Reply With Quoteshred (24-08-14)
Arkansas men file lawsuit over police radio encryption
Good luck fellas.
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. -- A lawsuit filed by two brothers accuses two Arkansas cities of violating the state's Freedom of Information act by blocking access to police communications.
Brandon and Jeremy Mullens of Sherwood filed the lawsuit in Pulaski County Circuit Court against North Little Rock on Friday, the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reported (). They added Little Rock and some of the city's police department officials to the lawsuit Monday.
The brothers argue the cities violated Arkansas law by not providing them with real-time access to encrypted radio traffic on publicly financed radio frequencies.
Jeremy Mullens said they decided to sue the cities after growing frustration over their requests for police radio traffic being denied. He said his brother is a truck driver who had often listened to police radio traffic to look out for car wrecks and other traffic-related issues.
North Little Rock blocked public access to its police scanners in January and Little Rock followed suit late last month.
"They're trying to obscure what's going on, and that's against the law," he said. "They have an obligation to make this information available."
North Little Rock officials denied the Mullens' request, saying it was invalid because the law does not require public agencies to provide materials immediately as they are produced.
The North Little Rock city attorney's office declined to comment, but said it is confident its officials followed Arkansas law.
Little Rock city attorney Tom Carpenter said releasing access to encrypted communications would put the city at risk of breaking several privacy laws.
Information such as Social Security numbers can come across radio recordings, and Carpenter said the city does not have the necessary software to redact sensitive information. He said city employees would have to transcribe all radio communications in order to release requested radio traffic.
"That creates a series of problems ... We just can't give you the tape without redactions," Carpenter said. "We're not required to create a document."
The brothers also asked for an emergency injunction against the cities' police departments in their amended lawsuit Monday. They argued law enforcement officials have "altered" a public record by encrypting police radio traffic, which violates the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act.
shred (24-08-14)
| Look Here -> |
Too much moonshine for those rednecks.
OMG americans love to go to court....
They should move to Europe and listen to the police radio - all totally encrypted and on digital multicast channels, a suitable decoder set's you back a few grand...
Sure everyone loves to hear lates chase on the scanner or hear that the abusive guy down the street gets arrested - but everyone includes the criminals as well.
Freedom of information is one thing but I'm sure most people will agree they don't like the idea of their license number, name and address being on the public together with (possible) driving offences.
I, personally don't like encrypted police or emergency channels either, but they are the standard these days and I have to agree that the sensitive information the police constantly broadcasts if nothing for the public ear.
Tomtom GO730 ,Navcore 9.004 ,Bootloader 5.5256 ,Map :Australia 845.2661ttmaps and Tomplayer on 16GB SDHC class6Password for all my files: downunder
Aaaaah...Ozark country. They just want them to "squeal like a pig."Originally Posted by oceanboy
The fact that there's a highway to hell and a stairway to heaven says a lot about the anticipated traffic flow.
Yet the FCC has banned certain frequencies being available in Radio Scanners sold in the USA.
I think most involve those used for Mobile Phones so all the Police need to do is move to those frequencies and 'Officially' you cannot buy a receiver to cover them.
When NSW Police went Digital in the Metro areas a few years ago, Reporters tried to get permission to access the new service as they used it to chase up News but they were told a definate NO.
I stand unequivicably behind everything I say, I just dont ever remember saying it !!
Off topic, but that's incorrect.
There are some newsrooms that have been provided with a police radio.
Melbourne has done the same.
I believe "squeal like a pig" is Georgia! NOT that I would PERSONALLY know!
Last edited by cmangle; 24-08-14 at 09:35 PM.
Don't be picky....
The fact that there's a highway to hell and a stairway to heaven says a lot about the anticipated traffic flow.
It's an interesting tact.
In Australia the law doesn't stop you from listening to the police or decrypting their traffic.
It doesn't give you to right but if you were to challenge them on transparency of operations, you "might" have a case.
I don't like your chances in this country.
I'm of both minds. I would like the ability to monitor the police when I choose to do so. But I also understand the need for operational security and privacy.
I might suggest that if any agency was forced to make radio traffic publicly accessible that they would do it on a time delay.
In Australia it works on the basis that the police are not afforded protection from eavesdropping. Security is their own responsibility.
If you want it, you break it
Yes I am an agent of Satan, but my duties are largely ceremonial.
It is a very slippery slope. If the police cannot operate in secrecy in relation to operational matters, it may make it difficult for them to catch the crooks. Yes, transparency is necessary, but I would hope that it were after the event, and then only after the court case is over.
I dare say ENF them red neck pig squealers are geographicaly challenged!
If you believe that the criminals and tow truck drivers cannot access the current digital networks in place then i have news for you, and its all bad.
Bookmarks