[TrunkCom] while we are on the subject of encryption

[JERRY NONE]

Well what about those people that live in ESK regions?

--- "Arthur-Bryan E. Phelps" <aphelps at enter.net>
wrote:

> The original contract with the Commonwealth did
> include a provision for
> registered "scanners" - probably radios with the
> transmitting circuitry
> disabled - for use by LE, news media, etc.  I do not
> know if it would be
> released to an individual. The unit ID would be
> displayed on a console in
> the dispatch center when the scanner was powered up
> and could be disabled at
> will if the PSP did not want sensitive information
> disclosed. The last I
> heard, was that M/A Com OpenSky was "looking" to
> form a partnership with a
> company, e.g. Uniden to make and license a scanner. 
> So, if that is true, it
> negates the initial option. 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> trunkcom-bounces+aphelps=enter.net at mailman.qth.net
>
[mailto:trunkcom-bounces+aphelps=enter.net at mailman.qth.net]
> On Behalf Of
> Scott Berringer
> Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 4:59 PM
> To: Discussion of Monitoring Trunk Radio Systems
> Subject: Re: [TrunkCom] while we are on the subject
> of encryption
> 
> There has been talk forever about an OpenSky
> 'receiver' being manufactured
> by MA/COM for being able to monitor the Pennsylvania
> system. However, that
> has never come to fruit. I don't think it ever will.
> Honestly, I don't even
> think the OpenSky systems will survive. 
> Especially not with everyone trying to get
> everything P-25 compliant.
> 
> IMHO, Encryption should ONLY be used for sensitive
> ops (VICE, NARCS, SWAT,
> etc...) not for day to day ops. If you need to
> encrypt your car-to-car
> channels, you got issues. Also, encryption should
> only be available for law
> enforcement and possibly arson investigators. But,
> only on an as-needed
> basis for sensitive ops.
> 
> There is one city in Ohio that comes to mind that
> everyone is always whining
> about. Canton, Ohio PD. They have all of their main
> PD talkgroups encrypted
> in addition to them being P-25 digital modulation. 
> With encryption for routine operations, if you give
> out a BOLO, the citizens
> can't lend an additional set of eyes/ears because
> they don't know that the
> BOLO has been issued. Some people (system
> administrators) have been suckered
> by smooth talking sales reps (from Motorola and
> MA/COM) in to thinking that they NEED full-time
> encryption. Those sales reps
> are the ones that show up for a sales meeting in a
> Mercedes, or a Hummer
> because they get paid WAY TOO MUCH $$$$$$$$.
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Kenyon wrote:
> 
> > Hi everyone, while we are on the subject of
> encryption in the few 
> > rumors I have seen on the net about a possible
> OpenSky scanner coming 
> > out one thing that was mentioned was encryption
> there, and the fact 
> > that the radio would be able to be disabled if
> need be.  These threads 
> > have been here and there, but I would imagine
> anything OpenSky would 
> > be a long ways out, and I know that in PA and
> Oakland County, Michigan 
> > we have to get our systems working first!
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >
>
______________________________________________________________
> > TrunkCom mailing list
> > Home:
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/trunkcom
> > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.html
> > Post: mailto:TrunkCom at mailman.qth.net
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
>
______________________________________________________________
> TrunkCom mailing list
> Home:
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/trunkcom
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.html
> Post: mailto:TrunkCom at mailman.qth.net
> 
>
______________________________________________________________
> TrunkCom mailing list
> Home:
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/trunkcom
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.html
> Post: mailto:TrunkCom at mailman.qth.net
> 




 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Cheap talk?
Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates.
http://voice.yahoo.com