[FedCom] Traffic In The Clear

[Jim Johnson]

My apologies...I received an error message reminding me I had tried to send 
this in an HTML format.  This is an attempt to resend it in plain text.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: Jim Johnson
To: Larry Van Horn, N5FPW ; Discussion of Federal Government Communications
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2006 11:52 AM
Subject: Re: [FedCom] DEA


Larry,

If I might be afforded the opportunity to disagree, in part, with your 
statement...

Am I in favor of the FOIA...yes; does the government tend to over-classify a 
lot of it's business...yes; do I enjoy, as much as anyone, reading the posts 
that are placed here by the members...yes; are communications "in the clear" 
fair game...yes.

Having said that, however, I applaud Arthur-Bryan E. Phelps' in using, what 
seems to be lacking in some folks,...good judgment and some common sense . 
There's nothing that can be more exciting than to come upon an active 
surveillance detail in progress.  But having the particulars of that 
surveillance posted to the web, even before it's concluded, is potentially 
putting our law enforcement personnel in harm's way.  Are we as a group so 
naive as to think that we have a "corner on the market" where radio 
monitoring is concerned and that the "bad guys" don't know these lists are 
here for the viewing?

God forbid that the time would ever come when something posted by someone 
here would result in a failed or compromised operation with someone in law 
enforcement being injured or worse...whether the information was transmitted 
"in the clear" or not!

Larry, as you well know, I, too, have done my bit for this country having 
served over 26 years active and reserve duty with the Navy.  And at least a 
portion of that time was spent in the Naval Reserve Intelligence Command in 
a TS/SCI capacity.  I don't say that to be self-gratuitous, but rather to 
make a point that OPSEC and counter-intelligence doesn't center around the 
concern that someone will "spill the beans" wholesale, but rather that a 
little piece or information here, along with a little piece or information 
there, may well spell the end to something that had a great deal of time, 
effort and money devoted to it.

So, am I off my rocker or just paranoid?

Jim Johnson
ITC. USNR (Ret)




----- Original Message ----- 
From: Larry Van Horn, N5FPW
To: Discussion of Federal Government Communications
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2006 9:53 AM
Subject: Re: [FedCom] DEA


Master Tim wrote:
> What is the point of this post?

I think our colleague was telling us that DEA channel 3 was active in his
area.

I want to remind folks here, this is a frequency and information exchange
list. Please do us and the list a favor, no frequencies, don't post. If you
aren't confortable posting a freq, don't post. No one is twisting your arm
here. I don't care about the gory details and you should not post them in
public anyway, but if the freq is in the clear and you heard it, that freq
is fair game. We taxpayers spend a lot of money on government radio systems
that allow them to encrypt. If they chose not to use it and they don't want
their comms made public, shame on them. They have NO excuse. In fact, they
open themselves to possible investigation by the GAO for fraud waste and
abuse (I won't hestitate to make a federal case out of it if they want to
make one).

73 and back to normal list traffic,

Larry Van Horn, N5FPW
ATC (AW)      USN (Ret)
Founding Father Milcom/Fedcom/Trunkcom