brianearlspilner
Member
Heard them on their tac frequency today: 460.07500 transmitting in Digital, which is odd. Can't figure out whats going on. Nothing on the dispatch channel. Possibly a test?
San Gabriel PD digital? 460.07500
- Thread starter brianearlspilner
- Start date
- Status
icis_monitor
Member
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2006
- Messages
- 123
I saw an email this morning that they went dogital encrypted for all their stuff. no more interoperability.
Why do you say "no more interoperability"? Encrypting their channels doesn't mean they don't have interoperability with other UHF agencies.
brianearlspilner
Member
Shame. 460.17500 with a NAC of A7D. Digital.... Add them to the list of encrypted agencies...
Don't get why they need it though.... A lot of the calls were boring.
Don't get why they need it though.... A lot of the calls were boring.
Last edited:
brianearlspilner
Member
Happened to scan them yesterday. They were totally in the clear, but today, the dispatch side is encrypted and the officers side is unencrypted. Interesting.
A lot of all agencies' calls are boring, but a lot of calls also include totally unverified and often unfounded information, as well as private and identifiable information such as names and home addresses of crime victims and witnesses, as well as of potential suspects who sometimes turn out to not be involved at all.
In my dispatching career, I no doubt broadcasted - and untold numbers of scanner listeners heard from me (over the official and seemingly "accurate and believable" police department radio) - many hundreds of those calls and messages that eventually turned out to be inaccurate, exaggerated or just plain false. But the listening public seldom heard that part of the story. We had to act on and dispatch the raw, unfiltered information we received, but its accuracy often took a long time to determine, and the junk information had already been told... a bell we were unable to un-ring.
Innocent victims and/or uninvolved peoples' privacy is sometimes completely ignored when the topic of "shameful" encryption comes up.
Last edited:
brianearlspilner
Member
You bring up a good point, but has there ever been a case of someone's identity getting stolen from police calls? Maybe there has been a few, IDK. But, that isn't the main reason why agencies are going encrypted. Officer safety is the number one reason that comes to mind. I don't mind if sensitive info gets encrypted. That is none of my business. But if a perp is running away from the cops and he happens to be in my neighborhood, I would like to at least know. Encryption not only shuts out the criminals, it also shuts out the law-abiding citizens.
Pomona PD has it right, they leave the dispatch channel open and encrypt the other channels.
Last edited:
Nope, I've never heard of identity theft from a police radio call, but I've heard concerns about crooks - especially gang types - getting witnesses' addresses off the radio, with the obvious complications THAT could lead to. Likewise with certain sex and child-related crimes where victims' names/addresses are theoretically not "public record" but are broadcast for the whole town (and now the whole world via the internet) to hear.
Similarly, I understand that some years ago LAFD had their ambulances quit reporting to which hospitals they were taking crime victims, at least partly out of concern for their safety. I believe they either MDC it or use a code system if they ID the hospitals by voice... which is fairly useless, of course; voiced codes can be figured out in a fairly short time without a lot of brainpower.
While it occurred much more recently that the overall privacy issue has been on my mind, just a couple months ago late one night I heard on my scanner the local sheriff's deppities being dispatched here to MY house for a "domestic violence in progress" call. Seemed odd to me, as I was home alone and treating myself entirely kindly at my computer. So I turned on my porch light and a couple interior lights and awaited their arrival. Mind you, this is in a town of fewer that 10,000 people, so there are plenty of folks who know me and where I live, and being semi-rural, scanners are a popular form of entertainment.
Anyway the deputies arrived and I waited for their knock before opening the door, and they asked if they could come in. I promptly volunteered that I'd heard their call on the scanner, but "I'm the only one home, my wife's in L.A." and let them look around, which they did and after ID'ing me they went on their way. I never heard them dispo the call over the air (they have MDC's up here and probably did it that way), and never heard a word about the call from anyone. No harm, no foul, no loss, but it coulda been an unnecessary embarrassment had it occurred earlier in the evening.
I'm not advocating encryption - I've been buying and enjoying listening to "scanners" for better than 45 years - before they ever scanned, and it was listening to LAPD "police calls" that got me into the police dispatching business. I was simply calling attention to one aspect of the public broadcasting of even so-called "routine" calls that's not often considered or mentioned. And I've quit beating my wife, even when she's home
ON topic:Having grown up in the area, San Gabriel PD, KMA440, was one of my early listening "targets" in the early 1960s. They shared 45.18 MHz with Alhambra KMA935 and Monterey Park KMA936. Their fire departments also shared a frequency, 46.50, under KMK565, KME405 and KMK857. The big problem in those days was the crummy antennas for the crummy $25 low-band monitors, which made even LAFD hard to pick up.
Last edited:
brianearlspilner
Member
Well said, KMA 367. I'm glad you chimed in and clarified things. It is interesting to see a dispatcher's point of view on things. Anyways, this is what I listened to from them the other night, when they were looking for a missing person.
Officer 1: Could you give me a description of the missing subject?
Officer 2: (encryption alien noises)
Officer 1: Copy
Now, would that be a justified case of encryption?
Officer 1: Could you give me a description of the missing subject?
Officer 2: (encryption alien noises)
Officer 1: Copy
Now, would that be a justified case of encryption?
Last edited:
I learned long ago not to leap to conclusions without knowing the entire context and totality of circumstances of an incident, but absent some complications we don't know about (possible family involvement/childstealing, known potential suspect being sought or surveilled, ransom or other demands,person's mental condition (suicide threats or past attempts?) etc etc etc), I wouldn't think a "typical" missing person with no foul play suspected would in itself lead to a decision to encrypt.
On another forum I read that San Gabriel PD had been encrypting most or all of their traffic a week or so ago, so it's possible that "Officer 2's" radio was still set to transmit in encrypted mode and he didn't realize it. Or he may have had some sensitive information other than the missing person's description that he felt would best be kept confidential. As is so often the case, just too many "maybe's" for me to even hazard an opinion about whether it was justified.
brianearlspilner
Member
Yeah, I noticed they love to use it on and off, on the dispatch side or the officer's side.
Last edited:
Simi Valley PD did the exact same thing for a number of weeks in 2006/07 after they went to their digital system, testing various combinations of encrypted and unencrypted traffic to, from, and between dispatchers and field units. Last time I visited there a few months ago they had settled down to mostly unencrypted, but switching to encryption occasionally during hot calls, probably for tactical purposes.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/socalscan/messages/52969?threaded=1&m=e&var=1&tidx=1
Up this thread it is said that San Gabriel PD is using digital with a NAC of A7D. I find it interesting that nowhere in San Gabriel's FCC licenses do I see authorization to using digital at all. Some types of encryption are possible on analog frequencies however, and encryption wouldn't be addressed in their licenses either way.
KMA440, their police frequencies, provides for only analog voice: 20K0F3E San Gabriel PD's license
Likewise their Fire frequency KNED334: San Gabriel FD's license
And what I assume is Public Works, WQAW471: ULS License - Public Safety Pool, Conventional License - WQAW471 - SAN GABRIEL, CITY OF - Frequencies Summary - the 11K2F3E is also FM analog voice, but narrowband.
And there are no pending applications of any kind from the city of San Gabriel in the FCC database from the past two years.
Last edited:
brianearlspilner
Member
Interesting, I did not know that in order to use digital, they have to file an application.
hpycmpr
Member
I learned some disconcerting news a few days ago from a knowing source regarding LA RICS when it becomes operational in a few years. LASD and possibly LAPD will go encrypted not so much because scanner listeners cause a problem, but because of internet listeners who are not in the hobby and just like to cause problems at the scene. Apparently this is a growing problem.
Steve
Steve
That really shouldn't come as any surprise at all. With such a huge system planning to include dozens of agencies, it's only logical that encryption CAPABILITIES will be at least an option if not a requirement for the law enforcement side. From what I understand, each department will maintain its independence and continue to operate its own system in however way they choose (and encrypt what they want to encrypt), and use the interoperability features only as often as needed.
I would be more surprised if encryption WASN'T included in their toolbox than if it is.
hpycmpr
Member
I was meaning to say that the decision to go encrypted has already been made by LASD. That can change in the future but circumstances presently don't look good. The price difference for encryption capability is not significant and I suspect would be included for most agencies purchases. It's an individual agency's choice to encrypt or not.
Based on several posts recently I'm going to add that there is no relationship between encryption and interoperability. Within a radio they are different channels or talk groups.
Steve
Based on several posts recently I'm going to add that there is no relationship between encryption and interoperability. Within a radio they are different channels or talk groups.
Steve
It may be growing, but it's certainly not new. :roll:
LAPD started using radios 80 years ago, on May 1, 1931, and within two months the problem had already begun...
hpycmpr
Member
Wow, you are a wealth of info. It reminds me of my intro to the hobby hearing LAPD on an image on the AM dial many years ago. I didn't know I was missing out on the social scene;>)
Thanks
Steve
Thanks
Steve
You're most welcome. If your early listening was before Aug 13, 1965, the AM signal wasn't an image at all... their downlink freq for the metropolitan area was 1730 kcs AM until that date, when they turned it off during the Watts riots. All the cars and motors had finally gotten their VHF receivers installed just recently, and the higher-ups decided they didn't need to be broadcasting their calls and tactics (such as they were) to everyone with a transistor radio.
Oh, I missed most of that social scene too... I go back a ways, but not quite to 1931!
hpycmpr
Member
Somewhere around 1952. And I was picking it up about 900 Kc long before scanners. Ah - the old days. But we digress.
Steve
Steve
- Status
Similar threads
