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

[Lee Williams]

While I agree with you the truth of the mater as Internet feeds and scanner apps are warp driving law enforcement agencies to full encryption. Within the next 5 years the majority of law enforcement agencies the Washington, DC metro area will be encrypted. It is almost that way in Florida now. 



 
> From: brucebharper at gmail.com
> Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 09:10:02 -0400
> To: Scan-DC at mailman.qth.net
> Subject: Re: [Scan-DC] Emergency personnel advise against publishing scanner	traffic
> 
> 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