Riverside, CA - New sheriff’s radios shut out public

[rdale]

Ha We have a similar claim in meteorology... "I took 4 years of college and do this every working day of my life, and all you need to make a forecast and claim it is better than mine is a 2 hour Skywarn training session?"

[riflemin]

Originally Posted by ts548

You have the right to hear about it through the media. You do not have the right to hear it on a scanner. Its a privilege and the sooner some of you realize that the better off you'll be.

Oh contraire,
Your comment seems to sum up the view of 99% LEOs and FFs who I have met, ie "you have no right to listen to us, and the fact that you do proves you are mentally defective or involved in criminal activity."

I was at an airshow, trying to enter freqs in my scanner when I found myself surrounded by 2AF SPs and a deputy who hassled me about my radio and were very rude while I acted respectful. (BTW scanners were NOT prohibited) The quote above is almost verbatim what they said to me. Public servants can get their panties in a wad and rant that we don't appreciate their work but EVERY time one of them acts disrespectfully toward Law Abiding Citizens THEY create the ill-will and loose the respect of the public! The sad part is that they dont recognize that letting the public listen is actually GOOD PR!! Listening to public safety comms for over 35 years, I've actually GAINED APPRECIATION for their hard work, especially after a major crime/fire/wreck/disaster. And it helped me to recognize how the depiction of public safety work and radio use in film and tv is mostly bogus. Encr the sensitive stuff but not everything. Encr it all does NOT increase public safety!

You tell me I have no right to hear that an armed subject is on the loose near my home? I have no right to hear that a high speed pursuit is headed my direction (or some other code3 response) so I can get off the road? Or that someone has reported a wreckless/intox driver nearby? I dont have the right to hear that there is a multi-car pile-up ahead on the interstate due to ice on a bridge? I dont have right to hear that a tornado is tracking across the interstate I am driving on at night and I'm headed toward it? Most of what I have monitored never made it to print or TV news and a lot that was reported disagreed with what I heard in important facts. If I had waited for the media to report the true items listed above I'd be DEAD or injured, and/or suffered property damage. Then my friends and family could view media reports of how I was killed.

I view my radio RXs and TXCVRs as tools for my personal safety along w/ my firearms, etc. But because a minority abuse or misuse these devices the rest of us are cast as equally dangerous to society and our property or ability to use our property, which we bought legally, is in jeopardy of being taken away. The govt is happy to take their sales tax, then they want to say,"Oh btw you cant use that firearm, or radio".

BTW, the media also rely on scanners for news gathering. Around here they dont cover in-progress crimes or pursuits.

[mlmummert]

Originally Posted by rapidcharger

Speaking of locking, why does it seem so many people want the discussion of encryption and its likely causes to be squelched?
Why does there need to be a limit on such discussion when it pertains to a growing trend?
I get that there are differing viewpoints on why it is or isn't necessary but what I don't get is why such discussion is frowned upon here. There's a room for everything under the sun on this forum, even politics and religion- which are two subjects many forums expressly forbid for the sake of keeping everything civil. Why would a forum that encourages discussion of such a wide variety of controversial subject matter want to keep encryption and its causes on the hush-hush, especially since it has such a profound impact on everyone in the hobby of scanning?

Because RR makes money off of selling police audio to felons.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[rdale]

Originally Posted by mlmummert

Because RR makes money off of selling police audio to felons.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

And LB also gets a kickback from drug dealers who use the secret DEA monitoring page. That one gets a little dicey at times!

[zz0468]

Originally Posted by riflemin

...Encr the sensitive stuff but not everything. Encr it all does NOT increase public safety!

Encryption is not intended to directly enhance public safety. It's intended to enhance officer safety.

Originally Posted by riflemin

You tell me I have no right to hear that an armed subject is on the loose near my home?

Via police communications not intended for you? No. That is not a "right".

Originally Posted by riflemin

BTW, the media also rely on scanners for news gathering. Around here they dont cover in-progress crimes or pursuits.

Many agencies that use encryption on dispatch transmissions provide radios to the media so some encrypted talk-groups can be monitored by the media. The agency in question in this thread has provided radios to the media for many, many years. I've never heard anything that would indicate that they're going to stop this practice.

The typical hobbyist is completely unaware of the reasons for encryption. It has little or nothing to do with their scanners, or even streaming. It has everything to do with the perceived threat that law enforcement faces from organized crime, drug cartels, and terrorism. Encryption is a tool that's now almost an integral part of new radios systems, so they're going to take advantage of it.

In discussions about whether or not to encrypt, scanner hobbyists are barely a footnote in the conversation, and most certainly not the focal point.

[RadioDaze]

Originally Posted by iamhere300

Popcorn is done. We just don't like you LOL. (As I hand you the bucket)

Great. Stuck with all the unpopped kernels again. Sigh.

Originally Posted by rapidcharger

Speaking of locking, why does it seem so many people want the discussion of encryption and its likely causes to be squelched?

It's not the discussion of the topic itself; it's that, like discussing politics, the threads almost always devolve into personal comments and mudslinging. People are extremely opinionated about encryption... even threads like GRE vs. Uniden end up locked for the same reason.

[ts548]

Once again I'll say it, you do NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO LISTEN TO PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS. You have a privilege. That privilege is slowing going away due how easy it is now to listen to PS comms. Digital encryption is very easy to implement and is cheaper then most think it is, with Motorola less then $10 a radio. Harris/EJ Johnson and others are offering it free per radio. Get use to it, more and more are moving towards it.

[riflemin]

Originally Posted by zz0468

Encryption is not intended to directly enhance public safety. It's intended to enhance officer safety.



Via police communications not intended for you? No. That is not a "right".



Many agencies that use encryption on dispatch transmissions provide radios to the media so some encrypted talk-groups can be monitored by the media. The agency in question in this thread has provided radios to the media for many, many years. I've never heard anything that would indicate that they're going to stop this practice.

The typical hobbyist is completely unaware of the reasons for encryption. It has little or nothing to do with their scanners, or even streaming. It has everything to do with the perceived threat that law enforcement faces from organized crime, drug cartels, and terrorism. Encryption is a tool that's now almost an integral part of new radios systems, so they're going to take advantage of it.

In discussions about whether or not to encrypt, scanner hobbyists are barely a footnote in the conversation, and most certainly not the focal point.

Apparently we are defining "right" differently, but I believe that if the signal is not scrambled and is easily received and demodulated - you have the right to listen. If I want to have a private conversation I take measures to make it private. If an electronic comm is "broadcast" w/out enc you cant fault the person who casually intercepts the message.

Spokespersons from various agencies HAVE made statements that ENC is for officer safety AND for the safety of the public. Incidentaly, One night few weeks ago I called our Sheriff dept to report a suspicious SUV on the dead end road near my house. After the usual argument w/ the dispatcher about whether I am in their juristiction, I was giving the LP and Veh description. I had failed to mute my mobile 2M radio and when SO radio traffic came out on it the dispatcher demanded, "Do you have a scanner?!", became rude to me and refused to send a deputy. All I could figure was she suspected an ambush? Or more likely with this agency she is poorly trained. But with due respect, any call an officer goes on can be a setup. So even though a Game Warden had asked me to report any suspicious activity out here, the SO refused to come out (as usual.)

I agree with your last statement, and frankly if I was in their postion I would ENC it all. It has become economically feasable. But then interop my be more difficult, and off-duty OFC or FF w/out a dept radio cant keep informed via scanner. BTW whenever and wherever I worked Security I found my scanner to be a highly valuable tool for the job. ENC would have denied me this possibly lifesaving tool. I was able to keep informed about police activity near my post, even once had a pursuit terminate AT my post! I once had the subjects of a TxDPS BOLO arrive on campus! At the Univ campus we were fortunate to have direct radio comm w/ local PD.
I think that these agencies DO care about all scanner users because in my experience any person having a scanner is characterized as a criminal or a mental case! BTW when I was in uniform working Security having a scanner was NOT generally perceived negatively by PD or FFs.

I am not a prophet but lets say I would not be surprised if the FEDS eventually MANDATE ENC. They had the power to make TV go digital and mandate narrowbanding!

[silagi]

I have been a police dispatcher for the past 28 years. I dont mind the public listening in. Many times our citizens have helped us catch criminals after hearing something on the scanner. Our department used to dispatch for another city under contract and that city went as far as streaming the police department's radio traffic live on their police department web page. I have never used encrypted radio channels. In fact I dont know of any non-federal angency in my area (Northern California) that encrypts routine day to day dispatch channels. Special operations yes, but not routine stuff. Sure it is easier for the crooks to listen in these days via the smart phone apps (of which I question the legality of retransmitting police radio signals without permission) but that just means we need to step up our game. I was taught from the very begining of my career to watch what I say on the radio since you never know who may be listening. That is much more the case these days. With advances in technology these days it is also so much easier to transmit sensitive information to officers in the field without having to put it out over the radio. Radio is just one way that I can communicate with my officers in the field. It is not the only way.

[zz0468]

Originally Posted by riflemin

Apparently we are defining "right" differently, but I believe that if the signal is not scrambled and is easily received and demodulated - you have the right to listen.

Considering that this thread directly concerns encryption, the above statement pretty much renders any argument moot, then, doesn't it.

Originally Posted by riflemin

If I want to have a private conversation I take measures to make it private. If an electronic comm is "broadcast" w/out enc you cant fault the person who casually intercepts the message.

Except that reception with a scanner is not "casual". It takes a concerted effort to purchase, install, and operate, a receiver who's purpose is to receive transmissions not intended for the public.

Originally Posted by riflemin

...After the usual argument w/ the dispatcher about whether I am in their juristiction...

...the SO refused to come out (as usual.)

After seeing you relate several cases where you have had disagreements with law enforcement agencies, it would appear that you have issues with authority figures. Could that be the reason that they give you a hard time about your scanners, and not the fact that you have scanners in the first place?

Originally Posted by riflemin

I agree with your last statement, and frankly if I was in their postion I would ENC it all. Its just a no-brainer.

We are in agreement here. I have no problems if an agency wants to fully encrypt their communications. But then, scanner listening is not a hobby of mine, and I have nothing to lose.

Originally Posted by riflemin

Then you impede interop, and off-duty OFC or FF who dont have a dept radio at those times.

Properly implemented, interop is completely unaffected by encryption. Properly implemented interoperability is far more than just a bunch of radios that talk to each other. It also includes plans, policy, and procedure.

Originally Posted by riflemin

My complaint is the attitude among the guys on the street (COPs and FFs) that you are a criminal if you listen to their comms. So clearly THEY DO care about scanner users.

I've sat in on, and conducted, many meetings with law enforcement people regarding their radio systems, operations, interoperability, and encryption. In the several decades that I've been in this business, I think I've seen scanner listeners mentioned once, at least in the context of system planning. Individual officers may have their own opinions. My experience is that management doesn't care one way or the other.

Originally Posted by riflemin

I am not a prophet but lets say I would not be surprised if the FEDS eventually MANDATE ENC. They had the power to make TV go digital and mandate narrowbanding!

A federal mandate for encryption of all police communications would surprise me. A federal mandate for encryption of certain types of operation would not. There are already laws regarding the handling of things like NCIC data, etc.

[silagi]

BTW, not all criminals get away when listening in to police communications Many years ago we were dealing with a serial bank robber in our county. He always carried a portable scanner with him and monitored the local law enforcment channels. Turned out the scanner was what led to him being caught. In our county all bank alarms in the county were broadcasted over the Sheriff's primary which was monitored by FBI units. The alarm was announced over the SO primary and the when it was a confirmed hold up, the description of the suspect was also put out. One of the FBI units recognized the description and put the suspects name out over the air. This freaked out the suspected. He thought oh crap they know it is me and know that I have a scanner. When the county wide "road block" was initiated, he thought maybe since they know it is me and I know where the road block post are, maybe they have an alternate plan. So instead of taking his usual back road escape route he went right down the main road past the normal roadblock post and he was quickly apprehended.

[Thayne]

Originally Posted by rdale

To counter those who think that P25 encryption can be broken by downloading a firmware file from a Brazilian website.

OK, I am with you on that, I thought you meant no one, (or more) has ever been monitoring any encrypted, operational P25 system talkgroups on a regular basis by virtue of their own device(s).

[StephenVa]

Does the "right" to listen also cover the "right" to stream it online? My biggest beef with the online feeds is there is no delay. If there was a 20-30 minute delay I would have less of a problem with them. My second beef is do the majority of the feed providers contact the LE or public safety agency they've decided to stream? Probably not. And I don't personally feel any of us have the "right" to just do it because we want to. Regardless of what's said/proven/etc I do think it is a black eye to the hobby. You can sugar coat it all you want but the fact is it's being used for shenanigans by some people and those making the radio decisions know it or hear it from a salesman. Ask yourself why this hobbyist site is separating itself from the live feeds. I doubt it's only for the money.

Now a question... Why do it? What made you set up your online feed?

[Ronaldski]

+1 on EVERY on of StephanVa comments.
We all know online feeds are the main reason why they all encrypt dunno why people even think otherwise.

Had a similar thread in the MI area it got closed as it was heated and many other threads out there already about it. thread about online audio feeds hurting our hobby in Michigan.

Just goes to show the big concern we all have on this. Online feeds are the cause.
If there must be on I vote for at least a 15 or 30 min delay. Will it appease the 911 agencies? .... Probably not. Love to see em go away here. There will still be the many independents outside RR already that we cant control.

[rdale]

Originally Posted by Ronaldski

We all know online feeds are the main reason why they all encrypt dunno why people even think otherwise.

Because we know otherwise, with evidence. Only a small minority of public safety agencies are encrypted. Only a handful of that small percentage did it because of streaming. Most did it long before RR started streaming. With all the narrowbanding money available the past few years, this was the time for other agencies to do it. Yet they didn't.

So we can make conclusions based on evidence and supported by insiders, or we can go on assumptions of someone who has already been shown to use incorrect information to bolster his uneducated opinion.

You make the call.

[iamhere300]

I would offer that most of the "push" you see for encryption comes from the sales force. Motorola can build a totally P25 compliant system that any P25 equipment works on, then come along and push their low end encryption making it so that only Motorola equipment will work on it.

Typical Motorola marketing that has brought them this far.

And they are not alone - others do the same thing. That is why they offer it so cheaply.

They also do it with Over the Air programming.

I saw an EM director in the northeast US state once that his new multi million dollar system that was totally P25 compliant by Motorola was not compliant with other manufacturers P25. He stated that just because it was totally P25 complant did not mean that others totally compliant P25 equipment would work on it.....


Sheeesh.

[Stoat]

Any movement toward a world where encrypted public safety transmissions are the norm troubles me mainly because of what we would be left with as remaining informational sources. Being forced to rely on what has been endlessly proven to be an unreliable, corrupt, breathtakingly unprofessional, biased and politically-correct media as a filter that may or may not give me all of the information that I need in order to protect myself and my family represents a dramatic step down the food chain for members of the public who insist upon being fully awake and aware.

To be forced into a position of having to rely on a local or national news editor's whims as to whether the information i'm given meets his or her personal political litmus test or corporate policy guidelines means that I not only will be subjected to a time delay, which can be crucial, but also a significant content question. I understand and respect the need to protect the public safety responders, but adding multiple filters to the timeliness and content does not represent an improvement in an ability to gain relevant and sometimes crucial information for law-abiding, coherent and capable citizens.

[RadioDaze]

Originally Posted by Stoat

Any movement toward a world where encrypted public safety transmissions are the norm troubles me mainly because of what we would be left with as remaining informational sources. Being forced to rely on what has been endlessly proven to be an unreliable, corrupt, breathtakingly unprofessional, biased and politically-correct media as a filter that may or may not give me all of the information that I need in order to protect myself and my family represents a dramatic step down the food chain for members of the public who insist upon being fully awake and aware.

To be forced into a position of having to rely on a local or national news editor's whims as to whether the information i'm given meets his or her personal political litmus test or corporate policy guidelines means that I not only will be subjected to a time delay, which can be crucial, but also a significant content question. I understand and respect the need to protect the public safety responders, but adding multiple filters to the timeliness and content does not represent an improvement in an ability to gain relevant and sometimes crucial information for law-abiding, coherent and capable citizens.

Agreed.

[riflemin]

Originally Posted by zz0468

After seeing you relate several cases where you have had disagreements with law enforcement agencies, it would appear that you have issues with authority figures. Could that be the reason that they give you a hard time about your scanners, and not the fact that you have scanners in the first place?



.

Sir, No Sir! I typically act respectful toward all people and address ppl as Sir or Ma'am. Some people have gotten in my face D.I. style and I kept my cool, didn't argue and and tried to avoid that person rather than escalate it to higher authority. If I had respect for that person , they destroyed it. In no case did I ever act in a negative manner as you imply. I know from my own experience enforcing rules and making traffic stops (Campus Security) that you dont argue with a cop even if they are rude or disrespectful.
Even if you have read all my posts I do not believe you are qualified to make this judgement. I did not make any comments that I am aware of, personaly attacking your character. Also you misquoted my comment. "Argument" was a poor choice on my part. When the dispatcher claimed I was in the city, I corrected her respectfully. My point was that SHE became rude when she heard SO traffic frm my radio. And this department has refused to come out when hunters were trespassing nearby, firing toward my residence and my neighbors'. Also you edited out the fact I was calling because a Game Warden (authority) had come to my house investigating poaching and asked me to report suspicious activity.
I have an issue with folks who respond to respect and civility, with rudeness and disrespect. I try to avoid them. I'm sorry to go off topic but you went way off topic with this personal attack.

[xmo]

iamhere300 wrote: "I would offer that most of the "push" you see for encryption comes from the sales force...."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You'd be wrong. Encryption is a growing trend in public safety communications. Scanner apps and radio sales people only help to accelerate the process.

For example, in the December 2012 issue of Public Safety Communications, The Official Magazine of APCO International, Inc., there is an article: "An Introduction to Encryption" which leads off "Securing your voice communications' and wraps up with "As public safety communications becomes more sensitive and sophisticated, the need for deploying and managing encryption becomes more evident." and "...the benefits of confidentiality, safety and security to the first responders cannot be ignored."