[Scan-DC] AP encryption article quoting scan-dc members

[Andrew Clegg]

In my experience, police communications can go from routine to dramatic very 
quickly, with no advance notice. I'm wondering how effective it would be if 
a police officer has to stop and fiddle with his radio for a few seconds to 
go into encrypted mode, when bad things start to happen.

One thing I'm curious about is the quality of the transmission in encrypted 
mode. Can you make the argument that encryption could in certain 
circumstances be endangering public safety personnel? I believe this is the 
nature of the argument regarding interoperability at jurisdictional borders, 
and I believe I have also heard that voice quality is worse with encryption, 
but I don't have first hand experience.



--------------------------------------------------
From: "Jordan Hayes" <jmhayes at j-o-r-d-a-n.com>
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 8:59 PM
To: "scan-dc" <scan-dc at mailman.qth.net>
Subject: Re: [Scan-DC] AP encryption article quoting scan-dc members

>> To be the devil's advocate [...]
>> [...] how do you limit listening just to good people?
>
> No one is saying that there isn't sometimes a tactical necessity to keep
> comms private; it's the wholesale removal of *routine* information
> that's being questioned.  So you're not just being the Devil's Advocate
> here, you're actually changing the subject.
>
> This is what is known as a Straw Man:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Scan-DC mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/scan-dc
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Scan-DC at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html