W2LIE.net: the ears of Long Island

Submit your quote!
http://www.monitorlongisland.com/advertise
Sponsored By:
http://www.breakingnewsnetwork.com   http://www.longislandfirephotos.com http://www.scannermaster.com/?Click=6262
  http://www.w2lie.net/sales

Main Menu
Monthly Donations

Please help support this site
Donations will be used to cover monthly web space
Thank You !!


Premium Membership
You are not a Premium Member

Why not sign up today and take advantage of premium benefits?
Benefits include:
  • shopping discounts
  • Web Controlled Radio
  • Immediate Access to Archived Audio
  • Ad Free Browsing

Please Click here for more info

Welcome Guest
Username:

Password:


Remember me

[ ]
[ ]
 Currently Online (27)
There are 11634 members
Newest member: Littlebuddy

 Last Visitors
 Members on Today: 9


 



Forums
W2LIE.net | Monitor Long Island, Inc. :: Forums :: Scanner Radio :: Long Island - Nassau
Moderators: w2lie, Chieftaz, BobLandau, quint14, LI_Scan_Guy, cwerner
Go to page       >>  

User Feedback on NCPD Encryption

<< Previous thread | Next thread >>



Print View Posted: Tue Apr 19 2011, 12:43pm

Posted by: w2liePosts: 2748

User Buff Group ID
Old Display Name: w2lie
Location: Long Island, NY
Your Admin
Premium Member Premium Member
Joined: Fri Nov 04 2005, 03:28am

This thread is a split from the "New NCPD System OBSERVATIONS" Thread located here: [link]




Back to top Website MSN IM User Gallery Myspace Facebook YouTube Album

Posted: Fri Apr 08 2011, 11:16am
Posted by: Vader1995Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Mar 15 2011, 02:44pm

Encryption is unnecessary and overkill. They're over complicating the system and spending a ridiculous, unnecessary sum of money to do this. Plus, NCPD is a big job - radios will get lost and stolen, and each time this happens, they have to rekey the system in order to even keep the encryption secure. This can be done with OTAR - but WTF??? If I was a cop, I'd be super annoyed at having ANOTHER task to worry about.

As a scanning enthusiast, the notion of encryption is a real kick in the nuts. They're not protecting the president - encryption is not needed, honestly. Perfect example of uneducated communications decision in the wake of 9/11. Everyone is so obsessed with "interoperability" and improving communications, that they're now choosing radios that overshoot that purpose....
Back to top
Posted: Thu Apr 14 2011, 12:04am
Posted by: BrendonPosts: 41
Old Display Name: Brendon
Joined: Mon Nov 24 2008, 03:40am

They wouldn't have to rekey the system. They could just make that radio identifier invalid so that it wouldn't be able to listen in on the system anymore. (That's something that can already be done)

The radio system won't affect interoperability at all. If anything, interoperability is easier since the system includes SCPD freqs along with other agencies using multiple radio zones. The only thing that is changing is that people and criminals won't be able to buff out jobs, like the retired NYPD Sgt who yelled 'gun' and got a PO shot.
Back to top
Posted: Thu Apr 14 2011, 05:26am

Posted by: PFD MikePosts: 382
Old Display Name: PFD Mike
Donating Member - 2008-2010
Premium Member Premium Member
Joined: Wed Aug 02 2006, 12:31am

I do not see they need for encryption on the precinct level communications. There are operations that should be encrypted, however encryption across the board is not the answer.

Being able to monitor the PD assignments has advantages for everyone.

Fire fighters hearing a call for a fire, aided case, auto accidents, etc.

Off duty cops (that's right off duty cops) I know a few that have scanners and they listen to them off duty. Not exactly my idea of being off duty, but that's their decision.

Towing companies can have a faster response time to get the road cleared of vehicles.

Other police agencies can keep are ear on what is going on.

Sure there are situations and operations that could probably benefit from encryption, but blanket encryption throughout their entire system seems a little too much.

Back to top
Posted: Thu Apr 14 2011, 04:55pm
Posted by: tommyscanPosts: 136
Joined: Sat Jun 21 2008, 04:05pm

I strongly agree mike
Back to top
Posted: Fri Apr 15 2011, 12:20am
Posted by: BrendonPosts: 41
Old Display Name: Brendon
Joined: Mon Nov 24 2008, 03:40am

I agree that it will hurt FD response times a bit, since PD usually has the call read out before Firecom even gets it. It also does hurt in the times people listening on their scanners have helped capture suspects on the run. I believe one person got a civilian award for that last year. It's also entertaining, but I still think their plan is for blanket encryption rather then just encrypting SOD/TAC/Detective channels.
Back to top
Posted: Fri Apr 15 2011, 11:17pm
Posted by: shkesslerPosts: 246
User Buff Group ID
Old Display Name: EASTROCKS400
Joined: Thu Jul 24 2008, 05:17pm

Brendon-- yeah civilians could help, but to be honest they are breaking the law by doing that. You are not allowed to use a police scanner to interfere in anyway.
Back to top AOL IM
Posted: Sat Apr 16 2011, 04:06pm
Posted by: ipfd320Posts: 1835
User Buff Group ID
Location: Martin County Florida
Donating Member: 2008
Joined: Sat Mar 31 2007, 02:05am

find me that law---its called the civilian act---this to me is worth a friendly non-heated debate over.If someone can post the law shkessler is talking about please feel free
Back to top
Posted: Sat Apr 16 2011, 04:53pm
Posted by: tommyscanPosts: 136
Joined: Sat Jun 21 2008, 04:05pm

The law was posted on the previous nov2 site which unfortunately recently closed dave was great on keeping us up to date on the true laws of scanner-land.although I agree more than 1 pd/state person has been aided or even had their life saved by good scanner listeners, too many of us-meaning citizens as a whole- have showed law enforcement,how irresponsible we can be listening and tried to buff calls putting them in grave danger as witnessed not too long ago here on long island!!This adds to their desire to encrypt EVERYTHING to take that element away.
Back to top
Posted: Sat Apr 16 2011, 05:08pm
Posted by: LI_Scan_GuyPosts: 255
Premium Member Premium MemberJoined: Tue Jun 01 2010, 06:34pm

In Jeopardy of pulling this thread WAY off topic, this might be what law is being referred to in the above statements:

New York Penal - Article 35 - (35.00 - 35.30) Defense of Justification [link]
* New York Penal - Article 35 - Defense of Justification
Section 35.00 Justification; a defense. 35.05 Justification; generally. 35.10 Justification; use of physical force generally. 35.15 Justification; use of physical force in defense of a...
* New York Penal - § 35.00 - Justification; a Defense
In any prosecution for an offense, justification, as defined in sections 35.05 through 35.30, is a defense.
* New York Penal - § 35.05 - Justification; Generally
Unless otherwise limited by the ensuing provisions of this article defining justifiable use of physical force, conduct which would otherwise constitute an offense is justifiable...
* New York Penal - § 35.10 - Justification; Use of Physical Force Generally
The use of physical force upon another person which would otherwise constitute an offense is justifiable and not criminal under any of the following circumstances:...
* New York Penal - § 35.15 - Justification; Use of Physical Force in Defense of a Person
1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subdivision two, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she...
* New York Penal - § 35.20 - Justification; Use of Physical Force in Defense of Premises and in Defense of a Person in the Course of Burglary
1. Any person may use physical force upon another person when he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate what...
* New York Penal - § 35.25 - Justification; Use of Physical Force to Prevent or Terminate Larceny or Criminal Mischief
A person may use physical force, other than deadly physical force, upon another person when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes...
* New York Penal - § 35.27 - Justification; Use of Physical Force in Resisting Arrest Prohibited
A person may not use physical force to resist an arrest, whether authorized or unauthorized, which is being effected or attempted by a police officer...
* New York Penal - § 35.30 - Justification; Use of Physical Force in Making an Arrest or in Preventing an Escape
1. A police officer or a peace officer, in the course of effecting or attempting to effect an arrest, or of preventing or attempting to...


I am not a lawyer, and I do not play one on TV. I'm not reading this because it is "Lawyers Language" and I can't understand half of it.


[ Edited Sat Apr 16 2011, 05:11pm ]
Back to top
W2LIE.net Scanner Programming
Go to page       >>   

Jump:     Back to top

Syndicate this thread: rss 0.92 Syndicate this thread: rss 2.0 Syndicate this thread: RDF
Powered by e107 Forum System






Link to w2lie.net
Click the sample image below for Link Codes




Advertisers

http://www.w2lie.net/apps/content/content.php?content.26

http://www.longislandfirephotos.com

http://www.copshopny.com

 

 

http://www.ehamstore.com

http://secure.hostgator.com/~affiliat/cgi-bin/affiliates/clickthru.cgi?id=plichten

http://www.monitorlongisland.com/advertise

http://www.monitorlongisland.com/advertise

http://www.monitorlongisland.com/advertise

All original content is copyright 2005-2019, Monitor Long Island, Inc. All rights reserved.
The original content herein may not be used with out the express written consent of Monitor Long Island, Inc.

Live feeds may not be abused in any manner. Please read the Live Feed Terms of Service: [link]
e107 Disclaimer can be found here: [link]