> Residents liked being able to listen in to the scanners.
They're a public service funded by taxpayer dollars. Knowing what they're doing seems reasonable.
They're a public service funded by taxpayer dollars. Knowing what they're doing seems reasonable.
One evening we are on AIM chatting and he explains what is going on: noise complaint at a house down the block (kids partying)
He looks the address up and calls them to warn them and sits back to see if they do anything.
sounds like they managed to bail before anyone showed up to the address.
This isn't so much directly evading law enforcement but it's effective as it can easily cause police take actions that cause evidence and cases to be thrown out, raise reasonable doubt, etc.
Depleting resources and diversions are also relatively common, creating a 'fake' public threat or hate crime to investigate bleeds police resources away from ongoing investigations, etc.
The tango between gang squads and organized criminal groups is an ongoing escalating battle. The EncroPhone transcripts revealed a lot.
In europe when the police comes to a loud party, they come and tell the people to please be more silent. (And if it is just minor kids, ask for a adult) So if the party dispersed in panic before they even arrive .. problem solved fpr them?
Or does the US police busts loud parties gun blazing in general?
Nah, but lots of these parties have kids below than 21 (or whatever the legal drinking age is). So they get fined or arrested if caught so they leg it.
A friend attended a Chicago-suburb high school for a year (exchange student). Said he had to run from cops at private parties about a handful of times in that year, and that it was pretty normal in his group.
Please also remember that law enforcement effectively steals billions of dollars from citizens each year - https://ij.org/press-release/new-report-finds-civil-forfeitu...
Leaving the radios unencrypted merely lends advantage to more-sophisticated bad actors.
Much more likely is that the opacity of encryption lends advantage to the unsophisticated bad actors (ie, the 'official' ones).
I think most of us, at least in the USA, are far more ready to take our chances with these hypothetical sophisticated bad actors than to reduce the real-time transparency of verified ones.
During the Munich 1972 olympics(1), terrorists took some Israeli athletes hostage, and then this happened:
> Meanwhile, the terrorists learned from radio and television broadcasts that the police were approaching and had planned a rescue operation. The authorities had failed to cut off the terrorists' electricity and remove the press from the Olympic Village.
If they did all that and the terrorists were able to listen to their radio, what's next? Is encryption allowed then? If they could enable it then, why not enable it all the time, "just in case"?
Teargassed a neighborhood, escalating a protest to violence.
Hit and killed a woman with their car then laughed about it.
> "Yeah, just write a check," Auderer says, chuckling. "$11,000. She was 26 anyway, she had limited value."
Threatened to close the precinct in the largest residential neighborhood in the country if their scope of responsibility was reduced.
Committed voter fraud in an attempt to defeat police reformers.
Participated in an insurrection.
Covered up officer involvement in the January 6th insurrection by refusing to name the officers involved.
They’re not a trustworthy bunch.
I think police having encryption is not the biggest worry when living in a corrupt regime...
Yes.
There's a really pernicious tendency among well-off white collar activists to instrumentalize residents of lower-income neighborhoods, activists who themselves rarely experience crime (because they tend not to live in places where it's a major problem), and project onto those residents a preference for property crime over police intervention. In the main, working class people hate crime.
Does that make us both well-off white collar activists?