RadioReference on Facebook   RadioReference on Twitter   RadioReference Blog
 

Go Back   The RadioReference.com Forums > The RadioReference Tavern > Off Topic Wireless


Off Topic Wireless - If it receives or transmits and it doesn't fit in anywhere else, WayneH will probably move it here

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #941 (permalink)  
Old 01-13-2018, 2:53 PM
tumegpc's Avatar
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Southern Oregon
Posts: 790
Default

Lets not sugar coat anything. You've got two well respected scanner companies that are doing their best to compete with today's technology. I'm talking about Broadcastify and streaming. Nothing has cast a shadow more on the scanner industry then streaming. It's ironic that you have RadioReference that has helped take scanning to the next level and now Broadcastify that is doing the opposite.

What is the future ? Total encryption and the only way to monitor any public safety is being a Premium Subscription member.
__________________
TRX-1 ~ TRX-2
436HP ~ 536HP
Reply With Quote
Sponsored links
  #942 (permalink)  
Old 01-13-2018, 4:22 PM
Member
   
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: In the 'patch
Posts: 4,958
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tumegpc View Post
What is the future ? Total encryption and the only way to monitor any public safety is being a Premium Subscription member.

How do you figure? If its all encrypted, how will comma be streamed???



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
Interoperatablity is not a technology, it is an attitude!!!
Reply With Quote
  #943 (permalink)  
Old 01-13-2018, 8:07 PM
Citywide173's Avatar
Member
  Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Attleboro, MA
Posts: 1,244
Default

This is a start....just need to get the first one passed and hope it catches on.

https://forums.radioreference.com/co...-colorado.html
__________________
Ed Burke
KD1EMS WQRD823
Reply With Quote
  #944 (permalink)  
Old 01-14-2018, 5:58 PM
tumegpc's Avatar
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Southern Oregon
Posts: 790
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kayn1n32008 View Post
How do you figure? If its all encrypted, how will comma be streamed???


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
My thoughts were that Broadcastify were to get agencies to offer non - encrypted comms (even though encrypted to general public ). Broadcastify would offer members access for a fee. So basically all public safety comms that are encrypted - Broacastify would pay a fee and then turn around and charge the scanner enthusiast.
__________________
TRX-1 ~ TRX-2
436HP ~ 536HP
Reply With Quote
  #945 (permalink)  
Old 01-14-2018, 6:05 PM
KK4JUG's Avatar
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: West Georgia
Posts: 1,494
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tumegpc View Post
My thoughts were that Broadcastify were to get agencies to offer non - encrypted comms (even though encrypted to general public ). Broadcastify would offer members access for a fee. So basically all public safety comms that are encrypted - Broacastify would pay a fee and then turn around and charge the scanner enthusiast.
You're assuming an awful lot or as they say in court, "you're assuming facts not in evidence."
__________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read this in English, thank a vet.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored links
  #946 (permalink)  
Old 01-14-2018, 6:23 PM
tumegpc's Avatar
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Southern Oregon
Posts: 790
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KK4JUG View Post
You're assuming an awful lot or as they say in court, "you're assuming facts not in evidence."
I think this conversation has taking a turn away from my initial thought. I was thinking more of the possibilities with our current technology. Pro and cons , just a hypothetical scenario .
__________________
TRX-1 ~ TRX-2
436HP ~ 536HP
Reply With Quote
  #947 (permalink)  
Old 01-24-2018, 6:44 PM
kingpin's Avatar
Trailer Park Supervisor
   
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Fairhope, AL
Posts: 1,223
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Citywide173 View Post
This is a start....just need to get the first one passed and hope it catches on.

https://forums.radioreference.com/co...-colorado.html
I'm going to be the odd man out here.

We had a radio group that had a fit when we started encrypting our system law enforcement comms, saying they had a "right" to listen in. Their demands were passed up the food chain and the Sheriff got word back to me, that "their rights end, where his deputies safety begins." Operationally, our law enforcement was able to do a more efficient job with comms being encrypted. No more code words, or 10-codes... just plain english. Personal data was able to be shared, without having to change to another encrypted channel, send to a pager, or to a phone... And all of this on the main channel so other deputies could easily understand and do their jobs safely, and efficiently. Pushing for a ban on encryption because some scanner users got their feeling hurt, only makes our jobs harder on the public safety side of the house. Your "rights" should not make someone elses job harder, a job in most cases the complainer could never do anyway. Why make their jobs harder than they already are? Scanner users have gotten too comfortable over the years, being able to listen to whatever they wanted too, just because it was out there in the open. The comms were not intended for your consumption, therefore you getting lo listen is a privilege, not a right. Find something else to listen to like I did. You'll be much happier.
__________________
Jason - W4IRQ
AL Database Admin - Radioreference.com
www.radiokingpin.com
Group Owner - South Alabama Scan
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/southalabamascan/
Reply With Quote
  #948 (permalink)  
Old 01-24-2018, 7:29 PM
Citywide173's Avatar
Member
  Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Attleboro, MA
Posts: 1,244
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kingpin View Post
I'm going to be the odd man out here.

We had a radio group that had a fit when we started encrypting our system law enforcement comms, saying they had a "right" to listen in. Their demands were passed up the food chain and the Sheriff got word back to me, that "their rights end, where his deputies safety begins." Operationally, our law enforcement was able to do a more efficient job with comms being encrypted. No more code words, or 10-codes... just plain english. Personal data was able to be shared, without having to change to another encrypted channel, send to a pager, or to a phone... And all of this on the main channel so other deputies could easily understand and do their jobs safely, and efficiently. Pushing for a ban on encryption because some scanner users got their feeling hurt, only makes our jobs harder on the public safety side of the house. Your "rights" should not make someone elses job harder, a job in most cases the complainer could never do anyway. Why make their jobs harder than they already are? Scanner users have gotten too comfortable over the years, being able to listen to whatever they wanted too, just because it was out there in the open. The comms were not intended for your consumption, therefore you getting lo listen is a privilege, not a right. Find something else to listen to like I did. You'll be much happier.
Well Jason, as a professional user of a system where there is police, fire and 3rd service municipal EMS, each with their own UHF conventional analog system and system managers, I'm glad that it worked well for you. In my case however, if the police were to go encrypted, I can almost guarantee that the encryption keys would not be shared with FD/EMS. Having been on an ambulance responding to the police screaming "push EMS" and hearing active gunfire in the background affected how I approached the scene on more than one occasion. It is a very important part of MY safety-being able to make a determination of scene safety from data obtained on the radio is integral in my opinion. You can talk about officer safety all you want, but when encryption for the safety of those officers puts my safety at risk, I draw the line. I'm sure your sheriff wouldn't care about an EMT in Boston getting into a bad situation and possibly getting killed because of an encrypted radio system since the cops were "safe" but I sure as hell do.
__________________
Ed Burke
KD1EMS WQRD823
Reply With Quote
  #949 (permalink)  
Old 01-24-2018, 7:49 PM
Member
   
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: 175 DME, HEC 358 Radial
Posts: 5,430
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Citywide173 View Post
I can almost guarantee that the encryption keys would not be shared with FD/EMS. Having been on an ambulance responding to the police screaming "push EMS" and hearing active gunfire in the background affected how I approached the scene on more than one occasion.
Typically, on an EMS response to a law enforcement request, the requesting agency will tell FD/EMS responders that the scene is active, and they are to stage in a designated safe location. EMS goes in only when the threat no longer exists.

For every argument against encryption for law enforcement, there exists a simple solution.
__________________
Keepest thou thy airspeed, lest the ground rise up and smite thee.
Reply With Quote
  #950 (permalink)  
Old 01-24-2018, 8:26 PM
Member
   
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 72
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zz0468 View Post
For every argument against encryption for law enforcement, there exists a simple solution.
It goes both ways. If you look at EBRCSA's policy on encryption, for example, you will see that it is the system policy that encryption is not to be used on primary dispatch talkgroups. The policy was ratified by many representatives from police and fire agencies and associations who sit on the Board of Directors.

Of course, there are one or two agencies who have decided to buck this policy against the better judgement of the Directors (see meeting notes @ EBRSCA, I'm not going to look for it). But aside from those two, the rest have abided by the policy.

This system consists of several dozen disparate agencies. Clear traffic on dispatch allows for improved situational awareness for neighboring agencies. Naturally, on a single user system, this isn't much of a factor.

One would have to agree that situational awareness is a key component of officer safety.

100% encryption doesn't automatically equal increased officer safety. Each system and its users must carefully weigh their needs and goals and how to best accomplish them. In the case of EBRCS, a lot of smart people who know a lot about officer safety decided that clear dispatch was the best approach for them. This isn't me talking-- this is Cheifs and Sheriffs and Fire guys and all those good folks.

Scanner radio club nut jobs and their feelings (or their rights) had nothing to do with these decisions, I can safely speculate. Although "transparency" may have been a factor.

Anecdotally, it is on a fairly consistent basis that I hear my local PD either hear an event they were monitoring on a neighbor's channel and are able to respond proactively to that event, dispatch does the same by monitoring neighbors, or officers are able to jump over to the other agency's channel and get on with business. People who are smarter than me can probably explain the complexities of sharing keys among different agencies. I have a hunch such a process doesn't come easy and is full of pain-points.

Bottom line is what works for a large system like EBRCS which covers two counties in the heavily populated East Bay may not be right for Podunk... and vice versa.
Reply With Quote
  #951 (permalink)  
Old 01-24-2018, 8:41 PM
Citywide173's Avatar
Member
  Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Attleboro, MA
Posts: 1,244
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zz0468 View Post
Typically, on an EMS response to a law enforcement request, the requesting agency will tell FD/EMS responders that the scene is active, and they are to stage in a designated safe location. EMS goes in only when the threat no longer exists.

For every argument against encryption for law enforcement, there exists a simple solution.
Come to Boston.....reality is different than textbooks
__________________
Ed Burke
KD1EMS WQRD823
Reply With Quote
  #952 (permalink)  
Old 01-24-2018, 9:11 PM
Member
   
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: 175 DME, HEC 358 Radial
Posts: 5,430
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Citywide173 View Post
Come to Boston.....reality is different than textbooks
Sounds like Boston has some catch up reading to do.
__________________
Keepest thou thy airspeed, lest the ground rise up and smite thee.
Reply With Quote
  #953 (permalink)  
Old 01-24-2018, 9:21 PM
jparks29's Avatar
Member
   
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Melmac
Posts: 1,067
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zz0468 View Post

For every argument against encryption for law enforcement, there exists a simple solution.
Yup.

Don't encrypt.

can't get simpler than that.
__________________
The only good cat is a stir-fried cat!
Reply With Quote
  #954 (permalink)  
Old 01-24-2018, 9:59 PM
Member
   
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 456
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kingpin View Post
I'm going to be the odd man out here.

We had a radio group that had a fit when we started encrypting our system law enforcement comms, saying they had a "right" to listen in. Their demands were passed up the food chain and the Sheriff got word back to me, that "their rights end, where his deputies safety begins." Operationally, our law enforcement was able to do a more efficient job with comms being encrypted. No more code words, or 10-codes... just plain english. Personal data was able to be shared, without having to change to another encrypted channel, send to a pager, or to a phone... And all of this on the main channel so other deputies could easily understand and do their jobs safely, and efficiently. Pushing for a ban on encryption because some scanner users got their feeling hurt, only makes our jobs harder on the public safety side of the house. Your "rights" should not make someone elses job harder, a job in most cases the complainer could never do anyway. Why make their jobs harder than they already are? Scanner users have gotten too comfortable over the years, being able to listen to whatever they wanted too, just because it was out there in the open. The comms were not intended for your consumption, therefore you getting lo listen is a privilege, not a right. Find something else to listen to like I did. You'll be much happier.
Wow, some really have the notion of who works for whom completely backwards.

I could break this down line by line but what is the point? I seriously doubt it would enlighten someone so completely off base about a constitutional republic or a free society in general.
Reply With Quote
  #955 (permalink)  
Old 01-24-2018, 11:50 PM
Member
   
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: 175 DME, HEC 358 Radial
Posts: 5,430
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jparks29 View Post
Yup.

Don't encrypt.

can't get simpler than that.
That option isn't even on the table anymore, in many places. From a user agency perspective, the reasons in favor are many. The reasons against are few, and economics is less of a factor than it has been.

For agencies that have had high profile events where radio traffic was a factor in the reporting of the event, you can pretty much expect that encryption is a forgone conclusion.

For regional systems, the encryption issue can be really easy to solve. Put primary dispatch channels on a common key, and use a common key for the mutual aid channels, it's not difficult.

The example above about EMS not being able to hear the law channels, that's a minor adjustment. In events where there is a police presence, EMS doesn't go in until LE says it's clear. End of discussion. Considering that the EMS guys are going to come to the same conclusion anyway, it doesn't matter where the data comes from.

It won't make the hobbyists happier, but they need to realize that they are not a priority. If some watchdog group wants to get recordings, that's what the FOIA is for. If corruption is an issue, that's what the grand jury is for.

The fact is, it's coming, and LE agencies that don't encrypt will become the minority in just a few years.
__________________
Keepest thou thy airspeed, lest the ground rise up and smite thee.
Reply With Quote
  #956 (permalink)  
Old 01-24-2018, 11:59 PM
Member
   
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: 175 DME, HEC 358 Radial
Posts: 5,430
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hans13 View Post
I could break this down line by line but what is the point? I seriously doubt it would enlighten someone so completely off base about a constitutional republic or a free society in general.
I think it's been asked... no one has ever been able to show where in the Constitution that encryption is prohibited. It is NOT a constitutional issue. It does not impinge upon a free society. If you want to know what goes on behind "closed doors" (and encrypted channels) there are legal mechanisms in place to allow for that, provided you have just cause.

If you don't have just cause, then I guess you're out of luck.

LE communications are discoverable evidence. There are regulations regarding retention of recordings, and agencies go to a great deal of trouble and expense to make sure the recordings work. They take it very seriously. Listening live on the air is not required for the "free society" reasoning that hobbyists use to argue against encryption.
__________________
Keepest thou thy airspeed, lest the ground rise up and smite thee.
Reply With Quote
  #957 (permalink)  
Old 01-25-2018, 1:29 AM
GLDietzII's Avatar
Member
   
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Massillon, Ohio
Posts: 2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by firetaz834 View Post
I think the one thing that has not been covered is what is happening when a bad guy is caught with a scanner, is there a law in place that might deter this from happening.

Where I live it is a crime to be caught using a scanner (and I think this includes a smartphone app) during the commission of a crime.

I would like to know from those that have reported that LE agencies are unhappy when criminals are caught using receivers during the commissions of a crime if they have laws in place that combat this.
It is considered a crime in Oho if you use a scanner during the commission of a crime!
__________________
Gary L. Dietz II
Reply With Quote
  #958 (permalink)  
Old 01-25-2018, 1:40 AM
Jimru's Avatar
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Henrico County, VA
Posts: 1,298
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kingpin View Post
Find something else to listen to like I did. You'll be much happier.

Just curious what else you listen to, being unable (apparently) to listen to your local police?

I can have fun listening to almost anything (schools, shopping centers, assisted living facilities, etc), but I am very grateful the local public service TRS is still unencrypted!
__________________
Addicted to all things radio for nearly 50 years, and proud of it!
Reply With Quote
  #959 (permalink)  
Old 01-25-2018, 5:49 AM
Citywide173's Avatar
Member
  Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Attleboro, MA
Posts: 1,244
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zz0468 View Post
The example above about EMS not being able to hear the law channels, that's a minor adjustment. In events where there is a police presence, EMS doesn't go in until LE says it's clear. End of discussion. Considering that the EMS guys are going to come to the same conclusion anyway, it doesn't matter where the data comes from.
Once again, I must point out....three radio systems, three system managers. The police WILL NEVER GIVE OUT THE ENCRYPTION CODES and their dispatchers try to make everything an EMS call anyway-they look at the ambulance as a Make-it-go-away-truck. Their dispatchers will always tell the EMS dispatchers that the scene is safe just to get the ambulance there. This is also true for calls where a response of both EMS and police happens as a matter of policy. They will wait to see what EMS does before they even think of sending a car. Yes, it has been attempted to address the issue, but it has not been fixed in the 21+ years that I've been here, and I don't see it getting fixed anytime in the near future. Your ideas are in line with textbook teaching, but not everyone reads the textbook-there are plenty of places around the country where encryption will put other responders at risk, but who cares, the cops are safe. If it wasn't for the scanner, one of my former partners would have driven blindly into Watertown on the morning of April 19, 2103-that event alone should be enough to show the value that the ability to monitor offers to responders and that encryption only makes multijurisdictional cooperation more difficult.
__________________
Ed Burke
KD1EMS WQRD823
Reply With Quote
  #960 (permalink)  
Old 01-25-2018, 7:39 AM
Member
   
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 456
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zz0468 View Post
I think it's been asked... no one has ever been able to show where in the Constitution that encryption is prohibited. It is NOT a constitutional issue. It does not impinge upon a free society. If you want to know what goes on behind "closed doors" (and encrypted channels) there are legal mechanisms in place to allow for that, provided you have just cause.

If you don't have just cause, then I guess you're out of luck.

LE communications are discoverable evidence. There are regulations regarding retention of recordings, and agencies go to a great deal of trouble and expense to make sure the recordings work. They take it very seriously. Listening live on the air is not required for the "free society" reasoning that hobbyists use to argue against encryption.
Again, upside down and backwards... Government privilege extended no further than the powers granted by the Constitution. There were some things so important that they were specifically protected but that does not mean "that which is not prohibited by the Constitution is allowed for government." Indeed, the exact opposite was true. Government, as the most powerful criminal gangs always do, constantly seeks to increase power. One notable way this was accomplished was through twisting the interstate commerce clause. Anywho... the next compelling argument for the growth of an ever oppressive government is merely a social media campaign away. Y'all get the government you deserve. Those statists salivating for more government power and apologizing for government "needing" such power never seem to pay the price themselves. Generations later suffer. Nothing in the history of human history kills like a government. Be cautious how much you trust one. It is always a dangerous machine.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
broadcastify, encryption, sticky, twitter

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 2:58 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
All information here is Copyright 2012 by RadioReference.com LLC and Lindsay C. Blanton III.Ad Management by RedTyger
Copyright 2015 by RadioReference.com LLC Privacy Policy  |  Terms and Conditions