TR>Special operations units here operate under the premise that there is a
  >scanner involved in every location they are about to raid. As a result,
  >there tactics in using the radio are designed to mean nothing to
  >the criminal, or
  >they don't use the radio at all. There might be one word on the channel,
  >"go!".
That makes perfect sense to me, and IMO should be standard procedure
regardless of how "secure" you think your communications are.
  > Special operations officers are not surprised at all to find police
  >scanners in drug labs, crack houses, and dealer's homes, it's expected.
I'm not surprised at that either, but then I was referring to typical
routine dispatches, burglar alarms, assaults etc.  I wouldn't expect
special operations to even operate under the control of a dispatcher.
Do they?
  > That is why many departments are going to scrambled
  >channels, especially for special operations units.
Again, that makes perfect sense to me and I have no problem with
scrambled communications for special ops.  From a personal perspective,
I do have a problem with scrambling routine dispatch.  While it _may_
give law enforcement a slight edge on some criminals, it goes a loooong
way in hiding police activity from honest citizens.... something that I
don't believe is healthy for our nation.
  > If you listen to a scanner
  >on a regular basis, how many times do you hear, "10-21 dispatch for 
-35?"
Around here it is just "10-21 or 10-22"... maybe "PX this station".
"10-22" means "come to the station".  This is a _really_ small town :)
 >Here, these codes would mean use a phone to call dispatch for confidential
  >information that they didn't want to put over the radio. Many times this
  >involves a known concern for the use of scanners at the call location, 
c.
It could mean anything from, "Your wife is here with your dinner" to
"this is really serious".  The casual listener never knows... as it
should be.
TR> RT> How can merely receiving any transmission jeopardize a police
  > RT> operation.
TR> RT> specific frequencies that serve cellular telephones.  Certain other
  > RT> types of transmissions are illegal to monitor, but to my knowledge,
  > RT> NO police transmission fits the criteria.
TR>I think you are right, unless you catch the bad guy using a scanner in the
  >commission of a crime. Otherwise, if you have the equipment to receive the
  >transmission, you can monitor it. I think that some states have laws 
against
  >mobile monitoring of police channels, but that is all that I'm aware of.
  >Again this is the reason why many departments are scrambling channels.
TR> RT> What is a "secure channel"?  What police frequency has been declared
  > RT> illegal to monitor?  How is one channel more "secure" than another
  > RT> merely because of its radio frequency?
TR>What we used to call "secure channels" have not been secure for many 
ars.
They never were except in Dick Tracy comic books.  There are encrypted
communications and always have been to some degree, but whatever the
radio transmits can be intercepted by anyone with a suitable receiver.
General coverage (ALL frequencies) receivers have been available to
anyone with the inclination and money since Mr. Marconi first raised the
curtain on RF technology.... and a great deal of money doesn't have to
be involved.  "Scanners", a relatively modern technology, are nothing
more than wide band (usually) receivers with the innate ability to
change frequencies automatically.  They are not some highly developed
technology that has suddenly arisen to threaten the existence of law
enforcement.
  >That was simply an unusual frequency that scanners didn't receive years 
ago.
Careful Tom... I have an extremely high regard for you and your
opinions, but you are letting your naivete show a bit here.  There is
NO SUCH THING as an "unusual frequency".  The RF spectrum hasn't changed
one iota since it was discovered.  And every one of the frequencies on
it follow the one before it and precede the one after it.  Not one of
them are, nor ever were "hidden".
  >The modern scanners can receive these frequencies now, so they are no 
longer
  >secure.
Nawww Tom... the frequencies are the same and regardless of how "modern"
the scanner is, it has ALWAYS been capable of receiving every one of
them.  You are buying into some marketing hype that simply isn't
factual.
  >Thus, the thoughts of scrambling channels, especially the special
  >operations channels, those old, so-called "secure channels" that are no
(Continued to next message)
---
 * QMPro 1.02 42-7029 * Your tagline?  It went thataway............
--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
1:135/5.0)
---------------