[Scan-DC] [dewey3 at gmail.com: Re: Police: Encrypting scanners thwarted criminals]

[Dewey3]

Well well well, if it isn't the return of Timothy Tyler.  Yes, differences
in opinion are good as most times, they will result in positive change.
While I gave *some* insight into my experience, I never said it was the
whole kit and kaboodle.  While this is cliché, it is mostly true that there
is more than one way to skin a cat.  Similar to how repeatedly trolling a
person may be articulated as cyber-stalking (remembering your very similar
actions in November 2011 from public Scan-DC discussion).

Dewey

On Wed, Jul 25, 2018, 20:38 Tim <polohat at gmail.com> wrote:

> Thank you for your time with MPDC, however your 'logic' is ridiculous.
>
>    Someone could just as easily use your experience of encountering only
> two criminals with scanners as an example of how the proper use of
> scanners by criminals does let them avoid LE.
>
>
>   While Lindsay Blanton is an asshole that's laughing all the way to the
> bank, your statement that prior to Broadcastify/streaming, scanners were
> expensive & difficult to operate is lame.  It's like saying criminals
> don't have Cadillacs or Corvettes, because they're expensive &
> high-tech.   Well, first of all THEY CAN STEAL THEM, or they can buy
> them with proceeds made off of criminal activity.  Even a dumb criminal
> will at-least try to figure out how to use a scanner, if he/she believes
> it will help them, just like even a shithead can figure-out how to
> hot-wire a car or disable a basic alarm.  Secondly, I'm sad to see that
> you've succumbed to the lazy-cop 'logic' of 'The criminals I busted were
> dumb & lazy.  Therefore, all criminals are dumb & lazy.'  You don't know
> what you don't know.   Apparently one thing you don't know is that
> readily available scanner books/magazines, etc long-before the
> Internet/Web publicized LE frequencies, brevity codes, patrol zone areas
> etc.    Had I been a bad guy about to rob Acme Bank at 123 Jones St, all
> I'd need is the right PD dispatch freq for that area.  I wouldn't need
> to know beats, callsigns, etc.  If I heard "10-51 at Acme Bank, 123
> Jones Street" come across the scanner, that's all I'd need.  Bonus
> points for me if I heard "Bait pack was taken," "Suspect last seen
> walking North on Jones St," "Adam 12, I'm 2 minutes out!" etc. and as
> YOU should know, that sort of initial info is going to be broadcast by
> voice, not MDC, not on an encrypted SWAT channel, etc.
>
> While a million criminals may be dumb & lazy & thus pretty easy to
> catch, there are tens of thousands out there who are intelligent &
> sophisticated, including the use of scanners or Broadcastify, and thus
> much more difficult to detect & catch. Because they're caught
> infrequently, people ASSume they hardly exist.        I've driven
> hundreds of thousands of miles in my car all over the USA.  I've never
> been hit by a drunk driver. Therefore, drunk drivers hardly exist...
>
>
> > ----- Forwarded message from Dewey3 <dewey3 at gmail.com> -----
> >
> > From: Dewey3 <dewey3 at gmail.com>
> > Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2018 09:47:40 -0400
> > To: "scan-dc at mailman.qth.net" <scan-dc at mailman.qth.net>
> > Subject: Re: [Scan-DC] Police: Encrypting scanners thwarted criminals
> >
> > 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
> >
>