Reporting Potential COMSEC/OPSEC Problems to GovernmentOfficials?Re:In The Clear & Mixed Encryption Transmissions Re:[FedCom]173.9875?

[Larry Van Horn, N5FPW]

Now that we have had one of our every six months or so discussions on this 
topic, please wrap it up and take it private gents. No sense in beating this 
horse dead anymore. ;-) We have done this many times on this list since I 
started it over 10 years ago. There are strong opinions on this topic and no 
sense in seeing it collapse into a shouting match, as it normally does.

73 de Chief

Larry Van Horn, N5FPW
ATC (AW)      USN (Ret)
MT Milcom/Help Desk Columnist
Assistant Editor Monitoring Times
Blog Address: http://mt-milcom.blogspot.com/
Founding Father Milcom/Fedcom/Trunkcom

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "News1" <news1 at airmail.net>
To: "'Discussion of Federal Government Communications'" 
<fedcom at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2007 11:01 PM
Subject: RE: Reporting Potential COMSEC/OPSEC Problems to 
GovernmentOfficials?Re:In The Clear & Mixed Encryption Transmissions 
Re:[FedCom]173.9875?


> Tom, I would not call the agency either but by posting it here it's the 
> same
> difference. The fact is it's irresponsible to post an on-going 
> surveillance
> operation, especially when you know their COMSEC is compromised. Plain and
> simple it's dangerous to folks involved and to the hobby in general.
>
> I too enjoy monitoring this type of activity but there are folks out there
> that just screw it up for all of us.  Blaine has said in past post that 
> it's
> "their problem" referring to the agency involved to be sure their
> communications are coded. His theory is if you don't want people listening
> then encrypt. Where does that leave those of us that would like to hear 
> this
> stuff? Maybe Blaine is happy listening to taxi traffic but I'm not and I
> suspect several others here are not as well.
>
> The fact is several of us here know of the repeater, the input, the PL and
> who they are watching. This is not the time to blab it to the world both
> because it's an on-going operation and it is (was) interesting listening.
>
> Blaine has a bad habit on not thinking before posting.  If he finds
> something (no mater the source) he runs to the world with it.  Sometime a
> bit of discretion is warranted. For sure it is in this case.
>
> Terry
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: fedcom-bounces at mailman.qth.net 
> [mailto:fedcom-bounces at mailman.qth.net]
> On Behalf Of Tom Greenwood
> Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2007 6:37 PM
> To: Discussion of Federal Government Communications
> Subject: RE: Reporting Potential COMSEC/OPSEC Problems to Government
> Officials?Re:In The Clear & Mixed Encryption Transmissions Re:
> [FedCom]173.9875?
>
>
> Increasingly I read some of the posts on this list and wonder, "What the
> &*^$ are people thinking!!  "Call the FBI and tell them you are monitoring
> them and that they are compromising their COMSEC?  You have got to be
> kidding me!!
>
> Ken, If you were working for the NSA and monitoring the enemy's weak 
> COMSEC,
> would you call the enemy and tell them?
>
> Be serious!  Maybe you'd like to invite all of the federal agencies over 
> to
> your monitoring post to give them a first hand demonstration of just how
> easy it is to monitor them.  At the same time you could conspire with them
> on how to destroy once and for all what remains of this hobby.
>
> I don't know about you, but I enjoy moitoring these comms and am not about
> to do something so stupid as to put this hobby into any further jeopardy
> than it already is in!
>
> There!  My two cents worth.  Back to lurking mode!  Let's all remember the
> commnuications act of 1934 and respect it.  Or we can all sit and chat 
> about
> what the alternatives are!
>
> 73's and happy LISTENING!!!
>
> Tom
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: fedcom-bounces at mailman.qth.net
> [mailto:fedcom-bounces at mailman.qth.net]On Behalf Of Ken
> Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2007 11:53
> To: Discussion of Federal Government Communications
> Subject: Reporting Potential COMSEC/OPSEC Problems to Government
> Officials? Re:In The Clear & Mixed Encryption Transmissions Re:
> [FedCom]173.9875?
>
>
> Yes, to a point I am serious -- It's just a suggestion since he does
> indicate in the public posting the actual nature of the transmissions 
> being
> monitored  .. Surely, many of us have heard communications "blunders" 
> during
> federal covert (especially joint task force operations) that could have
> serious implications if monitored by the "bad" guys!!!  Of course there's
> always the possibility that some of those three letter federal law
> enforcement agencies already have people assigned to monitor this list 
> (and
> other lists), so perhaps it will be dealt with internally. ;)
>
>
> Ken
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "J Doe" <usgovagent at gmail.com>
> To: "Discussion of Federal Government Communications"
> <fedcom at mailman.qth.net>
> Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2007 11:32 AM
> Subject: Re: In The Clear & Mixed Encryption Transmissions Re:
> [FedCom]173.9875?
>
>
>> Ken, Are you serious?
>> JD
>>
>> On 1/20/07, Ken <rfinder1 at verizon.net> wrote:
> ....snip..snip...
>>> 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.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> FedCom mailing list
> FedCom at mailman.qth.net
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/fedcom
>
> _______________________________________________
> FedCom mailing list
> FedCom at mailman.qth.net
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/fedcom
>
> _______________________________________________
> FedCom mailing list
> FedCom at mailman.qth.net
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/fedcom
>