Please think twice before contributing sensitive Phila. PD talkgroups to the RR DB!

Status
Not open for further replies.

jcardani

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jan 16, 2002
Messages
1,390
Location
Orlando, FL & Ocean City, NJ
Within the past week a number of sensitive Philadelphia Police Dept. District tactical talkgroups were added to the database (basically talkgroups that were added with IDs greater than 129). They are used by 5 Squad personnel for surveillance purposes and are not encrypted. They were added when PPD went to P25 Phase I a few years ago. They are not encrypted because the radios are part of the same group that the regular 1, 2, and 3 Squad (regular patrol) use. In fact all of the district radios are configured with those talkgroups programmed.

Since these talkgroups were added, an officer friend of mine who knows several commanders at Police administration headquarters confirm that they are aware of these postings and they are not happy. PPD is now forced to make changes. Let's not hope that they move toward total encryption - since encrypting the talkgroups would require adding encryption hardware and traffic keys to the remaining radios.

Several years ago before Philly switched to P25 Phase I (they were still using the 3600 baud control channel with P25 CAI voice) a number of Special Unit talkgroups were added to the RR database which was known throughout the department. Commanders again found out about these additions. I tried unsuccessfully to have them removed. But it's Radio Reference policy to not remove (censor) talkgroups after they are posted - even if an agency requests. Therefore the talkgroups stayed. When the City switched to P25 Phase I, a decision was made to strap encrypt all special unit talkgroups because of the information in the database.

In an related event, shortly after the San Bernardino terrorist shooting, during a high level meeting, a question was asked about whether PPD radio feeds were available via smart phone apps since the media reported they were used in California during the shooting. A member of a special unit in the meeting verified that every district and citywide talk group is streamed. The new police commissioner and mayor was in attendance and they were shocked.

And another event which forced the Philly Fire Dept. to encrypt their fireground tactical talkgroups stemmed from a feud between several fire buffs and fire administration. PFD planned to keep these talkgroups clear and use the analog simplex channels for primary fireground before a big stink was made by the fire buff. Again another example of one to two people ruining it for the rest of us.

So I am pleading with anyone wanting to contribute these talkgroups, please think twice before you force the PPD's hand to encrypt all communications. You don't want to be the reason they finally encrypt and ruin it for all of us!

thank you,
 

bigcam406

Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
1,183
Location
oshawa,ont,canada
common sense doesnt exist anymore.isnt the first rule of scanning is to keep what you hear to yourself?if you want to share info with other scanner buffs,how about word of mouth instead of posting it on here for the world to see.im thinking this site does more harm than good sometimes.even though im not in the area,i can relate as live feeds have brought encryption to my area and surrounding regions.we ***** about encryption,yet we have only ourselves to blame.
 

Blackswan73

Active Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2015
Messages
1,400
Location
Central Indiana
Sounds like a typical case of fear mongering. First, tactical talk groups are not streamed. In fact, it is against federal law to do so. Second, any talk group on a trunking system can be monitored unless it is encrypted. If the control channel is known any scanner capable of receiving the system, can receive any talk group on that system, whether it is published or not, by simply using a wild card. Take a lesson from our police departments. If you want private communication, use a cell phone, or use encryption on the tactical channels only. There is no reason to encrypt dispatch talk groups.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jay911

Silent Key (April 15th, 2023)
Feed Provider
Joined
Feb 15, 2002
Messages
9,378
Location
Bragg Creek, Alberta
Do these talkgroups show up when a scanner is in ID Search (or "open") mode? If so, "hiding" them by not posting them to the DB is completely useless.
 

Citywide173

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Feb 18, 2005
Messages
2,151
Location
Attleboro, MA
Do these talkgroups show up when a scanner is in ID Search (or "open") mode? If so, "hiding" them by not posting them to the DB is completely useless.

Whether or not it is discoverable by normal means by a marginally capable scanner user versus publicly posted on an international website does make a difference. Philadelphia has been known to encrypt talk groups for punitive reasons in the past. Gathered intelligence from a major player in the area is that they are not happy with it being posted on this site, although they really didn't care about the local players having the info-he shared that information in an attempt to help everyone, and the answer he is getting is pretty much a middle finger.

Whoever believes that RR/Broadcastify is not a catalyst for encryption, I have a great deal on a bridge.....
 

buddrousa

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jan 5, 2003
Messages
11,305
Location
Retired 40 Year Firefighter NW Tenn
People were encrypting Police Coms long before the internet, long before cell phones, the only thing different now is the grants that pay for this and the cost has come way down. I was adding MACOM encryption boards 30 years ago to radios.
 

mmckenna

I ♥ Ø
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
23,842
Location
Roaming the Intermountain West
In an related event, shortly after the San Bernardino terrorist shooting, during a high level meeting, a question was asked about whether PPD radio feeds were available via smart phone apps since the media reported they were used in California during the shooting. A member of a special unit in the meeting verified that every district and citywide talk group is streamed. The new police commissioner and mayor was in attendance and they were shocked.

I understand where you and the PD is coming from on this, but this ^ sort of reaction from the police department shows a level of ignorance that should not be tolerated.

Police departments are getting overwhelmed by the level of technology required to do their job. This is evident everywhere with the body worn cameras, mobile data terminals, use of video streaming, etc. One thing that shouldn't be overwhelming is basic day to day communications. A police department of this size lacking the understanding of how radio systems work shows a major issue. While not every officer should fully understand how these systems work, there should be more clear understanding than there is. The "shock" they felt is understandable, but not acceptable. These departments don't run their radio systems without a team of people in the background that maintain them. The department and the radio guys should be communicating better than they are.

There is zero reason why there shouldn't be clear knowledge about the ability for a scanner to hear this traffic. To base their communications security on keeping hobbyists from posting the data on line is absolutely foolish on so many levels that it should be an embarrassment to the department, city, county, state, etc.

There are so many ways around this with a trunked system that it shows either a lack of communications between the police department and the guys running the radio system, or just a complete lack of concern. To use veiled threats as a means of keeping the information off the internet is even worse.

Modern radios have the ability to hold a lot of channels, talk groups and systems. Having talk groups in the clear for all officers/radios is simple. To have a few talk groups that are encrypted for special needs is simple enough, too, without needing to keep encryption in every single radio.

The other issue that often comes out of this is that most police officers will spend hours every month at the range learning to use their firearms safely. In fact it's a requirement for most of them. Now go find a police officer and ask exactly how much time they spend on radio training. I'll bet you'll hear either "none" or "a few minutes". This is the issue. While companies like Motorola sell multi million dollar radio systems in the name of "interoperability" and agencies will gladly blow through millions in taxpayer dollars to acquire them, they won't spend the time to set them up right and properly train the officers. This is a huge red flag. This shows a clear waste of taxpayer dollars on a system that hasn't be set up correctly and officers have not been trained how to use.

Again, I understand where you are coming from with this post. I agree that public safety officials need secure communications available to them to properly do their job. Not all information on departmental operations should be made public.

But this, this is foolishness. This is ignorance. This is a clear waste of taxpayer dollars. I'd love to hear Philly PD explain this and why they think this is the way to run a radio system.
 

SQP

Senior Member OMIK
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
201
Hey Joe, YOU BETTER tell Lindsay about this!!! That way he can shut this site down.......EH?!!?!?!?!?
 

Citywide173

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Feb 18, 2005
Messages
2,151
Location
Attleboro, MA
People were encrypting Police Coms long before the internet, long before cell phones, the only thing different now is the grants that pay for this and the cost has come way down. I was adding MACOM encryption boards 30 years ago to radios.

Yes, they were. If Philly spends the money to upgrade the portables and go encrypted after they expressed dismay at the talk group information being posted publicly, specifically on this site, it has nothing to do with the info being posted on this site. As stated above, Philly has been known to encrypt for no other reason than to shut out listeners in the past, but everyone feels that the info is more important than to honor the request of a police department that is trying to protect it's people while still allowing people capable of operating their scanner on their own to listen. If it's a tactical channel, my personal belief is that it should be encrypted, but they didn't see a need to (possibly until now.) This shows that the site ownership puts the almighty dollar (paid memberships, Uniden/Whistler licensing) above police officer's lives if they are not willing to remove it at the department's request.

It could be simple: Hi, this is the anywhere police department, could you remove these specific tactical talk groups from your listings? RR: Sure, no problem. Instead, a policy of not removing something once it has been added does nothing but piss off the department.
 

buddrousa

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jan 5, 2003
Messages
11,305
Location
Retired 40 Year Firefighter NW Tenn
Ed I see your point and they will use a different excuse next time. I am a public servant and I believe the public has a right to hear what they are paying for. But as you stated Tactical Channels are just that drug dealers , gangs , gun runners , ect do not need to know they are being looked for and it is officer safety I get that. General coms should be open and covert should be covert it does not matter that I am in west TN know the info or a local person. This site has nothing to do with what they are mad at it is just an excuse that they can use to get the money they want.
 

mmckenna

I ♥ Ø
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
23,842
Location
Roaming the Intermountain West
It could be simple: Hi, this is the anywhere police department, could you remove these specific tactical talk groups from your listings? RR: Sure, no problem. Instead, a policy of not removing something once it has been added does nothing but piss off the department.

This doesn't solve it. Anyone with a radio capable of receiving the frequencies used in the modulation scheme used can receive this traffic. Blaming this on anything other than proper radio system operation is not a responsible reaction.

Remember, this radio system and all the radios were purchased with taxpayers money. With the expenditure of huge sums of taxpayer dollars comes the requirement to spend it responsibly. When someone from outside the department discovers a weakness with the system, it should be fixed, not hidden.

A very invalid straw man example:
An unnamed city does something stupid with their taxpayer funded water system. It puts people lives at risk. Someone notices the issue and makes it known to the public. Should we sweep that under the rug to protect the jobs of some politicians, or should we try and fix the issue and potentially save peoples lives?

I don't even live in Philadelphia and this pisses me off. I'm sure they'll be crying to their residents about how they need a brand new radio system because somebody posted their secrets on the internet.

Shoot the messenger. Good idea.
 

Citywide173

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Feb 18, 2005
Messages
2,151
Location
Attleboro, MA
This doesn't solve it. Anyone with a radio capable of receiving the frequencies used in the modulation scheme used can receive this traffic. Blaming this on anything other than proper radio system operation is not a responsible reaction.

It does solve it. The information received is that they are unhappy with it being posted here, not that it can be monitored. They reached out to a well known local to express their dismay-a person that they know has been listening for years. They don't care about people who know how to use their scanners listening, they care about it now being part of a database that anyone can access. It is now part of Whistler and Uniden's plug and play so that even people that have no clue how to program a scanner have access to the talkgroup.
 

buddrousa

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jan 5, 2003
Messages
11,305
Location
Retired 40 Year Firefighter NW Tenn
Sorry Ed this excuse has no merit. They do not mind that local thugs can hear them they just do not want the rest of the world to know where they are. Sorry I do not buy their story. You want to buy a bridge.
 

MtnBiker2005

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
3,566
Location
San Diego County, California
What you said wasn't 100% true.
Read the Data Removal Policy wiki page again.

"RadioReference.com reserves the right to remove any data from the database at their sole discretion"
http://wiki.radioreference.com/index.php/Data_Removal_Policy

"RadioReference does not typically remove data from the database unless ordered to by a court with jurisdiction over RadioReference.com LLC."
The removal of data from RadioReference.com is at RadioReference's sole discretion.
http://wiki.radioreference.com/index.php/Restricted_Info

I tried unsuccessfully to have them removed. But it's Radio Reference policy to not remove (censor) talkgroups after they are posted - even if an agency requests. Therefore the talkgroups stayed
 

Citywide173

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Feb 18, 2005
Messages
2,151
Location
Attleboro, MA
There was a technical curve that had to be obtained to find the talk group. Maybe these thugs had it, maybe they didn't. It was an acceptable risk that they were willing to take. Now, all anyone has to do is buy a scanner with zip code programming and it's in there-this was where the risk became unacceptable to them. Doesn't matter what's acceptable to you or me, they're the ones who decide. The fact that they reached out to someone in the scanning community indicates at least some desire not to change the system if those in the community were willing to work with them, but sadly, the posts in this thread make it obvious that most are not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top