[Scan-DC] Police: Encrypting scanners thwarted criminals

[Dewey3]

Fully agree!!!  As I've said before, during my time on the streets, I've
only had *two* times where a scanner was involved.

- The first time was during a traffic stop when I ended up arresting the
person for distribution.  In that situation, the scanner is what got the
person locked up... backup officer saw scanner antenna (thicker VHF type)
sticking out from under front passenger seat, though it was a gun and
immediately reacted to seize it and discovered drugs under seat right next
to it.  It was one of the early model programmables and only had about five
channels programmed, all various Virginia frequencies (this was in DC).

- The second time was during a drug raid.  They had all of the correct
frequencies written up on a wall including the surveillance channels.  In
those days, people thought the DC surveillance ("D") channels couldn't be
monitored just because they were simplex.  The had a Pro-2005 sitting on a
table, and it wasn't even turned on.  The raid was extremely productive!

Lindsay has made it easy for all the wrong people, because in the early
days before streaming, scanning was a true hobby that required; money to
buy equipment, effort to learn the jurisdictions, beats and frequencies,
and finally time for dedicated listening to differentiate the routine from
the exciting.

Dewey
MPDC Retired
4/1983 - 1/2010


On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 9:21 AM, Lee Williams <leonzo at hotmail.com> wrote:

> As a 40 year veteran police officer I will tell you that full encryption
> of law enforcement frequencies used by local law enforcement is not
> necessary for officer safety. Obviously having the ability to encrypt when
> necessary is. Democracy dies in darkness means exactly what you are seeing
> and not hearing in this country as agency after agency encrypts. The
> challenge for the people who read this is to fight against it when your
> local jurisdiction starts making plans and statements to encrypt. Towards
> that end please feel free to contact me for some arguable points that can
> be used in public meetings, letters to officials, and forwarded to the
> media. It may be a losing battle but it's one we should wage!
> ________________________________
> From: scan-dc-bounces at mailman.qth.net <scan-dc-bounces at mailman.qth.net>
> on behalf of Joseph M. Durnal <joseph.durnal at gmail.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2018 8:43 AM
> To: Scott, KB3JQQ
> Cc: Scan-DC at mailman.qth.net
> Subject: Re: [Scan-DC] Police: Encrypting scanners thwarted criminals
>
> Now that I know who Lindsey is, I’ll concur.
>
> When I first found streaming online of scanner feeds I thought it was
> great, but that was in the days before anyone and everyone was online.
> Also,it used almost all of your bandwidth and CPU.  It did not occur to me
> that one day it would contribute negatively to the hobby I enjoy.
>
> It isn’t like the police didn’t know that their radio transmissions could
> be heard by the public, but it was less of a concern because the public who
> was listening would need to put some effort into it, purchasing the right
> equipment, finding and programming the frequencies, etc.  These days, it
> costs nothing, takes no effort, and zero know how to listen in on the
> police.  If there is anything that works well for a criminal, it’s
> something thy don’t have to pay for, put any effort into, and any idiot can
> do.
>
> I know my local departments are well aware of the public streams and they
> know how to avoid it when they need to.  They even know some people and
> addresses that are known to use scanner apps.  The anomaly is Frederick
> City, which has been encrypted since I can remember.
>
> On many occasions I’ve been able to take a different route to avoid police
> activity.  Maybe there is some self serving in that I want to save myself a
> few minutes, and I especially don’t want to drive through their man hunt
> perimeter, and I’m sure they’d rather I didn’t either.
>
> I suppose, it is what it is.  The next generation of radio enthusiasts will
> have to settle for listening to hams and noaa weather.
>
> J
>
>
> On Tuesday, July 24, 2018, Scott, KB3JQQ via Scan-DC <
> scan-dc at mailman.qth.net> wrote:
>
> > Thank you Lindsey.
> >
> >       From: Alan Henney <alan at henney.com>
> >  To: Scan DC <Scan-DC at mailman.qth.net>
> >  Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 1:35 AM
> >  Subject: [Scan-DC] Police: Encrypting scanners thwarted criminals
> >
> > New Hampshire Union Leader (Manchester)
> >
> > 23 July 2018
> >
> > Police: Encrypting scanners thwarted criminals
> >
> >
> > ______________________________________________________________
> > 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
>