Options Versus Encryption

[zerg901]

Many people are posting messages that seem to say - ' we must end all scanner feeds or the police will encrypt everything '.

There are other options.

1. Ask your local media to put up scanner feeds. (See wickedlocal.com in Boston Mass area as an example)

2. Ask the local public safety agencies to put up scanner feeds.

3. Ask the politicians to pass laws to keep encryption in check.

4. Ask civil rights lawyers to get involved. The Boston federal district court recently told the public that it is the public's job to monitor the police. (the case about videoing cops making arrests)

5. Ask the politicians to pass laws requiring all safety agencies to put scanner streams online.

6. Elect only politicians who are pro openness.

7. Ask the media to run stories highlighting the critical nature of open scanning.

8. Ask the media to put pressure on politicians to keep scanning open.

More ???

 

[MTS2000des]

These are all great solutions, I think the biggest thing that is the thorn in the side is the unauthorized recording and re-distribution of recordings of the radio traffic that encourages, if you will, agencies to consider encrypting.

Political ramifications aside, they just don't like it. I see it from both sides. For years the "golden rule" of scanning was you never publicly divulge what you hear. Distributing or re-broadcasting without permission is just that: divulging it publicly.

So when the affordable option is on the table to encrypt all radio traffic to keep it from being recorded and re-broadcasted without consent, they take it (ala ADP on Astro 25 sysems).

Official feeds are a great start, but if we as radio hobbyists want to be looked at as just hobbyists and not a thorn in the side of public safety, the unauthorized recording and public re-distribution there-of needs to come to an end. Otherwise, there will be less and less to scan in the near future.

I find it no coincidence that Newtown, CT started using encryption frequently in the wake of the MCI, especially after someone chose (poorly IMO) to make public recordings of their radio traffic, and did not bother to seek the approval of the agency or parties involved.

the whole "right to monitor" mantra falls on deaf ears. The public does not have a "right" to monitor in real time any electronic communications our government uses, just as you can't request to be CC'ed on every email your gov't officials send, or text messages- but you can always file and open records request and follow the procedures under the law to get copies in due process, pay the costs associated, and get the results. That is the answer you will get from them, and what they will tell the media.

If there is any substantiative argument against total encryption, it is the loss of interagency mutual aid and locking out nearby agencies who may monitor your agency from being an asset and pro-active. But even this can be negated when 911 centers do mass notifications through mobile data systems. But it is much more compelling than "we just want to listen in".

The reality is technology is to the point where digital radio makes encryption integral, affordable and just a click of the mouse away.

 

[kb2vxa]

I hate to pin your bubble but it'll never fly.

1. Ask your local media to put up scanner feeds.
They use scanners to tip them off to breaking news. Being the intermediary why would they want the public to scoop them?

2. Ask the local public safety agencies to put up scanner feeds.
Do you really think they would spend money on something they passionately hate?

3. Ask the politicians to pass laws to keep encryption in check.
That'll be the day, since it's an FCC mandate they can't do anything about it.

4. Ask civil rights lawyers to get involved.
What does Civil Rights have to do with it?

5. Ask the politicians to pass laws requiring all safety agencies to put scanner streams online.
You've GOT to be kidding.

6. Elect only politicians who are pro openness.
Name one, just one.

7. Ask the media to run stories highlighting the critical nature of open scanning.
They already do.

8. Ask the media to put pressure on politicians to keep scanning open.
Neither the media nor politicians will touch this being it runs contrary to law.

Bottom line, encryption of transmissions of a sensitive nature is law and no way in hell can anyone dictate to those agencies what is sensitive and what is not. If they think everything is sensitive that's their decision, live with it.

 

[JoeyC]

A wild imagination

The only options there are - are simple.

1. Keep your mouth (or typing fingers) in check about what you hear over public safety radio.
2. Don't stream radio traffic that you haven't been given permission to stream.
3. Stay away from "scenes" that you have no business being at.
4. Deal with it. Its perfectly legal.

 

[ilgrant]

Too bad many others don't get it, JoeyC. But I like what you said!

 

[zerg901]

I thought of a couple more.
'
1. Teach law students and politicians about scanners.

2. Set up a website dedicated to preserving free scanning.

3. Teach high school students about openness, genocide and war prevention, and the rule of law.

4. Ask media websites to provide links to Radio Reference scanner feeds (such as the Lowell Sun in Massachusetts does).

Note - someone said that the FCC mandated encryption - ??????? - never ever heard that before.

 

[kb2vxa]

Well you heard it now, I don't recall just when it was a couple of decades ago the FCC mandated that all transmissions OF A SENSITIVE NATURE (emphasis mine) be encrypted. No problem there and I'm all for it BUT the problem under endless discussion is some agencies regard all transmissions as sensitive. Like why encrypt Animal Control as if stray dogs run around with scanners?

That having been said we now return you to our regularly scheduled absurdity.

 

[scannersnstuff]

1. Teach law students and politicians about scanners.

for the most part they could care less. ! .

 

[zerg901]

73 de Warren - you might be thinking over a federal mandate for federal agencies to use encryption. I think this is the current local guidance document - https://docs.google.com/open?id=1eusmR9auOt9wltc36yVjwskWgpkgxa97S9jZM2bF-J6HfvjBAF5ylqDAHvF1 - you can search it for "encryption" - seems that encryption is not required - but if encryption is used, it should be P25/AES compatible

 

[zerg901]

MTS2000 said - The reality is technology is to the point where digital radio makes encryption integral, affordable and just a click of the mouse away.

And blowing up the entire world is only a click of a mouse away - but that doesnt make it acceptable, smart, or right.

This thread is about preventing further unwarranted use of encryption. Perhaps other discussions can go into other threads.

 

[SCPD]

Zerg901 is pursuing the right approach. Encryption is a policy issue, not a technology issue. How well do you know your local politics (and local politicians)? Maybe it's time to learn.

Here's a crazy idea ... pass a law requiring all encrypted traffic to be recorded. After all, it may be needed for civil and/or criminal matters. The public and media can file a subpoena, motion for discovery, or open records request to get the audio. Fines and penalties for failing to provide the audio. Communications in the clear would not be subject to this extra burden.

 

[NYRHKY94]

I want to thank Unitrunker for bringing up a very important distinction regarding the Encryption discussion (regardless of which thread this has been discussed in). Encryption of all communications (not just sensitive operations) is in essence a "policy decision". While a given public safety department's views on this matter (Chief or otherwise) may be the initial impetus behind a move to full encryption, the decision to do so ultimately rests with those who that same department/Chief report to: City Mayor, Town Manager/Town Council, County Executives etc.

Technology and cost aside, it's the elected political powers that be that are making the final call as to whether or not all communications will be Encrypted. These same elected officials are also responsible for maintaining a certain level of transparency in their government operations - including allowing their consituents (public/media) some level of access.

I personally believe this is where the dialogue around this whole issue needs to move to. Like any other policy decision, it's encumbant that our government officials strive to find a healthy balance between the need to protect officer safety and the right of those they serve (the public) to have transparency in the government they pay for.

That compromise for lack of a better word is somewhere in the middle IMO. Encryption of sensitive operations if a department so desires/needs and leave day-to-day patrol activities in the clear.

 

[awattam]

Many people are posting messages that seem to say - ' we must end all scanner feeds or the police will encrypt everything '.

I partially agree with this. I saw a newspaper report about an agency that is considering encryption because people can hear now transmissions using cell phone apps. Considering the number of cell phones versus number of scanners, I can see where this could be a problem. I know feed providers arent to blame for cell phone apps that use their feeds.

Could there be a way for the feeds to require a password to access maybe?

On a side note, our local police department uses encryption for peoples personal data like addreses and phone numbers which really isnt that bad. You still hear the incidents just not private stuff.

 

[SCPD]

2. Ask the local public safety agencies to put up scanner feeds.

You may get a result like this ...

http://m.myrecordjournal.com/mobile/meriden/article_6e71f0f8-d05b-11e0-ac5b-001cc4c002e0.html

Kendzior supports Meriden Police Department's plans for encrypting radio transmissions

... Or this ...

Pasadena City Council to weigh in on police transparency - Pasadena Star-News

http://www.hamtramckreview.com/2011/05/in-hamtramck-police-scanners-are-now-a-thing-of-the-past/

You won't know if you don't try.

 

[SCPD]

I see a theme here. Local government is open to compromise if and when concerns are raised (and there is always next election term when they dont).

http://www.coloradoan.com/article/2...rypting-police-chatter-threatens-transparency

Public information in your Nation’s Capital: Encryption of police communications, fire department Twitter feed goes dark, cameras seized by police. What does it all mean? A guest column by Gerald Baron. | STATter911.com

www.durhamregion.com iPhone : Over and out: Durham's fire communications will soon be encrypted like police radio | mobile_news

When scanners fall silent -  Toronto article - News - MSN CA