are you freaking kidding me?
Unit just requested a run on SSN of some guy over the air.

This is why the entire FCPD radio communication system should be encrypted and hidden from any public listening or oversight.

No one needs to be monitoring what they do.

If some event is important their public affairs office will release a statement to the citizens.

So are we saying cops shouldn't run people cause can you do as much damage with a name and date of birth as you can do with a social security number. Encrypt the radio makes sense.

They could run it from a cruiser, policy change would solve it.

Securi-Tea Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is why the entire FCPD radio communication
> system should be encrypted and hidden from any
> public listening or oversight.
>
> No one needs to be monitoring what they do.
>
> If some event is important their public affairs
> office will release a statement to the citizens.

Police band should be left UNencrypted so they know they are being monitored. I want to know those faggot police aren't abusing the law more than they already are.

a long time ago it SSN was considered a secure number - and it was questioned on news if employers were legally allowed to demand or even ask for it

today: forget that. worry more about obama getting it than your neighbor

it had been for use by banking and trusted gov (ie, irs, then) only - inacessible to any other - a crime to even be in possession of a list of them

back then trying to force people to give out an SSN by false claims they had to: considered criminal and fraud, only a con man would be trying to fleece for SSN

Securi-Tea Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is why the entire FCPD radio communication
> system should be encrypted and hidden from any
> public listening or oversight.
>
> No one needs to be monitoring what they do.
>
> If some event is important their public affairs
> office will release a statement to the citizens.


"No one needs to be monitoring what they do." And that's the mentality that allows police states to take root.

Of course we need to monitor them...good grief.

Civilians do not need to know what the officers are doing. It will jeopardize any arrests and prosecution.

If you disagree you must be a criminal.

Cone of Silence Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Civilians do not need to know what the officers
> are doing. It will jeopardize any arrests and
> prosecution.
>
> If you disagree you must be a criminal.

That's what the niggers want you to believe.

- Robb

Cone of Silence Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Civilians do not need to know what the officers
> are doing. It will jeopardize any arrests and
> prosecution.
>
> If you disagree you must be a criminal.


I understand that morons don't value the Constitution and the founding principles of this country. That makes me a criminal, too.

cXbPK Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Cone of Silence Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Civilians do not need to know what the officers
> > are doing. It will jeopardize any arrests and
> > prosecution.
> >
> > If you disagree you must be a criminal.
>
>
> I understand that morons don't value the
> Constitution and the founding principles of this
> country. That makes me a criminal, too.


LOL this idiot is trying to bring the fucking constitution into the issue

you are a paranoid fuck

True The Vote ! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> cXbPK Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Cone of Silence Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Civilians do not need to know what the
> officers
> > > are doing. It will jeopardize any arrests and
> > > prosecution.
> > >
> > > If you disagree you must be a criminal.
> >
> >
> > I understand that morons don't value the
> > Constitution and the founding principles of
> this
> > country. That makes me a criminal, too.
>
>
> LOL this idiot is trying to bring the fucking
> constitution into the issue
>
> you are a paranoid fuck

So people that have views you don't agree with are paranoid? Hmmmm, interesting.

True The Vote ! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> cXbPK Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Cone of Silence Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Civilians do not need to know what the
> officers
> > > are doing. It will jeopardize any arrests and
> > > prosecution.
> > >
> > > If you disagree you must be a criminal.
> >
> >
> > I understand that morons don't value the
> > Constitution and the founding principles of
> this
> > country. That makes me a criminal, too.
>
>
> LOL this idiot is trying to bring the fucking
> constitution into the issue
>
> you are a paranoid fuck


There is no "trying to bring" the Constitution into the issue because it IS a constitutional issue.

And the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, even higher than the cops. Go figure.

(You should have paid more attention in 8th grade...just saying.)

FJPTh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There is no "trying to bring" the Constitution
> into the issue because it IS a constitutional
> issue.
>
> And the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the
> Land, even higher than the cops. Go figure.
>
> (You should have paid more attention in 8th
> grade...just saying.)


I looked up un-encrypted radio scanners in the constitution and could not find it anywhere.

Can you cite a reference?

Martha Washington Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> FJPTh Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > There is no "trying to bring" the Constitution
> > into the issue because it IS a constitutional
> > issue.
> >
> > And the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the
> > Land, even higher than the cops. Go figure.
> >
> > (You should have paid more attention in 8th
> > grade...just saying.)
>
>
> I looked up un-encrypted radio scanners in the
> constitution and could not find it anywhere.
>
> Can you cite a reference?

Although I've only spoken about monitoring police activities and said nothing of encryption, it's a cute strawman.

Regardless, the following is some reading material for folks who wonder whether Joe or Jane Citizen has the right to monitor police activities in public or not. Both the US courts and individual state courts are upholding the right of the citizenry to record/monitor (audio and video) police activities. Interesting stuff from the US courts, and from some state courts. I hope you enjoy the reading (note how it's a simple application of the First amendment...that's part of the US Constitution, in case you were wondering). ;)

Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78, 85 (1st Cir. 2011)
Iacobucci v. Boulter, 193 F.3d 14 (1st Cir. 1999)
ACLU v. Alvarez, 679 F.3d 583, 595 (7th Cir. 2012)
Fordyce v. City of Seattle, 55 F.3d 436, 438 (9th Cir. 1995)
Adkins v. Limtiaco, _ Fed. App'x _, No. 11-17543, 2013 WL 4046720 (9th Cir. Aug. 12, 2013)
Smith v. City of Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332, 1333 (11th Cir. 2000)
Ramos v. Flowers, Docket No. A-4910-10T3 (N.J. App. Div. Sept. 21, 2012)


Also, the DoJ has openly stated its position that the First Amendment protects all U.S. citizens who record the activities of the police in public, and has intervened in at least one civil rights lawsuit against police officers to support that First Amendment right. Sharp v. Baltimore City Police Dep't, No. 1:11-cv-02888-BEL.

Thank you for the opportunity to put rest any question about the right of the public to monitor police activities in public.

(If anyone is wondering if the airwaves are public, I'll be happy to to provide citations to support that the airwaves are public.)

ejjnE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Martha Washington Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > FJPTh Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > There is no "trying to bring" the
> Constitution
> > > into the issue because it IS a constitutional
> > > issue.
> > >
> > > And the Constitution is the Supreme Law of
> the
> > > Land, even higher than the cops. Go figure.
> > >
> > > (You should have paid more attention in 8th
> > > grade...just saying.)
> >
> >
> > I looked up un-encrypted radio scanners in the
> > constitution and could not find it anywhere.
> >
> > Can you cite a reference?
>
> Although I've only spoken about monitoring police
> activities and said nothing of encryption, it's a
> cute strawman.
>
> Regardless, the following is some reading material
> for folks who wonder whether Joe or Jane Citizen
> has the right to monitor police activities in
> public or not. Both the US courts and individual
> state courts are upholding the right of the
> citizenry to record/monitor (audio and video)
> police activities. Interesting stuff from the US
> courts, and from some state courts. I hope you
> enjoy the reading (note how it's a simple
> application of the First amendment...that's part
> of the US Constitution, in case you were
> wondering). ;)
>
> Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78, 85 (1st Cir. 2011)
>
> Iacobucci v. Boulter, 193 F.3d 14 (1st Cir. 1999)
>
> ACLU v. Alvarez, 679 F.3d 583, 595 (7th Cir. 2012)
>
> Fordyce v. City of Seattle, 55 F.3d 436, 438 (9th
> Cir. 1995)
> Adkins v. Limtiaco, _ Fed. App'x _, No. 11-17543,
> 2013 WL 4046720 (9th Cir. Aug. 12, 2013)
> Smith v. City of Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332, 1333
> (11th Cir. 2000)
> Ramos v. Flowers, Docket No. A-4910-10T3 (N.J.
> App. Div. Sept. 21, 2012)
>
>
> Also, the DoJ has openly stated its position that
> the First Amendment protects all U.S. citizens who
> record the activities of the police in public, and
> has intervened in at least one civil rights
> lawsuit against police officers to support that
> First Amendment right. Sharp v. Baltimore City
> Police Dep't, No. 1:11-cv-02888-BEL.
>
> Thank you for the opportunity to put rest any
> question about the right of the public to monitor
> police activities in public.
>
> (If anyone is wondering if the airwaves are
> public, I'll be happy to to provide citations to
> support that the airwaves are public.)

Wow...so since the courts have upheld the constitution and the DoJ has upheld the Constitution then we can put those as asinine "police state" discussions to bed?

What a confused soul you are.