 Posted:  Tue Apr 19 2011, 12:43pm | |
| Posted by: w2lie | Posts: 2824
| |  | |
Old Display Name: w2lie
| Location: Long Island, NY
|
Your Admin
 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 |       | |
|
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 08 2011, 11:16am | |
| Posted by: Vader1995 | Posts: 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: Brendon | Posts: 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 Mike | Posts: 447
| | | |
Old Display Name: PFD Mike
| |
Donating Member - 2008-2010
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: tommyscan | Posts: 136
| | | |
| |
| Joined: Sat Jun 21 2008, 04:05pm
|
| I strongly agree mike |
| Back to top | | |
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 15 2011, 12:20am | |
| Posted by: Brendon | Posts: 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: shkessler | Posts: 246
| | | |
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 |  | |
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 16 2011, 04:06pm | |
| Posted by: ipfd320 | Posts: 1864
| | | |
| Location: Martin County Florida
|
Account terminated as requested
| 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: tommyscan | Posts: 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_Guy | Posts: 255
| | | |
| |
| Premium Member | Joined: 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 | | |
|
|
|
Colour Key:
