State of MN going Encrypted???

Status
Not open for further replies.

ryolsen8

Member
Feed Provider
Joined
May 1, 2011
Messages
472
Location
BEE07
I've heard a rumor from a friend who is a FF in CG. He said that Washington County is going Encrypted by the end of this year. He also said that the whole State will eventually do the same. '

Can anyone confirm this??? I really don't want it to happen, all that money we put into our Digital Scanners down the drain!!
 

troymail

Silent Key
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
9,981
Location
Supply (Lockwood Inlet area), NC
Perhaps.

On the other hand, some folks think going digital or to Phase 2 means people can't listen and equate that to encryption (encoding vs. encryption). I've even heard some users on a Motorola "private call" speak as if the conversation was encrypted (probably because it wasn't on a talkgroup that other could hear) - it wasn't.

I wouldn't worry about something that may or may not happen.... just enjoy.
 

NDRADIONUT

Member
Database Admin
Joined
Jan 9, 2005
Messages
1,952
Location
FARGO ND
I heard from jw and lc and sl that the state of mn doesnt say anything worthy of encryption...
 

wogggieee

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
1,383
Location
Hugo , MN
I'd suspect its mostly cost prohibitive and it solves a relatively minor issue. To me the cost seems greater than the benefit.
 

ryolsen8

Member
Feed Provider
Joined
May 1, 2011
Messages
472
Location
BEE07
Perhaps.

On the other hand, some folks think going digital or to Phase 2 means people can't listen and equate that to encryption (encoding vs. encryption). I've even heard some users on a Motorola "private call" speak as if the conversation was encrypted (probably because it wasn't on a talkgroup that other could hear) - it wasn't.

I wouldn't worry about something that may or may not happen.... just enjoy.

As the saying goes "I'll believe it, when I see it"

Thanks, I agree, I will enjoy untill something happens!
 

mmtstc

Ø
Joined
Aug 3, 2005
Messages
861
Location
Minneapolis Area
The state has actually been opposed to ENC of non-investigative or non-tactical team talkgroups. Troopers dont even have ENC on their mobile radios unless they are on a special operations group.

Cost isn't really even much of the issue. the primary issue is interop, and that was the selling point on this system to begin with.
 
Last edited:

tjkruck

Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2010
Messages
15
Location
Monticello, Minnesota
The state has actually been opposed to ENC of non-investigative or non-tactical team talkgroups. Troopers dont even have ENC on their mobile radios unless they are on a special operations group.

Could you possibly cite, or is this inside source?

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2
 

mmtstc

Ø
Joined
Aug 3, 2005
Messages
861
Location
Minneapolis Area
There was a big discussion regarding it in SE a couple of years ago. I looked at a couple sets of meeting minutes, but honestly, don't have the time to snoop through every set of meeting minutes to find the info.

KB0UXV was actually on the SE encryption subcommittee, so he may be the best source, otherwise, i am sure that we have discussed this topic ad nauseum about every 3 months in this forum. Surely a search will send you in the right direction.
 

stmills

Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
1,108
Location
Twin Cites Area MN
This topic reappears every 3-6. There was encryption in use prior to ARMER at similar levels to what is encrypted on ARMER.
It took months to get new Statewide Encrypted Tac groups using a standard shared DES key approved and it will be over a year until they are fully deployed. These groups were created due to the amount of task force traffic that was ending up on Ltacs and Ptacs in the clear. Encryption is currently not allowed on statewide interop talkgroups other than the designatd Encrypted groups.
Motorola ADP gets talked about as an option, but it is only supported on Motorola Equipment, and it is not supported on the Gold Elite Consoles which will not be phased out of the system until 2015.
I see TDMA channels as a greater threat to easily scanning ARMER than encryption and the State has not even decided if they will add TDMA at this time.
 

ScanWI

MN & WI DB Admin
Database Admin
Joined
Feb 6, 2009
Messages
916
Location
Wisconsin
The main thing to remember when talking to a end user about their radio system is that they know they have a radio that works. Many don't understand that TAC doesn't mean encrypted. So I would be very careful about getting radio information and future upgrade information from FF's or LEO's.

I highly doubt the whole state would go ENC, they are way over budget the way it is. TDMA would come before ENC if they decide to go that route.
 

troymail

Silent Key
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
9,981
Location
Supply (Lockwood Inlet area), NC
The main thing to remember when talking to a end user about their radio system is that they know they have a radio that works. Many don't understand that TAC doesn't mean encrypted. So I would be very careful about getting radio information and future upgrade information from FF's or LEO's.

Yes!
http://forums.radioreference.com/mi...054-state-mn-going-encrypted.html#post2008896

I hear people clearly tell another user over the channel "this is encrypted" (if it were I wouldn't have been able to hear him say that.....)
 

mike6454

Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2005
Messages
15
Location
Eagan,MN
I heard about 1 year ago that phase 2 of ARMERS was going to be TDMA 1&2
Then someone added that the PSR-800 will pickup TDMA 1,2
I must have misnderstood
What exactly is phase 2 of ARMER?
 

stmills

Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
1,108
Location
Twin Cites Area MN
The ARMER system was built in phases
Phase 1 was the original Metro system and Phase 2 was the expansion of the Metro.
Phase 3 was Southeast and Central MN
Phase 4 was Arrowhead
Phase 5 Southwest and West Central
Phase 6 was the Northwest.
 

JASII

Memory Capacity
Joined
Apr 29, 2006
Messages
2,985
State Of MN Going Encrypted?

Then we will get the confusion of MN ARMER Phase 2 vs. APCO P25 Phase 2!
 

kb0uxv

Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
230
Location
Minnesota
The main suggested best practice that came out of the encryption discussions (both state and regional levels) was to keep mains clear and strap encrypt certain tactical talkgroups if the radio is capable. Interoperability typically takes a higher priority than security especially in real priority events. But with that said, many of the late comers to ARMER did invest in encryption – and much of that has to do with the RR scanner feeds. This was not as much of an issue when the early metro users came on, but as the feeds became more popular it became an issue. Experience shows the average criminal either can’t afford the trunking scanner or does not have the knowledge to program it, but the scanner feeds are easy for them.
 

wogggieee

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
1,383
Location
Hugo , MN
How many cases have there actually been where the criminal was using a stream? I've only heard of one last year. It seems to me they wouldnt be terribly useful for avoiding the police. They typically have a number of different channels and it would be easy to miss something, and then you'd have to know all the lingo and such. If you're actually being chased it usually goes to a tac channel which by the terms of service are not supposed to be in a scanner feed, the main reason I dont make my stream public.
 

kb0uxv

Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
230
Location
Minnesota
I am not aware of any examples of someone using a feed while being chased. The points you mentioned, and the feed's audio delay, would probably be in the ARMER user's favor. The example I know about are more focused on drug and property crimes (burglaries). Sometimes the criminal group uses one member, who may not even be at the scene of the crime, to listen to the feed and phone or text the people on the scene when traffic is heard that threatens the criminal event.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top