The anger over encyrption of public safety communications is understandable. I was not happy when my local PD and FD went fully encrypted.
But you do have a Constitutional right to elect those that see the value of in the clear dispatch and that’s proven the only way to counter this crap.
It's the proposed 69th amendment. You can hear me so I can hear you.
Agreed, that is the way to do it. It worked in NYC, where state legislators passed a bill to give the media access to encrypted, non-sensitive communications. (ie, dispatch channels). It has not been signed by the governor. It does not give access to the public, though.
Time to exit your parents' basement and come up to reality. But thanks for the laugh.
What on earth are you even talking about?
You got to remember, many folks who still live with Mom and Dad and don't have to hold a job forget that when one does, they have to do what they are told by a real employer and not Dad withholding the allowance or turning off the wi-fi for not doing the chores.
What in the Haloperidol does this even mean?
Right after the part that says "You have the right to cable TV; You have the right to paint the walls - no loud colors..." Oh, wait; that's the Miranda According to Officer Carey Mahoney.
It doesn't. That's in the coverage of the first document our founding fathers threw in the face of England. The Declaration of Independence. Falls under the "Pursuit of Happiness", but is not in the purview of the legal areas of any court. So matters not. But you could also ask to be shown where the constitution lays out anything about protections of public safety officers, aka law enforcement, originally peace officers, or the operations thereof. Including radiotelephony usages. Good luck, not there either! ECPA et al not part of the Constitution at all, being the FCC is just another money gathering device of over inflated egos parading as an "regulatory agency" about as useless as the Fed, and Dept. Of Education, the EPA...... He'll, the ECPA really only got teeth to help protect illegal communications of our elected overseers once known as duly elected representatives in the offices of CONgress. Con the real active part on purpose!
Your case was fought in the late 1980's early 1990's when content providers HBO ect encrypted satellite signals to protect their signals from the home satellite receivers. The FCC ruling stated you could receive any clear unencrypted signal that fell on your property but not the encrypted ones. This is no different you have no rights to hear signals the owners do not want you to hear.
Unless it was a cellphone signal, whch were analog/unencrypted in those days. The Electronic Communications Privacy Act (1986?) made it illegal to monitor them and to sell equipment that could receive those frequency ranges.
I agree with you…..as it applies to a private entity! That’s THEIR intellectual property (IP) and they’re entitled to that protection. However, the infrastructure in this particular case is one in which the taxpayer is footing the bill for so it’s a little difficult for you to make your case using that same criteria. It’s the dispatch channels or frequencies rather than their TAC, SWAT or narcotics counterparts that so many of us are concerned over. Hell, I’d be plenty satisfied if the dispatch channels were made available to the general public on a 20-30 minute delay, (i.e Chicago PD) IF that’s the only option available. When a law enforcement agency announces that they’re about to serve a warrant in short order, then obviously it shouldn’t be done in real time on a dispatch channel, UNLESS a 20-30 minute delay policy is already in place. Cheap downloadable scanner apps have (predictably) come back to bite us in the ass. That horse has already left the barn and there’s no putting the genie back in the bottle. Call it a compromise (i.e. “give and take”) and one in which both sides can easily live with, albeit some minor teeth grinding!
