Knox county law enforcement going fully encrypted
- Thread starter SCPD
- Start date
- Status
And the official shoe has slammed on that issue. Bye Bye Knox County Law Enforcement.
Milf, I don't see why they couldn't just add 2 or 3 more dispatch channels and have some open and some encrypted, every law enforcement agency that has encrypted channels say it's for law enforcement safety, but I always think that's just an excuse. What does everybody else think?
I understand the officer safety issue and I agree with them. I see both sides of the coin but in my opinion, and others within the law enforcement community would agree, the officer safety concerns outweigh other views. I have saw first hand where criminals use scanners and apps to evade law enforcement during he commission of their crimes.
N2AL I can also see it with the public helping out law enforcement locate some crime suspects as well that could be in their neighborhood.
I truly hate to hear this news. I totally understand that officer safety comes first. Encrypting whenever they feel they need to is the way to go... I just feel that full-time encryption is a bit overboard.
I wish they would take a look at how Blount County handles encryption and follow their lead.
I wish they would take a look at how Blount County handles encryption and follow their lead.
Yes I agree with you W4ELL Blount county seems to be using encryption the correct way.
While it is a possibility you can't argue that it is extremely rare. I mean you don't come across many Jason Bournes while in the field. If you think a doper is going to sit on a 436 or a TRX-1 for very long then you are kidding yourself. Not when in reality it doesn't guarantee him an escape route or the confidence he will not get caught. He would much rather have the cash in hand. With calls being dispatched primarily through MDT then what are the real chances a crook would hear all that he needed to hear to enable him a get away. I think it is more of keeping radio traffic private from the common people and the media.
There is no doubt a place for encryption. DTF's and such.
Now smaller towns and cheap analog scanners present a more of chance of this happening in my opinion.
Because it greatly increases the complexity, for no benefit other than scanner listeners.
I think having an encrypted "secondary" or "information" channel is the most reasonable way to handle the issue, Keep the "primary" dispatch channel open for routine day-to-day activity, and use the other for passing along sensitive info.
W4ELL said:
This is an okay compromise, however, you have certain dispatchers and field personnel who misuse the encryption by activating it when it isn't needed (or they simply forget to turn it off). Several departments here use that method, and even with clear policies in place, people tend to leave it on "simply because they can".
zachgallop
Member
Now the news report says KCSO will encrypt but they are not sure yet, the news updated the article. KCSO has been programming their radios since Feb ith encryption on the channels. They know I think, they just do not want pushback. They were the main pushers of encryption. They may have OTAR now KPD is going to be fully encrypted. E-911 has online CAD in the works now with 1 hour delay. Here is the knox news link : https://www.knoxnews.com/story/news...lice-scanner-e-911-emergency-radio/595013002/
Last edited:
ScannerMan1989
Member
zachgallop
Member
I do not know the frequencies. All I know is the control channel which I submitted to the database. Ten frequencies from the current legacy system are on TACN and ten remain on the old for now. It has been that way since November.
True, this does happen on occasion, and might happen more often on the larger Knoxville system but at least we wouldn't be totally shut out.
At the end of the day, officer safety and operational security is the top priority. I've had first hand experience with criminals using scanners to monitor and avoid police activity as well as overtly squirly listeners who follow ambulances and fire engines to scenes. More than just that, there is the ever increasing threat of police targeting by radical groups and homegrown terrorists who can very easily use information gathered by these systems to plan and carry out their missions.
I completely understand the desire to monitor these systems and the importance of transparency. It's nice to be able to hear, in real time, what's happening in your community. As a consequence of early radio technology, we have been able to do this for decades and many listeners have become accustomed to it while others may even feel entitled to it. However, and this is likely to be an unpopular opinion here, there is absolutely no reason that anyone other than an end user needs to be able to monitor these systems in real time. Period. If the concern is for transparency and accountability, making time delayed broadcasts available is more than reasonable. However, and this is important to understand, there is nothing that requires that a public agency make their radio traffic available to the public in real time or on delay. The only such time that an agency may be required to furnish their radio traffic for review is if it was previously recorded, and therefore public record. While it is a manner of policy of most agencies to record dispatch channels, most states do not have any statutes that require them to do so.
I will also say that I am totally against mixing and matching encryption and clear channels. It only serves to appease the amature radio community while making radio operations more complex for end users by having to toggle encryption on and off or forcing them to switch channels. Either encrypt or don't.
I completely understand the desire to monitor these systems and the importance of transparency. It's nice to be able to hear, in real time, what's happening in your community. As a consequence of early radio technology, we have been able to do this for decades and many listeners have become accustomed to it while others may even feel entitled to it. However, and this is likely to be an unpopular opinion here, there is absolutely no reason that anyone other than an end user needs to be able to monitor these systems in real time. Period. If the concern is for transparency and accountability, making time delayed broadcasts available is more than reasonable. However, and this is important to understand, there is nothing that requires that a public agency make their radio traffic available to the public in real time or on delay. The only such time that an agency may be required to furnish their radio traffic for review is if it was previously recorded, and therefore public record. While it is a manner of policy of most agencies to record dispatch channels, most states do not have any statutes that require them to do so.
I will also say that I am totally against mixing and matching encryption and clear channels. It only serves to appease the amature radio community while making radio operations more complex for end users by having to toggle encryption on and off or forcing them to switch channels. Either encrypt or don't.
yes a pretty unpopular opinion, the only real reason agencies are doing this now is that encryption tends to be cheap and easy, i'm curious as to what percentage of criminals actually use a scanner, but lets be honest its a political decision by comm managers who hate the monitoring community (dealt with plenty), or are trying to stem the negative tide of bad publicity (they can put out information as they see fit when they see fit) the media will probably not make a huge stink if they get radios
its the same thing as when agencies get involved with the show "Live PD" once the scrutiny starts they pull the plug
Last edited:
The argument about mixing etc... Sorry but too go on that path... Why have more than ONE TG or CH period? Why do TAC get separate? Why do detectives need anything but dispatch? Why do Sgts. and above get an fancy smancy admin chan? Same argument. Why does a fire agency need separate EMS freqs? Firegrounds? There is no way to properly operate an larger than SMALL agency with just one or two chans. And if your taking sensitive comms to tactical and investigative and administrative side areas off of main dispatch in most cases ANYWAY.... Then you encrypt those if your needing the security. This is the oldest fight in the book. It goes nowhere UNLESS your the one getting paid that BIGA** SALARY to make that call. Lets just be happy Knox County is not encrypting EVERY SINGLE PUBLIC SAFETY USER like a couple of other areas are. Heck, there are 3 on TACN that have even encrypted TRANSIT, and SCHOOLS, and that makes more sense to me with how things are now than EVER encrypting FD... But then you could argue that you need to protect ALL first responders, but that is countered with the fact the bad guy KNOWS they are coming ANYWAY if he is targeting them. The bad guy could care less if its a 2 minute response time versus a 4 minute one. On with the show!
- Status
