Scanner Encryption

[Starbucks]

As more and more agencies go digital...there are a few markets as far as police in cities like L.A. and Philly that are completely encrypted. They obviously don't want the public to know what's going on.
I realize as far as over 6million codes to crack, it would deem impossible to monitor over the air with a base or portable...but what are the chances of any software coming out for your computer to monitor or for scanner web sites to decode?

 

[LibertyNT]

As far as i know they already have

 

[KeithE4]

As more and more agencies go digital...there are a few markets as far as police in cities like L.A. and Philly that are completely encrypted. They obviously don't want the public to know what's going on.

I realize as far as over 6 million codes to crack, it would deem impossible to monitor over the air with a base or portable...but what are the chances of any software coming out for your computer to monitor or for scanner web sites to decode?

The public isn't prohibited by the FCC or the Communications Act from listening to police calls, or any transmission other than from cell-phones, but we're not entitled to listen either. If the cops decide to encrypt their transmissions, that's the way it goes.

And, we're also not allowed to divulge the content of any radio transmission other than broadcasters or amateurs. I don't believe that rule was ever repealed.

 

[Tom Wells]

I can't say which law did change this, but it was at one time legal to receive sattelite broadcasts.
They were then encrypted. Some still figured out how to decode the signals, and if I'm not mistaken,
a law was passed that made it illegal for you at home to use these proprietary signals for any use, whether
any divulging was done or not.

This made it possible to have "theft of service" of sat signals.

Before that, natural law was recognized...if you don't want your signals to be picked ujp, keep them out of my backyard.
Inasmuch as that's impossible, the law formerly recognized the right of private individuals to receive ANY signal.
Wheter they could decode it is their own business. If they could, the previous restrictions on divulging or use of the
information was illegal.

Leave it to the lobbyists to get a law passed in defiance of natural law.

 

[KeithE4]

For the record, here is Title 47 Section 605 of the US Code, courtesy of Cornell University.

 

[Starbucks]

I can't say which law did change this, but it was at one time legal to receive sattelite broadcasts.
They were then encrypted. Some still figured out how to decode the signals, and if I'm not mistaken,
a law was passed that made it illegal for you at home to use these proprietary signals for any use, whether
any divulging was done or not.

This made it possible to have "theft of service" of sat signals.

Before that, natural law was recognized...if you don't want your signals to be picked ujp, keep them out of my backyard.
Inasmuch as that's impossible, the law formerly recognized the right of private individuals to receive ANY signal.
Wheter they could decode it is their own business. If they could, the previous restrictions on divulging or use of the
information was illegal.

Leave it to the lobbyists to get a law passed in defiance of natural law.

Most of this was done when monitoring people's wireless or cellular phones were easy to intercept. But police and utilities, and safety were always available to the public for monitoring. I thought by now with Scan Cat type equipment...is it possible to decode transmissions of UHF/VHF apco 25 encryption thru software out in the market. or undergroundd market.

 

[Tom Wells]

After a good read of that law, it still flies in the face of common sense and natural law.

If you don't want me receiving your transmissions, keep it off my private property.

I don't have any desire to see (or hear) sat signals, but I reserve the right to do so, in spite of the law.


Otherwise I guess the sat companies owe me back rent on the use of my property.

 

[kd8hho]

any encryption can be cracked just takes time to do it. if not done all ready

 

[Basnya]

After a good read of that law, it still flies in the face of common sense and natural law.

That statement can apply to many laws related to private property, but I don't want to go off on a rant

If you don't want me receiving your transmissions, keep it off my private property.

I don't have any desire to see (or hear) sat signals, but I reserve the right to do so, in spite of the law.


Otherwise I guess the sat companies owe me back rent on the use of my property.

Not sure of the exact statute here but I seem to recall that the air above your property isn't really 'your' property. Sort of like in Texas where you may own the land, but not the mineral rights to any oil that may be under it.

 

[Tom Wells]

After a good read of that law, it still flies in the face of common sense and natural law.

That statement can apply to many laws related to private property, but I don't want to go off on a rant

If you don't want me receiving your transmissions, keep it off my private property.

I don't have any desire to see (or hear) sat signals, but I reserve the right to do so, in spite of the law.


Otherwise I guess the sat companies owe me back rent on the use of my property.

Not sure of the exact statute here but I seem to recall that the air above your property isn't really 'your' property. Sort of like in Texas where you may own the land, but not the mineral rights to any oil that may be under it.

That would mean my house is on someone else's property above ground level?
I only own the basement?

I know you mean "air rights".

I did have full rights to use (RF reception) before this law.
Instead of properly punishing those who exceeded the private individual fair use before, we pass a new law that
is almost akin to saying you can't collect rainwater, you must buy taxed water from your local water district or taxed bottled water.

When something of mine (private property or full use thereof) gets sold or given , I deserve a cut.