wwhitby

There is nothing wrong with encrypting sensative frequencies or talkgroups, such as vice or active dangerous operations. But, I believe that most traffic should be unencrypted. Encryption should be selective, not used as a blanket. In 2008, my hometown was hit by an EF-3 tornado. None of the local news media knew what was happening when the tornado was on the ground. None of the ham Skywarn or storm spotters knew a tornado was on the ground. It was the local police and fire departments that knew it and were relaying to the second status updates on their unencrypted frequencies. By mentally calculating the path of the storm, I realized it was heading directly for my elderly parent's house. I was able to call them and have them take cover. Fortunately, the hills by their house deflected the tornado to an unpopulated area. If my city had fully encrypted like the big city just to the south of us, I would have never been able to learn what was going on until it was over. I also listen to my scanner in the car to find out where accidents are located, so that I can take an alternate route to work or to home. I have also called in vehicles or persons for which the police are looking for that I happened to spot while driving. With encrypted communications, the capability for assistance from the public will be severely curtailed. I once talked to a former State Trooper and pilot for the local medivac helicopter. He told me that "old head" Troopers and Comm folks didn't favor blanket encryption. According to him, it was the younger members of law enforcement in leadership positions and in comm positions that want to encrypt everything. FWIW, he had actually asked me for advice on what to do to get better comms with the local encrypted agency for their helicopter!