a horrendous crime and the dominoes begin to tumble. The inherent unfairness of life would then be obvious even to the uneducated. Some don't want to work at all for what others have to.

 

[KK4JUG]

Those of us who participate in this wonderful hobby are willing to pay the price for the right equipment, and we know the expenses can add up, but are well worth it. To think that some crackhead punk with a cell phone app can hear what we hear without having to invest in the hobby is deplorable.

Yeah!! Don't let that "crackhead punk" of a grandmother in the assisted living facility listen to the local police. She doesn't need a cell phone anyway. She's old and not going anywhere. Anyway, she can not pay the co-pay on her meds and save enough to buy a scanner.

Or you can buy her one.

If the crackhead punks were the only ones listening, it would be different.

 

[Hans13]

No, reality is coming when, as someone else posted, a perp gets caught using a scanner app during the commission of a horrendous crime and the dominoes begin to tumble. The inherent unfairness of life would then be obvious even to the uneducated. Some don't want to work at all for what others have to.

Your reply has nothing to do with the substance of what I posted. Your statement was that it was deplorable that someone could do what you like doing without paying the dues that you believe are owed. That viewpoint is not in touch with reality. The reality is that it happens all of the time in life.

TL;DR: Your statement was out of touch with the realities of life.

 

[KK4JUG]

No, reality is coming when, as someone else posted, a perp gets caught using a scanner app during the commission of a horrendous crime and the dominoes begin to tumble. The inherent unfairness of life would then be obvious even to the uneducated. Some don't want to work at all for what others have to.

If the "perp gets caught using a scanner app during the commission of a horrendous crime," what's the problem. He was caught in spite of the scanner app. No harm, no foul, so to speak.

 

[Hans13]

If the "perp gets caught using a scanner app during the commission of a horrendous crime," what's the problem. He was caught in spite of the scanner app. No harm, no foul, so to speak.

I get where he's coming from; that the incident would be used for justification of encryption. However, I learned long ago that people that wanting to justify their actions will find something and do so regardless. As such, I don't really concern myself too much about optics and what might be used as excuses to limit the liberty of others. In other words, I firmly disbelieve in the notion of "ruined it for the rest of us." I find the idea childish and laughable.

I completely agree with your statement, "what's the problem. He was caught in spite of the scanner app. No harm, no foul, so to speak."

 

[zz0468]

...I firmly disbelieve in the notion of "ruined it for the rest of us." I find the idea childish and laughable.

And yet it happens, in spite of your disbelief.

 

[Hans13]

And yet it happens, in spite of your disbelief.

Read what I wrote again, please. Those wishing to infringe will find an excuse. Squealing "Ruined it for the rest of us" is scapegoating... Unless you truly believe that we are rightfully a nation of slaves.

In case you missed it:

"I get where he's coming from; that the incident would be used for justification of encryption. However, I learned long ago that people that wanting to justify their actions will find something and do so regardless. As such, I don't really concern myself too much about optics and what might be used as excuses to limit the liberty of others. In other words, I firmly disbelieve in the notion of "ruined it for the rest of us." I find the idea childish and laughable."

Childish and laughable. Those who believe it are fools.

 

[TailGator911]

To each his own and what you believe, I guess it got lost in the translation. Stated my viewpoint, not going to be dragged into a childish and laughable argument. I am right and you are right and that is reality.

73s

JD
kf4anc