In The Clear & Mixed Encryption Transmissions Re: [FedCom] 173.9875?

[rod jones]

Don't worry, if it's posted to this list, they know.

Rod
Atlanta

--- J Doe <usgovagent at gmail.com> wrote:

> Ken, Are you serious?
> JD
> 
> On 1/20/07, Ken <rfinder1 at verizon.net> wrote:
> > Usually this type of mixed encryption indicates a joint task force (federal,
> > state, local law enforcement) use of the radio equipment/frequency.  I think
> > the main reason for the unencrypted transmission is that the users are
> > unfamiliar with the radio equipment operation and thus are not aware that
> > they are transmitting  "in the clear".
> >
> > Blaine perhaps you should consider callling the local FBI office and
> > informing them about this since it could put task force members or
> > confidential informants in jepoardy.
> >
> > Ken
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Blaine Brooks" <blaine.brooks at verizon.net>
> > To: "DFWSCAN" <dfwscan at yahoogroups.com>; "FEDCOM" <fedcom at mailman.qth.net>
> > Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 9:04 PM
> > Subject: [FedCom] 173.9875?
> >
> > ..snip..snip..snip..
> >
> > > On a similar note, 170.675 (a believed FBI SOG
> > > repeater) here in the DFW area (always encrypted)
> > > has seen a lot of "in the clear" traffic and surveillance
> > > use lately. Sometimes two units clear talk, other times
> > > the 50/50 thing where one unit is scrambled, and the
> > > other in the clear.
> > ..snip..snip..



 
____________________________________________________________________________________
The fish are biting. 
Get more visitors on your site using Yahoo! Search Marketing.
http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/arp/sponsoredsearch_v2.php