Reporting Potential COMSEC/OPSEC Problems toGovernmentOfficials?Re:In The Clear & Mixed EncryptionTransmissions Re:[FedCom]173.9875?

[wxfreqrs]

Larry
I wrote you before but it came back to me
can you provide me a forum or list or links to get started in MILSATS 
monitoring
appreciate it

Don KB5FHX
SEMPER VIGILIS
http://myweb.cableone.net/wxfreqrs/  REAL TIME WEATHER Pascagoula Ms
http://www.qsl.net/kb5fhx/index.html  HAM RADIO
http://donsradio.spaces.msn.com/blog/PersonalSpace.aspx  MY BLOG
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Larry Van Horn, N5FPW" <n5fpw at brmemc.net>
To: "Discussion of Federal Government Communications" 
<fedcom at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 7:20 AM
Subject: Re: Reporting Potential COMSEC/OPSEC Problems 
toGovernmentOfficials?Re:In The Clear & Mixed EncryptionTransmissions 
Re:[FedCom]173.9875?


> 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
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> FedCom mailing list
> FedCom at mailman.qth.net
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/fedcom
>