[Scan-DC] Emergency personnel advise against publishing scanner traffic

[Brooks, Kurt]

As much as I start to get a negative reaction to stuff like this the fatalist part of me being reminds me that any changes will involve electing like minded politicians in order to get anything done, and if working in the DC region is any lesson I doubt that any politician will look towards greater transparency. 

Though it did occur to me the next time I am pulled over and an officer suggests it's okay to search my car if I have "nothing to hide", I would respond in kind regarding his radio communications. 

On Apr 24, 2014, at 9:10, "Bruce Harper" <brucebharper at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 1:49 AM, Alan posted an article from Texas:
> 
>> Emergency personnel advise against publishing scanner traffic
> 
> As I read this, I was trying to decide if this was an op-ed piece
> written by someone in law enforcement who is trying to hide things. It
> is full of all the same arguments against the public being able to
> monitor what their tax-supported police and emergency responders are
> up to. There were lots of reasons and excuses about why listening to
> public safety traffic is A Bad Thing. The only thing missing was a
> call for an outright ban on scanners and smartphone scanner apps.
> About the only valid point was that the "instant" reporting by media
> outlets of an event without verification was a problem, but the
> reasons to stop it don't reach the level of a monitoring ban. Whether
> something is posted based on something heard on a scanner or from a
> phone call to the news room requires a little journalist integrity --
> but getting something "wrong" isn't a good reason to ban scanners and
> listening.
> 
> This line bothered me:
> 
>> Police scanners provide useful information for breaking news coverage, but possessing the scanner is a privilege that law enforcement grants to the media.
> 
> I suppose in some cases this is true where a newspaper or TV station
> obtains a digital trunked radio from a police department so some
> communications can be monitored, but this is a pretty narrow case.
> Otherwise, the airways are public and possessing anything that permits
> receiving a broadcast is a basic right (granted, there have been some
> restrictions stuck on this, such as the blocking of cell phone
> frequencies). It is a little scary to read that "possessing the
> scanner is a privilege" since that implies that at some point "law
> enforcement" can revoke it. If people start to buy into this and
> believe that open monitoring is something they shouldn't be doing,
> then it isn't too far a step to see attempts to limit or ban access to
> various means to monitor broadcasts.
> 
> Transparency, open access to open government, and a free media are
> what keep elected and tax-supported officials honest.
> 
> Bruce in Blacksburg
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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