[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] - [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index]

Re: Any serious risk ?

Hi, Jim,

At 09:54 PM 04-12-00 -0600, Jim Shorney wrote:
>Now, this I have to disagree with.  Public monitoring of police
>communications is a form of public review.

Actually, the practice is illegal by treaty and law and, in many countries, 
is still enforced quite seriously.

The notion of secrecy of communication comes from the International 
Telecommunication Convention.  Most likely, it dates back to the time when 
most radio traffic consisted of messages on behalf of other parties who 
wanted to have some privacy.  In those days, few people, beyond the radio 
operators had access to receivers.

In the USA, the related provisions of applicable law (47 USC 605 - see: 
seem to be enforced only in a few cases.  Mostly, it is applied to cyphered 
transmissions and other "restricted" services like music on FM station 

>As such, it helps to keep the police 'honest', to a degree, by knowing 
>that they can and are being listened to.

While many departments share your views, many others are moving to a common 
cypherable system ("Project 25" digital radios) in order to keep casual 
listeners (the bad guys?) from knowing what they are doing.

While none of this applies to amateur stations, perhaps there are times 
when we should extend the courtesy.

Hope this helps.

73, art.....

Via the amsat-bb mailing list at AMSAT.ORG courtesy of AMSAT-NA.
To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe amsat-bb" to Majordomo@amsat.org