APCO-25 Phase 2

mike6454 · #1 (**permalink**) 02-02-2012, 01:01 PM

With phase 2 APCO-25 now out,does anyone know when the MN ARMER will be in phase 2?
Looks like there are 2 types of phase 2
to date the only scanner to pickup one of the 2 is the PSR-800
Anyone have better information on this and our area?

northscan23 · #2 (**permalink**) 02-02-2012, 03:49 PM

I would imagine it probably won't happen for a while. Maybe 10 years down the road? Phase II is not being widely used yet. Once it does(if it does) then the Minnesota public safety will migrate to it.

vf702 · #3 (**permalink**) 02-02-2012, 07:24 PM

There are a lot of ARMER radios that can't do Phase II. It will take a few years to be adopted.

MikeOxlong · #4 (**permalink**) 02-02-2012, 07:36 PM

A Phase II system can support Phase I radios without any problems.

They could upgrade the system at any time and agencies could migrate as money permits.

N0WEF · #5 (**permalink**) 02-02-2012, 07:54 PM

Well, considering it took 5+yrs just to get the first ring suburbs migrated to phase1. Even when it starts, expect it to crawl along.

kb0uxv · #6 (**permalink**) 02-02-2012, 08:33 PM

ARMER can support x2 TDMA now, the talkgroups are set up for dual mode. The mode will auto change when all radios on a TG are x2 capable (APX line). More agencies are upgrading to capable radios, and adding encryption too. Much of the encryption upgrades are do to this website. Just last weekend we were hunting a warrant, extensive surveillance detail, and he never showed up - and the next day we noticed the suspect's facebook page had a comment from a friend saying "don't go home the scanner says there are undercover cops there." This is the type of story that gets brought up at committee meetings with decision makers, and why things are changing.

Radio Reference is its own worst enemy.

N0WEF · #7 (**permalink**) 02-02-2012, 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kb0uxv

Radio Reference is its own worst enemy.

As much as I wish I could argue with you, I can't.

Farscan · #8 (**permalink**) 02-03-2012, 12:06 AM

We all forget, that the info we enjoy listening to can be also heard by the bad guys. It is hard to believe the undercovers gave out his address though. In certain instances encryption, or simplex 800mhz, can also hide the transmissions, if they don't know where to look for weak signals. Sometimes the undercovers are too obvious also, for those that think they are being watched they easily spot them.

stmills · #9 (**permalink**) 02-03-2012, 07:53 AM

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows CE; IEMobile 8.12; MSIEMobile 6.0) Sprint S511)

Radio Reference has brought scanning to a new audiance, stackouts and SWAT teams are not going to end up broadcast by RR if they are on tactical channels as those are not streamed. Too many time I have heard too much info over the air. I have been working with radios sine the mid 80's and have dispatched and have set up analog radio systems for surveilance groups. Two big issues I have seen are mixed mode channels that have both encryption and clear traffic- and the use of open channels -PTACs etc by teams used to secure channels. Tactical and surveilance should be on hard encrypted only talkgroups only and units that are used to secure channels should need to be constantly reminded about use of open channels. This is a problem at all levels of LE. I was amazed a few years ago when I came across 3 letter Feds on vhf analog clear tracking terrorism suspect, who now in Federal prison, for multiple days. The option to turnencryption on or off on a talkgroup is one of the biggest threats to operation security.

N0WEF · #10 (**permalink**) 02-03-2012, 11:49 AM

"stackouts and SWAT teams are not going to end up broadcast by RR if they are on tactical channels as those are not streamed."

This (Sadly) isn't 100% true. We've all seen complaints in the live audio forum complaining of "Illegal" feeds... Though, I usually have found it occurs due to an incident that causes the feed provider to add TAC channels, and then he forgets to take them out.

kb0uxv · #11 (**permalink**) 02-03-2012, 12:17 PM

I did not know that RR rules prohibit feed providers from airing tac channels. I checked the live audio forum that N0WEF mentioned and noticed this thread that spells out the rules:

Feed Provider Terms of Service - What can and cannot be broadcast

I should note, that in the above case the issue was a scanner, not an internet feed. The old digital scanners were nice in the regard that they were too complicated for the average meth addict to figure out, but now the Home Patrols have changed that...

kc0rwz · #12 (**permalink**) 02-03-2012, 12:29 PM

Quote:

The old digital scanners were nice in the regard that they were too complicated for the average meth addict to figure out, but now the Home Patrols have changed that...

LOL too funny but true, they do not sleep no? Should have plenty of time to figure out a 996XT.

The whole argument is similar to the gun argument, if you ban guns, only criminals will have guns.. same with scanners I suppose.

Personally I think LE should encrypt everything?? Why do they not? When I was in the Air Force we tried encryption during Nuclear exercises... seemed we had many problems with radio's holding keys.

N0WEF · #13 (**permalink**) 02-03-2012, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kb0uxv

The old digital scanners were nice in the regard that they were too complicated for the average meth addict to figure out, but now the Home Patrols have changed that...

Just rest assured, before to long they will have taken them apart to "see how they work"

LOL!

Sorry to get excited about the feeds, 3 recent events nearly caused me to have a seizure... (Hearing, and knowing the bad guy heard TAC stuff aired on a feed)

kb0uxv · #14 (**permalink**) 02-03-2012, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kc0rwz

LOL too funny but true, they do not sleep no? Should have plenty of time to figure out a 996XT.

The whole argument is similar to the gun argument, if you ban guns, only criminals will have guns.. same with scanners I suppose.

Personally I think LE should encrypt everything?? Why do they not? When I was in the Air Force we tried encryption during Nuclear exercises... seemed we had many problems with radio's holding keys.

It comes down to money, its around $700 to add DES-OFB or AES to the radios. For interoperability, the regional and state stuff is forced clear. As stmills points out, it becomes a mess if some have it on and others have radios that can't do it. The key thing is a problem, if you do not enable the radio to have "infinite key retention." Many gov users force the radio to dump keys on power off or battery removal, that way if the radio is lost or stolen the security of the voice coms will not be compromised for long.

northscan23 · #15 (**permalink**) 02-03-2012, 04:12 PM

I also do think that some police broadcast too much info on the open channels. Like airing the name of the reporting party and giving out their phone number(that should be a no no!!). That is why they should use the MDC's or switch over the the encrypted channels in those situations. I think Duluth and St. Louis County are doing it the right way by using the MDC's. Why does it not seem to be a common practice among the other local deparments(aka.. Superior, Douglas County)?

N0WEF · #16 (**permalink**) 02-03-2012, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kb0uxv

and the next day we noticed the suspect's facebook page had a comment from a friend saying "don't go home the scanner says there are undercover cops there."

Sorry to rehash something, but wouldn't this be a crime? I can't remember off the top of my head if it's State, or Fed law. But I seem to remember it's illegal to use a scanner in commission of a crime, and it's illegal to disclose the communications heard to a third party.

Just thinking it would be nice to get that HP1 "off the streets." Not to mention the "gentleman" who chose to help/aide his lowlife friend.

stmills · #17 (**permalink**) 02-03-2012, 06:57 PM

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows CE; IEMobile 8.12; MSIEMobile 6.0) Sprint S511)

MN Statute 609.856 covers use of police radio incommision of a crime. I believe there is also Federal law on this subject which covers the disclosure of radio traffic.

N0WEF · #18 (**permalink**) 02-03-2012, 07:07 PM

That was the one I was thinking of. Thanks, ST.

Sorry if my last post seems like overkill, but it would be nice to hear someone like this was punished.

stmills · #19 (**permalink**) 02-03-2012, 07:43 PM

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows CE; IEMobile 8.12; MSIEMobile 6.0) Sprint S511)

I do not think it is overkill at all- that was one of my thought in first reading this post. I would hope all legitimate scanner users would support the prosecution of those who are using police scanners to assist in illegal activities.

blue5011 · #20 (**permalink**) 02-07-2012, 06:33 PM

Other than a "stake out", there is very little the LEO's do that needs to be encrypted. After all they work for the "people" and we should be able to hear incompetence or excellence. That being said, the enforcement community as a whole has also migrated to cellphone and text based traffic.

As far as moving on to another phase, half the state is still on the older systems. A county next to me has only one operating ARMER site and two more that are in the construction stage. I know everyone is supposed to be updating. Big city folks have to realize that things are slower out here in the sticks.

We have a decent state radio system here, let's just get everyone on board. Check out what is being said about the "Open Sky" system in Wisconsin, maybe the glitches will get worked out...