NY, Arrest of twitter user listening to G20 Scanner

[Gator596]

Mr Blanton,
I would very much like to see my agency's comms (currently encrypted) become available through a live feed here. Would it be possible for you to pm me some sample language of the discussions you are having with the interested agencies for me to use in approaching my employer?
Back before we went encrypted I used to get many positive comments from people with scanners in our area about the tings they heard us doing. They really thought they were getting their moneys worth as taxpayers. They were astounded at the difference between the small amount of police activity reported in the media and the amount of work that was actually getting done.

[Squad10]

Originally Posted by rdale

Does it matter? The point is - a majority of P25 systems are transmitting in the clear.

It matters only if one wishes to make a distinction between the the three points (COST, interoperability and manageability) that Lindsay made:

1) It is expensive. Yes, I realize that with some volume licensing deals for subscriber units that ADP and other offerings are inexpensive by themselves. But supporting the entire infrastructure, end to end, is very expensive for 99% of public safety agencies out there

2) Interoperability. Encryption is a major hindrance to public safety interoperability.

3) Manageability. Encryption technology has come a long way in terms of strength, but the process of manageability (key management, training, limitations, interop etc) have not even come close to the incremental progress the "encryption industry" has made. This alone is the absolute #1 reason why encryption is a hindrance.

It mattered to me since I wished to make that distinction and thought you may know.

[rdale]

For us (scanner listeners) it doesn't matter. Most P25 systems are not encrypted, and that's the point I was making. The earlier post was wrong.

[SherwoodPolice]

From my point of view, Lindsay is very correct on Interoperability. The State of Florida converted the State Law Enforcement Radio System (SLERs) to the encrypted Pro-voice, which can not be monitored by any scanner.

1. Florida Highway Patrol can now contact the ATF, Motor Carrier Enforcement, Florida Fish and Wildlife, and other agencies that work Monday through Friday, for back up when needed. (Not a good thing. FWC Officer Jim Streety, who was shot 5 times, could have recieved assistance faster and with more agency assistance to apprehend the suspect who shot him quicker. Ofc. Streety did survive. The manhunt was slow to gather due to FWC being on the new SLERs encrypted system.

2. In the past, the SLERS was on the P25 system that was clear voice. They also had the capability to contact local Law Enforcement in analog mode on Mutual Aid channels. Users do not have the option to switch to an analog mutual aid channel.

3. In the time that the SLERS was digital clear, Florida Highway Patrol was so boring to listen to, because all they do is traffic stops. Granted traffic stops are a danger to any Officer, but not entertaining to a scanner listener.

4. Current SLERS users have the ability to contact users in a different geographical areas. (An FHP Trooper in Jacksonville needing to contact a Trooper in Dade County by putting a call code into his new Encrypted radio)

Conclusion: As a tax payer and supporter of Law Enforcement, the new SLERS encrypted system has damaged the interoperability of local agencies to State agencies. Interoperability for Public Safety was all designed on a large scale architect for disasters and incidents. Even though we don't have those everyday, FHP and other Agencies now have to pick up a phone and contact local Law Enforcement for information or assistance. Thus decreasing in efficiency and interoperability.

[Squad10]

Conclusion: As a tax payer and supporter of Law Enforcement, the new SLERS encrypted system has damaged the interoperability of local agencies to State agencies. Interoperability for Public Safety was all designed on a large scale architect for disasters and incidents. Even though we don't have those everyday, FHP and other Agencies now have to pick up a phone and contact local Law Enforcement for information or assistance. Thus decreasing in efficiency and interoperability.

The way I see it is the complexity of use of the "new" digital systems hinders public safety interoperability whether the systems are encryption capable or not, encryption hinders the hobby of monitoring public safety, all having their associated costs.

[PJH]

Originally Posted by Squad10

1) It is expensive. Yes, I realize that with some volume licensing deals for subscriber units that ADP and other offerings are inexpensive by themselves. But supporting the entire infrastructure, end to end, is very expensive for 99% of public safety agencies out there

End to end "infrastructure" isn't really more expensive than one that isn't. All your adding is a couple of componets and your done. Its not like the "old days" where you needed to order specific model repeaters, receievers and a bunch of additional equipment. At least in the case of Motorola, its basically designed into the existing equipment.

I converted one police department from an secure capable analog system to a secure capable digital system. My cost was (at the time) $123,408.50. That included the nessesary replacement cards in the CEB, DIU3000, digital modems, upgrading the consoles from push button the CentraCom Gold Elite's, AstroTac 3000 comparator, another Quantar repeater, programming, an antenna, new comparator and other smaller items.

Other than the DIU3000 (at $6,486) and some minor back end componets, thats all what was needed for our setup to be able to handle the secure comms.

2) Interoperability. Encryption is a major hindrance to public safety interoperability.

That would be true if the dispatcher (or field units) wasn't setup to allow the encryption to be user selectable (as in most are). It can be as simple as a button press or switching to a specific channel. Its all in the programming of the radio and how the agency sets things up.

3) Manageability. Encryption technology has come a long way in terms of strength, but the process of manageability (key management, training, limitations, interop etc) have not even come close to the incremental progress the "encryption industry" has made. This alone is the absolute #1 reason why encryption is a hindrance.

False. If one properly implements a system, there is nothing to manage which I touched upon above. Some people here think you need someone full time sitting in a Mission Impossible style NOC watching radio ID and need to be working feverishly. Drop a key into a radio and its good to go. Enable indefinate key retention, and you will not need to rekey the radio unless a radio comes back from repair or the user erased the key (accidently or other). This work fine for most systems. The process of loading a key from a KVL take about 5 seconds, and that includes the time to put the dongle on the radio.

In larger systems that may provide OTAR, the initial setup takes a little longer (which involves the radio shop and not the user for the shadow keys, etc) but once its done the process is completely automatic...with the exception being a radio that is going out for service etc.

For training...what training? You tell the users... "if you need to go coded...flip this switch". Alternately "push this button" and for a standing ovation "Go to this channel". Thats pretty much it.

If there is any "management nightmares" its usually at the radio shop or the system administrator. 99% of that nightmare is just properly tracking those secure assests that are used by various groups in the department sensitive operations units that need it - which are small units within large departments.

The way I see it is the complexity of use of the "new" digital systems hinders public safety interoperability whether the systems are encryption capable or not, encryption hinders the hobby of monitoring public safety, all having their associated costs.

There is nothing more complex in a digital system than an analog system of the same size or features (with the exception if your using it to pass data). Instead of measuring someone going "ahhhhhhhhhhhh" over the radio, y9ur using 1's and 0's.

Still use the same general test sets (that now sport a P25 option) and the techniques are still generally the same.

A freq is still a freq. A PL is now a NAC. Talkgroups are still talkgroups. Someone sitting on an open mic is still funny most of the time.

[blantonl]

Originally Posted by rdale

Already linked above - you cannot divulge information intercepted from radio traffic.

Rob, you are incorrect.

The law specifically ALLOWS an individual to divulge anything they hear on a Part 90 FCC License, provided it is not encrypted.

I suggest you read the response we provided to MRA.

[Squad10]

Originally Posted by PJH

End to end "infrastructure" isn't really more expensive than one that isn't. All your adding is a couple of componets and your done. Its not like the "old days" where you needed to order specific model repeaters, receievers and a bunch of additional equipment. At least in the case of Motorola, its basically designed into the existing equipment.

I converted one police department from an secure capable analog system to a secure capable digital system. My cost was (at the time) $123,408.50. That included the nessesary replacement cards in the CEB, DIU3000, digital modems, upgrading the consoles from push button the CentraCom Gold Elite's, AstroTac 3000 comparator, another Quantar repeater, programming, an antenna, new comparator and other smaller items.

Other than the DIU3000 (at $6,486) and some minor back end componets, thats all what was needed for our setup to be able to handle the secure comms.

What was the price to convert ONE (mobile/portable) radio??? AND, how many (mobile/portable) radios were converted???

[trooper890]

Originally Posted by kc2rgw

What really stinks with the digital systems and encrypted is even worse, is the damned delay to TX. You key up and it's a heavy one to two second delay before it opens for TX.

I'm glad I'm not working in public safety at this point because there were many many times and situations where I didn' t have that 'hold time' convenient to use the radio.

Gonna have to toss the BS flag on that one, that is totally false. There is no more lag/access time for a digital system than for analog, and secure/clear makes absolutely no difference at all.

[blantonl]

Just so we are clear on the legalities of divulging and republishing information you hear on your scanner, everyone please read 47 USC 605 very very carefully:

(a) Practices prohibited

Except as authorized by chapter 119, Title 18, no person receiving, assisting in receiving, transmitting, or assisting in transmitting, any interstate or foreign communication by wire or radio shall divulge or publish the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning thereof, except through authorized channels of transmission or reception, (1) to any person other than the addressee, his agent, or attorney, (2) to a person employed or authorized to forward such communication to its destination, (3) to proper accounting or distributing officers of the various communicating centers over which the communication may be passed, (4) to the master of a ship under whom he is serving, (5) in response to a subpena issued by a court of competent jurisdiction, or (6) on demand of other lawful authority. No person not being authorized by the sender shall intercept any radio communication and divulge or publish the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of such intercepted communication to any person. No person not being entitled thereto shall receive or assist in receiving any interstate or foreign communication by radio and use such communication (or any information therein contained) for his own benefit or for the benefit of another not entitled thereto. No person having received any intercepted radio communication or having become acquainted with the contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of such communication (or any part thereof) knowing that such communication was intercepted, shall divulge or publish the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of such communication (or any part thereof) or use such communication (or any information therein contained) for his own benefit or for the benefit of another not entitled thereto. This section shall not apply to the receiving, divulging, publishing, or utilizing the contents of any radio communication which is transmitted by any station for the use of the general public, which relates to ships, aircraft, vehicles, or persons in distress, or which is transmitted by an amateur radio station operator or by a citizens band radio operator.

The same law specifically outlines Part 90 licenses as defined "for the use of the general public."

[kc2rgw]

That is very clear....

Public safety agency transmissions are not something intended for the use of the general public.

[blantonl]

Well, that may be your opinion, but the law clearly states that Part 90 FCC licenses are readily accessible for use by the general public.

Here is the definition of readily accessible by the general public as stated by US Law

(16) “readily accessible to the general public” means, with respect to a radio communication, that such communication is not—
(A) scrambled or encrypted;
(B) transmitted using modulation techniques whose essential parameters have been withheld from the public with the intention of preserving the privacy of such communication;
(C) carried on a subcarrier or other signal subsidiary to a radio transmission;
(D) transmitted over a communication system provided by a common carrier, unless the communication is a tone only paging system communication; or
(E) transmitted on frequencies allocated under part 25, subpart D, E, or F of part 74, or part 94 of the Rules of the Federal Communications Commission, unless, in the case of a communication transmitted on a frequency allocated under part 74 that is not exclusively allocated to broadcast auxiliary services, the communication is a two-way voice communication by radio;

[UPMan]

To quote again from the article, he was:

charged with hindering apprehension or prosecution, criminal use of a communication facility and possession of instruments of crime

He was not charged for twittering what he heard. He was charged with using the radio communications he intercepted to enable people who were committing offenses to elude apprehension. He was not charged with the use of a communication facility, he was charged with the criminal use of a communication facility.

It is generally illegal to use a scanner in to aid a criminal act. In order to be found guilty, a jury must decide that his intent was to abet the criminal acts (criminal acts themselves probably don't need to be proved...only his intent to abet, but it would depend on the language of the actual statutes).

[MPSCS]

This is a portion of the charge that I find confusing... "and possession of instruments of crime".

[Squad10]

Vic Walczak, legal director for the Pennsylvania ACLU, sees the FBI's action as pure "intimidation," and part of a "much bigger war on demonstrators" in Pittsburgh.

ACLU: Arrest of G20 Twitterer part of ‘war on demonstrators’ | Raw Story

[cfr301]

Originally Posted by MPSCS

This is a portion of the charge that I find confusing... "and possession of instruments of crime".

Ez Once he USED the Scanner and whatever he used to Twitter they became "Instruments of crime"

[Squad10]

Originally Posted by cfr301

Ez Once he USED the Scanner and whatever he used to Twitter they became "Instruments of crime"

The FBI specified the radio on their Receipt for Property Received/Returned/Released/ Seized Form as a "walkie talkie"

Here is a legal document pertaining to the Search Warrant:

http://www.eff.org/files/Madison_motion_EDNY.pdf

Quite a list of items, makes me wonder what the slingshot was to be used for.

[PJH]

Originally Posted by Squad10

What was the price to convert ONE (mobile/portable) radio??? AND, how many (mobile/portable) radios were converted???

Nothing. We already had them bought with the sotftware option in them, but at the time, the option was $400.

Slingshot can be used for:

Water ballons
Wire antenna's
Launching watermellons
Launching guy wires for large banners

Pretty much any everyday object and anything else in anyones house can be subverted to criminal use, blah blah.

Depending on what the jury is allowed to hear, and what he says...the case can go either way. If he says his intent was to alert people where the police were so they can relocate to perform another peaceful protest...then thats what they run with. If the jury buy's it or not, should be interesting.

Either way the simple rule is...keep what you hear to yourself.

[Squad10]

Originally Posted by PJH

Nothing. We already had them bought with the sotftware option in them, but at the time, the option was $400.

Slingshot can be used for:

Water ballons
Wire antenna's
Launching watermellons
Launching guy wires for large banners

Pretty much any everyday object and anything else in anyones house can be subverted to criminal use, blah blah.

Depending on what the jury is allowed to hear, and what he says...the case can go either way. If he says his intent was to alert people where the police were so they can relocate to perform another peaceful protest...then thats what they run with. If the jury buy's it or not, should be interesting.

Either way the simple rule is...keep what you hear to yourself.

It cost nothing? So the manufacturer provided a $400 secure mobile/portable option for nothing? The point I, (and I think Lindsay) make is that the COST/EXPENSE of SYSTEM (both infrastructure and mobiles/portable) encryption is more than alot of prospective buyers can afford or justify. One infrastructure $$$, many mobiles/portables $$$$$$$$$$$$$.

When I was young my slingshot was used as a Delivery System. Whether it was a "Destructive Weapon" depended on what I shot from it, what I was aiming at, and if I hit my target or not.

[icom1020]

Democracy Now interview


Twitter Crackdown: NYC Activist Arrested for Using Social Networking Site during G-20 Protest in Pittsburgh