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

[mmckenna]

It's all about finding a way to keep the public from looking into the public servant's job. Departments that have nothing to hide haven't encrypted. I'll let you make your own decision on those that have. I am all for encrypted tactical channels, but everyday dispatch should be in the clear unless you have something to hide.

No, that's not what it's "all" about.
There are many ways to see into what public servants do. Scanners are just a convenient way for the relative masses to participate.
Even with encryption, some departments still allow pre-arranged public "ride alongs". Tours are available of some agencies. Talking directly to officers, overhearing their radios, all ways the public can still be in on what's going on.

And, 2 way radio doesn't carry all the information that gets exchanged. Even if some politician gets encryption blocked, agencies will just switch to sending data via terminals or sensitive information via cell phone. All thing the hobbyists do not have access to.

It's about controlling the release of information, but not just the way you think. Controlling public reaction to active situations is one reason I've heard. Specifically having to do with school shootings. Scanner listeners/streaming service release information to the public, often without having the full picture of whats going on. That generates panic. Panicking public is bad. Encrypt traffic, let the professionals control the scene the way they need to, let PIO release information in a controlled fashion.

 

[mmckenna]

Yep. They use it as one of their excuses because no one can prove or disprove it.

AKA: "Managing expectations". A buzzword we all had to learn at work many years ago. Control what information is released to guide reactions.

Not always a bad thing.

 

[KK4JUG]

AKA: "Managing expectations". A buzzword we all had to learn at work many years ago. Control what information is released to guide reactions.

Not always a bad thing.

I like your choice of words better than mine,

 

[Hans13]

Scanner listeners/streaming service release information to the public, often without having the full picture of whats going on. That generates panic. Panicking public is bad. Encrypt traffic, let the professionals control the scene the way they need to, let PIO release information in a controlled fashion.

One wonders what they anticipating in the near future that hasn't already been manageable all of these past years without encryption.

On this one, I have to disagree with you. I do not trust any government that much. The US was founded on a different approach. Allowing government to be the gatekeeper on everyday public safety information is wrong and easily lends itself to tyranny. I oppose it completely and strongly assert that it is contrary to the notion of a free society.

Yes, encryption is here and spreading. I don't dispute that at all. However, I don't accept it as okay.

 

[mmckenna]

One wonders what they anticipating in the near future that hasn't already been manageable all of these past years without encryption.

I don't think it's about what they are anticipating, it's about what's already happening. Blame the internet, blame social media, blame those that stream scanner traffic, it doesn't matter. Agencies appear to feel that controlling what information is released and when, is necessary.
US Military has been doing it for years. Our current administration likes to control the release of information. Not everyone is going to like it.

I'm not picking a side, I'm not for, I'm not against, just passing on what I see and hear from my particular point of view.

Issue that I see is most hobbyists have a point of view that they invested in the equipment and want to continue having free access to listen to what they want. That alone isn't a good enough reason.
Then there is the "transparency" argument. I get that, but it assumes that all communications takes place over voice two way radio. It doesn't. Force their hand on easy public access, and they will just move to another means that is already secure.

On this one, I have to disagree with you. I do not trust any government that much. The US was founded on a different approach. Allowing government to be the gatekeeper on everyday public safety information is wrong and easily lends itself to tyranny. I oppose it completely and strongly assert that it is contrary to the notion of a free society.

It's OK with me if anyone wants to disagree. Like I said, I'm passing on what I have heard from working inside the industry. The agency I work for already has some encryption and more coming. The desires of the scanner hobbyists are not a concern.

It's also good to not trust the government. I don't trust the government, and I certainly do not trust the clown who is currently running it. But, again, two way radio isn't the only way they communicate, so the battle is already lost. Freedom of Information is an option, but you still only get what "they" want to release.

Yes, encryption is here and spreading. I don't dispute that at all. However, I don't accept it as okay.

OK, so what are you going to do about it? Seriously, that's not a snipe, I'd love to hear.

 

[zz0468]

Yes, encryption is here and spreading. I don't dispute that at all. However, I don't accept it as okay.

Maybe you can be the guy who finds a sound legal reason why encryption shouldn't happen. None of the usual arguments heard here will cut it.

And remember, a lot of the motivation is driven by perception, not physical reality. People's perceptions are more important than their realities. Good luck.

 

[zz0468]

Then there is the "transparency" argument. I get that, but it assumes that all communications takes place over voice two way radio. It doesn't. Force their hand on easy public access, and they will just move to another means that is already secure.

The transparency thing frequently comes up in encryption discussions. But there is already a mechanism in place for civilian oversight of local government. It's called the Grand Jury. The transparency and oversight argument will be fought and lost there.

Those opposing encryption will need to come up with something different if they expect to actually change anything.

I've no clue what that would be. There is simply nothing in a legal or constitutional sense that gives people an inherent right to listen to communication that is intended for others, whether or not the source is a government entity.

These guys need to find a new argument. This one is wasting their time.

 

[Hans13]

OK, so what are you going to do about it? Seriously, that's not a snipe, I'd love to hear.

We do think too much alike sometimes. My original post had answered that question but I felt it was superfluous so it got deleted before hitting reply.

All I had posted was that I don't accept it as okay. That doesn't really require doing something tangible about it. However. in the past and probably into the future, I tend to get involved in local politics and try to effect the change I think is needed. Of course, it's not always successful. Then again, there is also subversion within the bounds of the law. Speak out against it and mitigate the effectiveness of it where ever possible.

 

[mmckenna]

-Edit-

I originally replied to ZZ, but then I saw your post.

That's an honest answer, and I appreciate it. I understand the approach from the scanner listeners point of view. That's where I got my start a long time ago. Back then it was easy. It was all analog, not much encryption, mostly voice inversion for most non-federal use.

Now I work in the industry and I get to see stuff from the other side.

I can tell you that you'll never be allowed to hear everything.
You don't really want to hear everything. I hear stuff at work I don't want to, I wish I could forget, I wish I never heard.
I see the point of view of the chief, the officer, the dispatchers. Public doesn't have a need or right to hear everything that happens.
There are better means of disseminating information to the public.

But scanner listeners don't like that point of view. Those that want to keep tabs on the government don't like it either.

Truth is there is a lot of stuff we don't like, but we don't always have a say.

Or as I've been told "It's nice to want".

 

[Hans13]

Maybe you can be the guy who finds a sound legal reason why encryption shouldn't happen. None of the usual arguments heard here will cut it.

And remember, a lot of the motivation is driven by perception, not physical reality. People's perceptions are more important than their realities. Good luck.

Perhaps. Although, I am doubtful.

As to the last part. Yep. I'm well aware. Change through political means is one of my things I've reluctantly been involved in for several decades. (I hate politics... *sigh*.) They tell me I'm not too shabby at it.

 

[Hans13]

Truth is there is a lot of stuff we don't like, but we don't always have a say.

Or as I've been told "It's nice to want".

Prior to more than a few successful "crusades," we've encountered that sort of push-back. It makes victory all that much sweeter. In fact, I think it makes the crew fight harder.

But, in reality, this one is small potatoes compared to other tubers in the ground. While I don't agree at all with non-military encryption of government agencies (yes, even SS), I am very doubtful anything will be sweepingly successful in my remaining time on this rock. Relatively speaking, we are on the beginning arc of the encryption saga. Additionally, there are a few deeper, more pressing windmills that I'd rather tilt my lance towards at the moment when I can gather the strength. Associated attorneys and other legal professionals are getting long in tooth as well. It's probably about time to hand off to a younger group. That's most likely where I'll spend most of my efforts these days; "corrupting" the youth towards liberty.

 

[zz0468]

Perhaps. Although, I am doubtful.

As to the last part. Yep. I'm well aware. Change through political means is one of my things I've reluctantly been involved in for several decades. (I hate politics... *sigh*.) They tell me I'm not too shabby at it.

Above all, don't discount the "perceptions" part of my previous post. There exists existential threats to LEO's that simply didn't exist in the past. The threats are real. The magnitude of the threats is perceptional - it varies, depending on who you talk to. Easy access to certain tools and technologies mitigates elements of the threat, and so suddenly everyone wants those tools.

It would be a very difficult uphill battle to convince anyone of those folks that the threat doesn't exist at all. That's sure not the hill I'd want to die on.

 

[mmckenna]

That's most likely where I'll spend most of my efforts these days; "corrupting" the youth towards liberty.

There's a lot to be said for that approach, and you'll have a lot of company.

I think it's called "education" and there are some that would like to take it away. Educated people do things that make the corrupt ones nervous.

 

[Hans13]

I think it's called "education" and there are some that would like to take it away. Educated people do things that make the corrupt ones nervous.

Aye, that it does.

 

[Citywide173]

I think it's called "education" and there are some that would like to take it away. Educated people do things that make the corrupt ones nervous.

This forum really needs a "like" button. This, especially in the context of this thread, is one of the best statements I've seen.

 

[WX4JCW]

There's a lot to be said for that approach, and you'll have a lot of company.



I think it's called "education" and there are some that would like to take it away. Educated people do things that make the corrupt ones nervous.

Brilliant


Sent from my iPhone 8 using Tapatalk Pro
Jason WX4JCW
XPR7550 - SDS100

 

[marcotor]

I think I will follow another members path and rant and rave about encryption wherever I can, and when I get banned for it, just create another account so I can continue my ranting about something there is NOTHING ay of us can do about.

 

[Hans13]

I think I will follow another members path and rant and rave about encryption wherever I can, and when I get banned for it, just create another account so I can continue my ranting about something there is NOTHING ay of us can do about.

A healthy rant is sometimes good for the soul.

 

[1057392]

So the big question... living in the Gulf Islands, is it worth getting a scanner if everyone is going fully encrypted in a year?

 

[darkness975]

It's about controlling the release of information, but not just the way you think. Controlling public reaction to active situations is one reason I've heard. Specifically having to do with school shootings. Scanner listeners/streaming service release information to the public, often without having the full picture of whats going on. That generates panic. Panicking public is bad. Encrypt traffic, let the professionals control the scene the way they need to, let PIO release information in a controlled fashion.

Ill-informed news media outlets eager to get their ratings up and ill-informed random yahoos that pass by and upload snapchat/instagram/facebook/twitter posts do far more damage than a few random people with a scanner do.

Earlier this year there was a "reported threat" to a school involving a social media post that was supposedly sent to a student with a threat. This prompted an explosive reaction from everyone, especially panicking parents and their neurotic children into an uproar.

Long story short, there was no threatening post ever made, the post that was made was a mistake and not threatening in nature, and this all occurred in a town where the PD is encrypted, which means no "yahoo scanner listener" was spreading fear or misinformation.

Let's ban twitter, instagram, snapchat, facebook, yelp, etc. since they are really to blame.

Discuss.