Des Moines, IA: Vandal turns off power to new police radio system

newsphotog · #1 (**permalink**) 08-30-2012, 8:24 AM

A person caught on a surveillance camera shut off power to a new $4 million metro law enforcement communication system on August 17th. West Des Moines police are in not sure if it's a crime or simple mischief.

Read more: Vandal turns off power to new police radio system | Local News - KCCI Home

KE4ZNR · #2 (**permalink**) 08-30-2012, 9:58 AM

Who in the heck designs a radio system with an unprotected
power switch?
And why the heck does the system not have a better monitoring
system which would alert system techs that the system is now
running on backup batteries?
And I got a good laugh at the fact that with this news report now
everyone that saw this segment now knows how to walk up to that exact water tower and flip the switch
on the MICS system and force it into battery backup.
Fails all the way around.
Marshall KE4ZNR

w2txb · #3 (**permalink**) 08-30-2012, 11:27 AM

Brings to mind the movie "Airplane!" in which Johnny pulls the power plug and says,"just kidding!"

Somebody designed, somebody approved, and somebody paid money for the design of that system... right down to the power source control. Sad, no?

mmckenna · #4 (**permalink**) 08-30-2012, 11:29 AM

I guess a $10 padlock got "value engineered " out of the project.

mmckenna · #5 (**permalink**) 08-30-2012, 11:30 AM

Actually, I've got to hand it to whoever shut the switch off, good for them for discovering a really stupid design and bringing it to the attention of whoever administers the system. Unlikely that if they had just told someone about it anything would have happened to address the issue. At least this way something will happen to fix it.

Sometimes things like this are needed to force people into using their brains.

redshift · #6 (**permalink**) 08-30-2012, 11:34 AM

The guy who threw the switch probably had no idea it was connected to a radio site. He probably thought he was going to drain the tank or something.

cdknapp · #7 (**permalink**) 08-30-2012, 11:44 AM

If they have an alarm system that can send a low battery signal, you wouldn't think it would take too much more to set it up to send a power loss signal as well, especially in an off-site / remote instillations...

mmckenna · #8 (**permalink**) 08-30-2012, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cdknapp

If they have an alarm system that can send a low battery signal, you wouldn't think it would take too much more to set it up to send a power loss signal as well, especially in an off-site / remote instillations...

Yep, at least our systems do. This was a major over site on several levels. Makes me wonder who the contractor was on the MICS system. Anyone know?

mmckenna · #9 (**permalink**) 08-30-2012, 12:00 PM

Ah, Tait seems to be the vendor. Wonder who this will get blamed on...

dupree617 · #10 (**permalink**) 08-30-2012, 1:27 PM

Well they did do somethings right. The radio site was hidden in plain site. In other words you couldn't tell that it was even a radio site at all. As for as the average person could tell it was a water tower and nothing more. Also it had a very good battery back up system. It doesn't make any sense why anyone would just walk up to a water tower and cut the power off. For that matter why would anybody hijack a airplane and fly it into a building.
Well as people need to learn things do happen that not make any sense at all. And well good security can prevent things like this from ever happen again. Are at least reduce there chances from happening.

Thanks,

Mike Dupree

jackj · #11 (**permalink**) 08-30-2012, 2:15 PM

Some of the EPA and OSHA regulations require an AC cutoff outside of a secured building. The logic is that the fire department should be able to kill the AC into the building easily for the safety of the firefighters. Most of the disconnect switches that I've seen do not allow the switch to be padlocked "ON" only "OFF". If you only consider safety then this makes sense but it doesn't destroy system security.

kruser · #12 (**permalink**) 08-30-2012, 2:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jackj

Some of the EPA and OSHA regulations require an AC cutoff outside of a secured building. The logic is that the fire department should be able to kill the AC into the building easily for the safety of the firefighters. Most of the disconnect switches that I've seen do not allow the switch to be padlocked "ON" only "OFF". If you only consider safety then this makes sense but it doesn't destroy system security.

When I've seen rules like that, the fire department did allow the switch to be locked on but they also required the owner to pay for and install a Knox box next to the switch with a key inside for the padlock and any other locks if it is a building. Or, they simply break out the bolt cutters.

I'm not sure how OSHA rules on this and if they even do concerning locking a switch in the ON position on a box that cannot be opened when the switch is in the on position. Most good switched disconnects prevent the panel from being opened while in the on position.

biomedbob · #13 (**permalink**) 08-30-2012, 4:28 PM

over site = oversight

over sea = over see

jackj · #14 (**permalink**) 08-31-2012, 7:48 AM

Yep, you're right biomedbob. But that assumes that I would really pay attention to what I'm proof reading. That was supposed to read "does destroy system security."

talkpair · #15 (**permalink**) 08-31-2012, 9:54 AM

It ran 12 days on batteries?........wow.

~~kb2vxa~~ · #16 (**permalink**) 08-31-2012, 6:26 PM

"over site = oversight
over sea = over see"

Now if you're going to criticize an author whose first language isn't English at least you could do it right. (;->)

"Dehnert overseas..."
There you have it, if he oversees he would have seen the vandal but he was overseas at the time.

"Des Moines police own..."
No, the police is a single entity therefore the police owns.

Like the talking head asked off camera about the copy... who writes this crap? Oh there's more and it warms the cockles of my soul to know I'm not the only one who went to school even if a college course in journalism assumes a passing grade in high school English.

newsphotog · #17 (**permalink**) 09-02-2012, 1:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by talkpair

It ran 12 days on batteries?........wow.

It's really not used often.

gewecke · #18 (**permalink**) 09-02-2012, 6:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dupree617

Well they did do somethings right. The radio site was hidden in plain site. In other words you couldn't tell that it was even a radio site at all. As for as the average person could tell it was a water tower and nothing more. Also it had a very good battery back up system. It doesn't make any sense why anyone would just walk up to a water tower and cut the power off. For that matter why would anybody hijack a airplane and fly it into a building.
Well as people need to learn things do happen that not make any sense at all. And well good security can prevent things like this from ever happen again. Are at least reduce there chances from happening.

Thanks,

Mike Dupree

Actually community water tower sites all over the u.s. are used for communications repeaters and remote sites because the elevation provides a convenient mount for those antennas.

I wouldn't be surprised if the repeater at the city water site in MY hometown isn't unsecured, but then there is surveillance video there too.

dupree617 · #19 (**permalink**) 09-03-2012, 12:11 AM

I have indeed have review FCC licenses were the radio site was on a water tower. And I can see the cost effectiveness of using a site that is already set up.

As for as security, I think we both would be surprise at the low amount of security at a site. Just the thought of how many fire department repeaters are at unman volunteer fire stations. With only a locked door as the only security. Just an ideal at how overlooked this is during planning.

Mike Dupree

iamhere300 · #20 (**permalink**) 09-03-2012, 12:42 AM

It does not matter the equipment provider. Their specs will call for power to a short distance from their racks. They have no responsibility for power from there. The alarm, most likely left off by the local city/county techs that did not want to hear about every power hiccup, only when failure is coming.