Encryption not the way to go - OpEd from the Arlington, IL Cardinal paper

[brey1234]

Most police officers in an open radio system understand that interested citizens and criminals listen to their communications. When there is need for sensitive information to be communicated, they switch to limited one-to-one communications methods, such as a phone call or a text message with an onboard computer or mobile data terminal in the police car

Police Radio Encryption: Not Secure, A Transparency Failure, A Public Safety Nightmare | The Cardinal

[JoeyC]

Another encryption thread. Just what we need!

[W8RMH]

some departments are concerned about cell phone apps threatening the security of their police officers or allowing criminals to get a leg up on police to avoid capture. Enter police radio encryption

Another idiot blaming encryption on live feeds. Scanners, Encryption, Scrambling, and Criminals for that matter were around long, long before streaming ever existed.

Any criminal in the backseat of a police car or in close proximity to a police officer can hear radio communications on the police officers personal radio or squad car radio.

Encryption is meant to secure the actual radio transmission from being received, not someone from overhearing your conversation. Every radio user, especially police officers, are responsible to ensure that any bystanders, and detainees in particular, do not overhear sensitive traffic, such as "your subject has a felony warrant".

Another possibility for security breach is the chance that the sophisticated encryption can be decoded.

Then they go on to explain how and why it can not be decoded. DUH.

How about stolen police radios? Or fire radios?

I guess they missed the part about how the radios can be disabled if lost or stolen.

Just another journalist with poor research skills who hasn't the slightest idea what they are talking about. That explains why they did not sign the article.

[StereoScout]

Originally Posted by W8RMH

Another idiot blaming encryption on live feeds. Scanners, Encryption, Scrambling, and Criminals for that matter were around long, long before streaming ever existed.

I'm sorry, but I was in a restaurant a couple years ago when some city officials over heard their police transmissions coming from someone's iPhone. They were appalled. Two years later the police transmissions are now encrypted because of it. I asked one of the them in a subsequent visit if this was the reason why they encrypted and they said yes.

[StephenVa]

Originally Posted by W8RMH

Another idiot blaming encryption on live feeds. Scanners, Encryption, Scrambling, and Criminals for that matter were around long, long before streaming ever existed.

I could say you're another idiot not willing to see how live feeds are hurting the hobby. But I won't. It's a double edged sword, but it does nothing for your cause when you attack someone by calling them an idiot when they haven't proven such.

You're right. Scanners, encryption, scrambling, and criminals were around long before live streaming existed. But, billions of smart phones with the ability to hear thousands of public service feeds anywhere you can get a signal all over the world didn't exist. It's an enabler. Apples to oranges my friend. We can go back and forth till we're blue in the face about how much of a black eye live feeds do or do not give the hobby. Fact is it's been brought up somewhere by someone as a reason for going encrypted. And it's not the first nor last time.

If you don't mind could you answer a few questions for me?
1. Why do you provide a live feed(s)? What's the reward/satisfaction/motivation?
2. Did you contact the agency that you live stream before putting the feed up to see how they felt about it or to ask if they were OK with it?
3. Would it bother you if someone used the feed you provide to commit a crime and flee before police arrived?
4. Do you think you should or could be held responsible if a criminal listening to your live feed used it to ambush police or cause harm to any public service responder?

[JoeyC]

The idiot is the one who refuses to acknowledge the practice is accelerating the trend toward encrypting.

[W8RMH]

Originally Posted by StephenVa

I could say you're another idiot not willing to see how live feeds are hurting the hobby. But I won't. It's a double edged sword, but it does nothing for your cause when you attack someone by calling them an idiot when they haven't proven such.

You're right. Scanners, encryption, scrambling, and criminals were around long before live streaming existed. But, billions of smart phones with the ability to hear thousands of public service feeds anywhere you can get a signal all over the world didn't exist. It's an enabler. Apples to oranges my friend. We can go back and forth till we're blue in the face about how much of a black eye live feeds do or do not give the hobby. Fact is it's been brought up somewhere by someone as a reason for going encrypted. And it's not the first nor last time.

If you don't mind could you answer a few questions for me?
1. Why do you provide a live feed(s)? What's the reward/satisfaction/motivation?
2. Did you contact the agency that you live stream before putting the feed up to see how they felt about it or to ask if they were OK with it?
3. Would it bother you if someone used the feed you provide to commit a crime and flee before police arrived?
4. Do you think you should or could be held responsible if a criminal listening to your live feed used it to ambush police or cause harm to any public service responder?

I could say you're another idiot not willing to see how live feeds are hurting the hobby. But I won't

Well you just did.

I think your attacks on me and the 3,386 other feed providers, in addition to all the other members and administrators here at RadioReference are unwarranted, but I will answer your questions.

1 - This is a hobby. Period. I provide a feed with 5 very busy dispatch channels, (they have thousands of channels that they can switch to, and they do, if confidentiality is needed). It would be very difficult to rely on the feed to your advantage if you were trying to monitor all traffic on five different channels at the same time along with the 40 second delay. Believe it or not there are law abiding listeners out there
2 - This is not required. I have spoken to numerous officers and have not received any negative feedback.
3 - This can and is done just as easily with a scanner. Would it bother you if you sold Fords and one was used to run down and kill a pedestrian.
4 - No. This is public information. I don't see any difference in a scanner or a feed. If listening, rather by feed or scanner is that bad, then all scanners should be outlawed, including the ones in your photos.

Why do some agencies stream their own feeds if it is so dangerous?

I think it is hypocritical for people to denounce the services on this website, bash and insult other members who are doing nothing more that all the other feed providers, and continue to be a member and make negative remarks in the forum. If you don't believe in feeds or scanners just delete your account and move on.

[W8RMH]

Originally Posted by JoeyC

The idiot is the one who refuses to acknowledge the practice is accelerating the trend toward encrypting.

Then why is it permitted. The government and RadioReference is just as guilty.

[riflemin]

Thanks Bob, for bringing this article to our attention. It had some points I agree with very much. Thanks , W8RMH for your input. I had thought about putting up a feed of depts in my area but have been discouraged by arguments on this site, however I appreciate your reply to StephenVa's questions. Ive helped some of my co-workers buy scanners but have had others, unwilling to pay the cost for a scanner, "complain" that our locals are not available on a feed they can get on their phone. My concern is streaming TGs that are desirable to listen to , but sometimes carry ops like surveilance - in the clear.

[balibago]

Where is the hacker who will post on an overseas website the source code for emulating Motorolas ADP?.

[balibago]

We need to put these feeders on a famine. Get you a scanner and learn to use it.

[dcr_inc]

If the news media and local LE folks would realize that there is a definate delay in the feed audio, this whole issue would go away..I know there is at least a 20 second delay on all 4 of my feeds, longer if all 4 are streaming together..If the criminal can out run a cop who has a 20 or more second head start, he deserves to win..
Is it a crime for someone in california to listen to an incident in Pennsylvania?..
I will bet that ALL of the complaining folks listened to the feeds in CT and NJ when those events were happening.

[radioman2001]

"Where is the hacker who will post on an overseas website the source code for emulating Motorolas ADP?"

Try over at p25.ca, and yes ADP encryption is bogus, just another way for the drunken bat to keep their customers. I can remember how they said their MDT's were secure, then a program and a simple decoder on the internet caused such a stir that eventually it was the demise of the author. He is dead now, and I believe as a direct result of Motorola sending the feds after him on bogus charges (Ever hear of circuitry being covered by the copyright act?) to give Motorola time to correct the insecurities of their MDT's.

I won't tell you it is possible using today's computers that ADP is crackable. That might bring the feds to my door, so for all those that use ADP think again about feeling secure, when you are not.

[jackj]

If encrypted communications can be decrypted by the intended receiver then it can be decrypted by an unintended receiver. Don't ever think that your communication is secure against all eavesdroppers.

[rapidcharger]

Its like the cops always say... "If you're not doing anything wrong, why are you running?"

I think we all know why they want privacy. It's got absolutely zilch to do with homeland security.

I do see some technical errors in the piece but I'm glad someone is writing about it and helping to get the word out.

[loumaag]

Folks, quit calling other people names. Members or not, it just shows a lack of ability to communicate effectively.

This thread was reported, that is why I am here and since I am posting I will be watching. To the reporter, who is a participant in this thread, speak for yourself alone. Do not think that you speak for other members, much less the staff.

Feed providers do what they do because they want to and it is not illegal. People who think that they are the sole reason for encryption are dreaming, does it accelerate the process, maybe, maybe not. But the point is, blaming this site or the feed providers for the spread of encryption is not going to make encryption go away.

As for the purpose of the article that this thread is supposed to be about, I am sure that the Japanese military were confident that discussing Yamamoto's itinerary in encrypted messages were a great idea in April 1943. We don't know what Yamamoto thought of that but we do know he ignored warnings of possible ambush by the local commanders, so one can assume he was confident that his plans were secure.

[mikepdx]

Some media publish commentaries saying
that encryption is good, monitoring is bad.
They use the usual fear factor to sell the point.

The same media then demands capability to monitor some of those
encrypted channels, and receives a nod from the government who
then permits it.

Now, what if I'm a blogger? I blog daily about the police,
the courts, and crime in my community.
Sometimes I am very critical of the justice system.
Many citizens enjoy the news and commentary at my blog.
No ads, no membership, etc. It's very popular in town.

In many, many people's eyes, I am also the media.
Do I also receive the same nod from the government,
their knowing I am sometimes quite critical of them?
Does it require government approval to be the media?

The government deciding who the media
is and isn't is a dangerous idea.

The government shutting out the public from
monitoring day to day routine traffic is
also a dangerous idea.

A well deserved thanks to the feed providers here at RR.

.

[StephenVa]

Originally Posted by W8RMH

Well you just did.

I think your attacks on me and the 3,386 other feed providers, in addition to all the other members and administrators here at RadioReference are unwarranted, but I will answer your questions.

1 - This is a hobby. Period. I provide a feed with 5 very busy dispatch channels, (they have thousands of channels that they can switch to, and they do, if confidentiality is needed). It would be very difficult to rely on the feed to your advantage if you were trying to monitor all traffic on five different channels at the same time along with the 40 second delay. Believe it or not there are law abiding listeners out there
2 - This is not required. I have spoken to numerous officers and have not received any negative feedback.
3 - This can and is done just as easily with a scanner. Would it bother you if you sold Fords and one was used to run down and kill a pedestrian.
4 - No. This is public information. I don't see any difference in a scanner or a feed. If listening, rather by feed or scanner is that bad, then all scanners should be outlawed, including the ones in your photos.

Why do some agencies stream their own feeds if it is so dangerous?

I think it is hypocritical for people to denounce the services on this website, bash and insult other members who are doing nothing more that all the other feed providers, and continue to be a member and make negative remarks in the forum. If you don't believe in feeds or scanners just delete your account and move on.

Actually I didn't. I stated I could. Do you start all of your conversations defensively? I'm attacking other members, thousands of feed providers and the admin here? Really?

1. If I weed through your answer I'm gathering you do it because to you it's a hobby.
2. I understand it's not required. Is that your reason? Because you don't have to?
3. Apples to oranges again and not an answer. Me listening to my scanner I personally own inside my home is a poor argument against the 168 people that were listening to your feed when I asked this question last night. That's 168 people you probably don't know listening to your scanner that you personally own.
4. Apples to orange for the 3rd time.

So what you're saying here is that since I have different views on things I should just delete my account and leave. Because you say so?

[StephenVa]

Originally Posted by dcr_inc

I will bet that ALL of the complaining folks listened to the feeds in CT and NJ when those events were happening.

You'd lose that bet.

[StephenVa]

Originally Posted by mikepdx

Some media publish commentaries saying
that encryption is good, monitoring is bad.
They use the usual fear factor to sell the point.

The same media then demands capability to monitor some of those
encrypted channels, and receives a nod from the government who
then permits it.

Now, what if I'm a blogger? I blog daily about the police,
the courts, and crime in my community.
Sometimes I am very critical of the justice system.
Many citizens enjoy the news and commentary at my blog.
No ads, no membership, etc. It's very popular in town.

In many, many people's eyes, I am also the media.
Do I also receive the same nod from the government,
their knowing I am sometimes quite critical of them?
Does it require government approval to be the media?

The government deciding who the media
is and isn't is a dangerous idea.

The government shutting out the public from
monitoring day to day routine traffic is
also a dangerous idea.

A well deserved thanks to the feed providers here at RR.

.

Being critical of law enforcement or reporting on something they've already done is not the same. Past time is not real time (even if there is a 3-30 second delay). Just more fruit comparisons. The point is regardless if the media reports of criminals using smart phone apps is hogwash or not folks are and will use it as an excuse for encryption. Imagine if some very bad person did some very bad thing while using a scanner app to listen to the local police. Now imagine the media gets hold of it. I imagine scanner legislation would be a whole lot easier to pass than gun regulation. It's a totally blown out of proportion example but it's possible. Look how they've scooped up the fight on guns after the CT incident. They use a tragedy to make money and further agendas. And it works very well.