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

Tue Nov 22 15:21:18 EST 2011

Unfortunately, I see both perspectives.  
I have been listening for more than 50 years since I was a teenager.  I helped rescue an MPDC scooter officer (& probably saved a life on one side or the other)  in an alley off Park Rd between 15th & 16th NW during the "civil disturbances" after MLK was assassinated because I had a X-tal/tuneable converter on my AM car radio listening to the precinct (YES! he said precinct!) dispatcher yelling "Officer Down! Officer Down!" when I was less than a block away.
I have heard the "off channel" chatter that should never have been aired (slurs, jokes, off color comments, FCC forbidden language, etc) from every jurisdiction in and around the Greater DC area.
To me, it has always been more of a hobby than anything else, but I really object to the decision to encrypt traffic that has nothing to do with homeland or officer security.If I understand the technology correctly, the ability to turn on or off the encryption can be controlled by the dispatcher at his/her console, (as well as on the individual radio's channel selector?) so the decision to encrypt what may become a sensitive transmission is easily made.  
In PG, if an older radio using FDMA affiliates with the system, the entire talkgroup comes off TDMA, so what good does that do to run TDMA? (just because this usually only happens in M/A situations on the fire side doesn't mean in a PD M/A it won't happen there).
Sorry, I guess that was my 2 cent rant.  Now, back to your regularly scheduled (encrypted) broadcast.
Joel R Kahn

jrkahn at att.net

--- On Tue, 11/22/11, Andrew Clegg <w4jecom at w4je.com> wrote:

From: Andrew Clegg <w4jecom at w4je.com>
Subject: Re: [Scan-DC] AP encryption article quoting scan-dc members
To: "Rick Hansen" <Rick.Hansen at apsglobal.com>, "'Andrew Clegg'" <andrew_w_clegg at hotmail.com>, "'Matt Stevens'" <fivealarmphotography at gmail.com>, "'Doug Kitchener'" <oldsdoug at hotmail.com>
Cc: scan-dc at mailman.qth.net
Date: Tuesday, November 22, 2011, 8:45 AM

I hear 'ya.

I usually think about this from the perspective of what I would want if I 
was police chief. Pre-decisional government information has long been exempt 
from the Freedom of Information Act. So much of the radio traffic is 
pre-decisional, and often filled with details (personal and otherwise) of 
people who may not be guilty of anything after all. The VSP still sometimes 
runs names, addresses, and SSNs of traffic stops, by voice, in the clear. 
That seems like an identity thief's dream. If I was chief, I would probably 
not want to broadcast this type of information.

Anyway, the issue of whether to encrypt or not to encrypt is very 
complicated, and our (the scanner listeners) perceived rights to listen in 
is just one small part.

Andy

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Rick Hansen" <Rick.Hansen at apsglobal.com>
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 9:11 PM
To: "'Andrew Clegg'" <andrew_w_clegg at hotmail.com>; "'Matt Stevens'" 
<fivealarmphotography at gmail.com>; "'Doug Kitchener'" <oldsdoug at hotmail.com>
Cc: <scan-dc at mailman.qth.net>
Subject: Re: [Scan-DC] AP encryption article quoting scan-dc members

> Hi Andrew,
>
>
>
> I understand how you feel. My feelings are that if scanning once again
> becomes more widespread, then more people will be able to aid the police. 
> If
> you hear about a robbery next door, you can look out the windows and get 
> the
> make/model/license plate of the vehicle in the driveway. The police now 
> have
> many more eyes on the lookout for a stolen vehicle. It's up to us to make
> that point to our elected officials.
>
>
>
> Most police cars now have PCs acting as mobile data terminals, so
> confidential data is sent that way without tipping off the bad guys. 
> That's
> how Montgomery County does it and it seems strange that DC won't go that
> direction. Then again, most big city governments seem "imperial" to me.
>
>
>
>>From my point of view this is a choice the citizens of each jurisdiction
> have. We can let the people we pay tell us how we live our lives and what 
> we
> we're allowed to do, or we can insist they remember who pays their salary
> (as David S. said in the article). One thing is for sure. If we do 
> nothing,
> then the future you foresee will definitely come true.
>
>
> My 2 cents,
>
>
> Rick
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: scan-dc-bounces at mailman.qth.net
> [mailto:scan-dc-bounces at mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of Andrew Clegg
> Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 8:50 PM
> To: Matt Stevens; Doug Kitchener
> Cc: scan-dc at mailman.qth.net
> Subject: Re: [Scan-DC] AP encryption article quoting scan-dc members
>
>
>
> To be the devil's advocate, isn't this type of information just as useful
>
> after the fact, rather than in real time over the radio?
>
>
>
> Also the be the devil's advocate, I generally buy into the argument that
>
> it's not a good idea to let crooks listen in to what the police are doing. 
> I
>
>
> agree that people who aren't crooks should be able to listen, and that 
> there
>
>
> are times when there are benefits to having the public and/or the press
>
> listening to police communications in real time. But how do you limit
>
> listening just to good people? And, again being the devil's advocate, are
>
> there statistics that show how often someone's life or property have been
>
> saved only by virtue of listening to public safety operations on a 
> scanner?
>
> It may have happened somewhere sometime, but it's not something I can 
> recall
>
>
> hearing about (although it might be useful to accumulate a detailed list).
>
>
>
> I for one believe it won't be too many more years before listening to 
> public
>
>
> safety goes the way of listening to cell phones (I'm not trying to equate
>
> the two, I'm speaking in the technical sense). I've started to do a lot of
>
> thinking about what I plan to listen to when public safety communications 
> is
>
>
> no longer an option. I posted that question to the group a while ago and 
> got
>
>
> very few responses (one I think), so perhaps I'm one of the few who are
>
> cynical enough to worry about this.
>
>
>
> I've been listening to the police and fire on scanners since I was a
>
> teenager, and I sure hope I'm able to for a good long while. But given the
>
> way the world is going (there's no freedom important enough to not be
>
> trampled on in the name of security), I don't hold out a lot of hope.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Andy
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> From: "Matt Stevens" <fivealarmphotography at gmail.com>
>
> Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 7:37 PM
>
> To: "Doug Kitchener" <oldsdoug at hotmail.com>
>
> Cc: <scan-dc at mailman.qth.net>
>
> Subject: Re: [Scan-DC] AP encryption article quoting scan-dc members
>
>
>
>> That is a very important point. If the public knew that they wasted an
>
>> amublance for a subject with "chapped lips" (Yes, it happened last 
>> month).
>
>> Or the Domestic Stand-by that they did with the same couple the same day 
>> 3
>
>> times. If they knew the truth, then there would be change.
>
>>
>
>> On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 5:58 PM, Doug Kitchener
>
>> <oldsdoug at hotmail.com>wrote:
>
>>
>
>>>
>
>>> Whether you agree with that or not, I'll tell ya one thing... *if the
>
>>> general public heard half of the BS that we overhear from time to time,
>
>>> there'd be an overhaul of the police and fire systems.*  In fact, I'll
>
>>> tell ya two things... I'd love to know what and where all the 
>>> emergencies
>
>>> are that these cops are going to that they have to run up the HOV lanes
>
>>> during rush hour at 80 mph.
>
>>>
>
>>> Thanks, Tom, for posting the link.
>
>>>
>
>>> ----------------------------------------
>
>>> > Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2011 18:19:30 -0500
>
>>> > From: tom at clouse.com
>
>>> > To: scan-dc at mailman.qth.net
>
>>> > Subject: [Scan-DC] AP encryption article quoting scan-dc members
>
>>> >
>
>>> > http://www.wtop.com/?nid=893&sid=2640496
>
>>>
>
>>> ______________________________________________________________
>
>>> 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
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> -- 
>
>> Matt Stevens
>
>> Photographer
>
>> www.FiveAlarmPhotography.com
>
>> ______________________________________________________________
>
>> 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
>
>>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
>
> 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
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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 

______________________________________________________________
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