(Continued from previous message)
  >longer secure because of modern scanners.
Forgive me Tom, but I have to grin at the utter ridiculousness of the
above statement.  The only thing that may have changed about radio
receivers is the price, availability, and possibly some knowledge
of their use. Scanner technology hasn't affected security of the
frequencies at all. Don't buy into the crap that is fed to you from your
superiors, your legislators, and their lobbyist.
TR> RT> There is such a move, but lots of folks don't believe that it is for
  > RT> the reasons you describe.  When looking at the facts logically, then
  > RT> researching history, it becomes apparent that your ideas are not well
  > RT> founded (do you have cites otherwise?).  The remaining issue then is
  > RT> that someone simply doesn't want law abiding citizens to know what
  > RT> the police are doing.  That is scary.
TR>That would simply be your opinion, based on a lack of information. All I
  >have is 21+ years of experience which includes hundreds of cases
  >where criminals
  >used scanners for business, especially in special operations cases. What
  >information would you have that indicates my ideas about this subject are
  >not
  >well founded (do you have cites otherwise)?
Since there is no such thing as proof that something doesn't exist,  no,
I don't have cites to prove otherwise.
Lets put special operations aside.  We both agree that there is a
definite need for them to do business behind a curtain of security.
There is no such thing as a "secure channel", but the use of encryption
and secret codes are nothing less than common sense for these types of
affairs.
As for routine police operations, the only area that I can see that open
communications presents a problem is with siren chasers... those idiots
that can't help but to go see what the action is.  In that case, put
their silly butts in jail and you've solved the problem.
When I asked for cites, I was referring to routine police dispatch.  Can
you show a case history where open communications actually helped a
criminal to complete his crime or avoid arrest from using a police
receiver?
  > I have no problem with law
  >abiding citizens knowing what the police are doing, but I wouldn't have a
  >clue how to allow good citizen use and disallow criminal use. Any police
  >action is subject to review, criticism, legal action, and media attention,
  >with or without the use of police scanners. So, what is your point?
My point is that there are a LOT of folks with the opinion that the law
enforcement agencies all over the country are taking a strangle hold of
power over the citizenry.  When those same agencies take deliberate
measures to hide what they are doing from that citizenry, those measures
only serve to lend credence to those opinions.  The legitimacy of those
measures will be the determining factor as to whether or not the
opinions are true or false.  I am looking for proof in my own mind as to
whether of not _I_ believe they are legitimate.
---
 * QMPro 1.02 42-7029 * Your tagline?  It went thataway............
--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
1:135/5.0)
---------------