RadioReference on Facebook   RadioReference on Twitter   RadioReference Blog
 

Go Back   The RadioReference.com Forums > U.S. Regional Radio Discussion Forums > Texas Radio Discussion Forum

Texas Radio Discussion Forum Forum for discussing Radio Information in the State of Texas.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #21 (permalink)  
Old 03-01-2014, 9:44 AM
Member
  Audio Feed Provider
Audio Feed Provider
Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Arlington, Texas
Posts: 51
Default

Thanks for link and info, great post.
K
Reply With Quote
Sponsored links
  #22 (permalink)  
Old 03-01-2014, 10:01 AM
Member
  Audio Feed Provider
Audio Feed Provider
Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Arlington, Texas
Posts: 51
Default

The real question: Has anybody ever seen where a agency has reversed course after pressure from someone or something? What I mean, has a agency turned off routine encryption because of public or political pressure?

Thanks, Ken.
Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old 03-01-2014, 10:24 AM
Member
  Audio Feed Provider
Audio Feed Provider
Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Arlington, Texas
Posts: 51
Default

I'll probably just fight for a while then eventually take my tax base somewhere else. Like most politicians, they just wait until the pitchforks get to heavy and the fire sticks run out of fuel. I wonder?
Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old 03-01-2014, 12:26 PM
Member
  Audio Feed Provider
Audio Feed Provider
Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Arlington, Texas
Posts: 51
Default

Police Radio Encryption: Not Secure, A Transparency Failure, A Public Safety Nightmare | The Cardinal
Reply With Quote
  #25 (permalink)  
Old 03-01-2014, 2:51 PM
MesquiteWx's Avatar
Member
   
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Texas
Posts: 289
Default

What kind of encryption is Arlington doing anyways?
Reply With Quote
Sponsored links
  #26 (permalink)  
Old 03-01-2014, 3:02 PM
Member
  Audio Feed Provider
Audio Feed Provider
Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Arlington, Texas
Posts: 51
Default

Pick one, I have no idea:
DVP, DVP-XL, DES, DES-XL, DES-OFB, DVI-XL, ADP and AES-256
Reply With Quote
  #27 (permalink)  
Old 03-01-2014, 3:29 PM
MesquiteWx's Avatar
Member
   
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Texas
Posts: 289
Default

It's to my understanding the two new Uniden scanners can decrypt this no?
Reply With Quote
  #28 (permalink)  
Old 03-01-2014, 3:29 PM
mk262's Avatar
Member
   
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Daytona Beach
Posts: 337
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MesquiteWx View Post
It's to my understanding the two new Uniden scanners can decrypt this no?
*eyeroll* No

I swear this thread is like forest for the trees.
Reply With Quote
  #29 (permalink)  
Old 03-01-2014, 5:48 PM
Ghstwolf62's Avatar
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Clifton Forge Virginia
Posts: 540
Default

Okay I have a question and this seems like a good place to put it.

I was born and raised in California and the law out there (May have changed) very plain text clearly stated that it is illegal to divulge any information of or from a transmission to any other party outside those who heard the original transmission.

Plain and simple you can't relay anything from what you hear to anyone else.

How are these people who stream, post about, tell others etc. getting away with it when such a law is around.

If its been changed then why not simply reinstate said law and any jurisdiction who has issues could pass such a law.

Its certainly nothing new and applied in the 70s, 80s and early 90s when I was there.

Wouldn't that solve all these agencies' problems and give them the tools necessary to combat the supposed problem. Not only that it would take away any chance or opportunity these agencies would have to claim those issues as being ones to justify encryption any longer.

Just start arresting some of these people and watch how fast it stops and goes back to locals with their scanners.

Not only that but California had very clear laws about anyone showing up at a scene too. It was calling interfering/obstruction depending on how much of one or the other the look-y-loo did.

Seems like those two laws alone would negate any possible validity for calling for encryption and solve everyone's problems at the same time.

I know cops used to look for people with scanners showing up at scenes for just that reason. They had a very dim view on it and busted them hard when they found them.

And before someone says the streamers are just broadcasting for others to listen, they are rebroadcasting transmissions to others beyond what the scanner owner can hear himself. That means divulging to third parties communications received over their radio.
__________________
KJ4KFW
One of the few in the world apparently with radios & scanners that actually work like they're supposed to.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored links
  #30 (permalink)  
Old 03-01-2014, 6:09 PM
MesquiteWx's Avatar
Member
   
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Texas
Posts: 289
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mk262 View Post
*eyeroll* No

I swear this thread is like forest for the trees.
Well excuse my ignorance on the matter and for putting you out having to answer such a simple and honest question when there is no documentation that I have been able to find regarding the decryption capabilities other than what is listed on the product page for these two scanners.

Forney is doing P25 Phase II encryption as well but, I can still monitor them. What kind of encryption are they doing? I have no idea but apparently it is within the capabilities of the new radios. So just because Arlington is going to be doing P25 with encryption really doesn't mean much since there has been no documentation on what kind of encryption they are going to be doing and if it will be outside of the capabilities of the new Uniden radios.
Reply With Quote
  #31 (permalink)  
Old 03-01-2014, 6:10 PM
MesquiteWx's Avatar
Member
   
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Texas
Posts: 289
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghstwolf62 View Post
Okay I have a question and this seems like a good place to put it.

I was born and raised in California and the law out there (May have changed) very plain text clearly stated that it is illegal to divulge any information of or from a transmission to any other party outside those who heard the original transmission.

Plain and simple you can't relay anything from what you hear to anyone else.

How are these people who stream, post about, tell others etc. getting away with it when such a law is around.

If its been changed then why not simply reinstate said law and any jurisdiction who has issues could pass such a law.

Its certainly nothing new and applied in the 70s, 80s and early 90s when I was there.

Wouldn't that solve all these agencies' problems and give them the tools necessary to combat the supposed problem. Not only that it would take away any chance or opportunity these agencies would have to claim those issues as being ones to justify encryption any longer.

Just start arresting some of these people and watch how fast it stops and goes back to locals with their scanners.

Not only that but California had very clear laws about anyone showing up at a scene too. It was calling interfering/obstruction depending on how much of one or the other the look-y-loo did.

Seems like those two laws alone would negate any possible validity for calling for encryption and solve everyone's problems at the same time.

I know cops used to look for people with scanners showing up at scenes for just that reason. They had a very dim view on it and busted them hard when they found them.

And before someone says the streamers are just broadcasting for others to listen, they are rebroadcasting transmissions to others beyond what the scanner owner can hear himself. That means divulging to third parties communications received over their radio.
Very well said. I couldn't agree more.
Reply With Quote
  #32 (permalink)  
Old 03-01-2014, 6:21 PM
MikeOxlong's Avatar
Global DB Admin/Senior Mod
  RadioReference Database Admininstrator
Database Admin
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Central Ontario
Posts: 6,497
Default

Gentlemen, the Encryption vs Live Audio Streaming debate has been hashed out over the forums many, many times.

So much so, that a separate thread in the Rants forum was setup so discussions could take still continue to take place.

Please continue that portion of your discussion here:

The Official Thread: Live audio feeds, scanners, and... wait for it.. ENCRYPTION!

If you would like to read the actual forum rule on the topic, look at the top of any forum. You'll find it stickied there.

Thanks.
__________________
Mike.

Sorry but I don't accept PM's. Please use email instead.
Reply With Quote
  #33 (permalink)  
Old 03-01-2014, 6:29 PM
Member
  Audio Feed Provider
Audio Feed Provider
Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Arlington, Texas
Posts: 51
Default

I really don't know what type of encryption they plan on using. I think you are confusing the type of digital trunking system vs digital trunking with added encryption. Several years ago, the FCC strongly encouraged states to transition to digital systems in an effort to free up frequency bandwidth. The new Unidens will certainly decode the digital parameters built into phase II but no manufacturer has the legal right to decode encrypted digital bits. It is a federal crime to intentionally decode encrypted FCC licensed software built into these sophisticated systems.

As far as the other post about broadcasting. The cat is out of the proverbial bag. Ain't none of these agencies backtracking once implemented. The only way would be if a state legislature wrote & Gov signed into law something forbidding encryption of routine broadcast by the local agencies. Don't see the ground swell from the public ever getting behind this or it ever getting out of any committee.

Ken

Last edited by hykenhyken; 03-01-2014 at 7:14 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #34 (permalink)  
Old 03-01-2014, 6:35 PM
Member
  Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Wichita Falls, TX
Posts: 4,255
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghstwolf62 View Post
I was born and raised in California and the law out there (May have changed) very plain text clearly stated that it is illegal to divulge any information of or from a transmission to any other party outside those who heard the original transmission.

Plain and simple you can't relay anything from what you hear to anyone else.

How are these people who stream, post about, tell others etc. getting away with it when such a law is around.
There are several threads that explain how streaming audio is legal. Apparently the same is true for posting contents of communications.

There is a federal law that says the same thing as the CA law. It may be that CA wrote their law to be the same as the federal law.
__________________
Tom
Reply With Quote
  #35 (permalink)  
Old 03-02-2014, 12:46 AM
Ghstwolf62's Avatar
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Clifton Forge Virginia
Posts: 540
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nd5y View Post
There are several threads that explain how streaming audio is legal. Apparently the same is true for posting contents of communications.

There is a federal law that says the same thing as the CA law. It may be that CA wrote their law to be the same as the federal law.
For all I know it was the federal law. I was young and just remember being told and seeing the "Rules" about having a scanner and what you could do with it as well as whatever you might hear.

My assumption it was a California law for all those years may be untrue now that you've got me thinking about it.

(Not discussing THAT issue)
__________________
KJ4KFW
One of the few in the world apparently with radios & scanners that actually work like they're supposed to.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored links
  #36 (permalink)  
Old 03-02-2014, 10:37 AM
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: DFW Texas
Posts: 280
Default Decoding vs Decrypting

Appears some folks have confusion on the P25 Digital Systems when reading some of the above postings...

Yes you can "decode" a P25 Type I or Type II digital stream with the proper Scanner or Software on a SDR device and a PC.

However, if the P25 (or any type of signal or frequency,et al..) is truely Encrypted it is highly unlikely you will be able to unencrypt the information either in data or voice, unless you have an authorized Crypto Key.

Some cities sometimes use Interop channels "in the clear" so multiple agentcies can respond cross city or county/state for resonses, etc...and that may be part of the confusion...

We have heard that is some cases Media or other selected folks might have access to certain radios/systems in a un-encrypted manner - have not seen this myself but may well be possible...

So decode vs de-crypt is vastly two very different capabilities...
__________________
ICOM HF R71A ~ Pro-400 ~ IC R10 ~ Pro 2052 ~ Pro 2055 ~ Pro 92 ~ Kenwood TH F6a - Yeasu FTM-350 - Home Patrol - FunCube - WinRadio ~ PRC 1500 ~ Ventenna ~ J-Poles ~ Alfa Delta HF DD -Milair - SATCOM
Reply With Quote
  #37 (permalink)  
Old 03-02-2014, 5:00 PM
Member
  Audio Feed Provider
Audio Feed Provider
Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Arlington, Texas
Posts: 51
Default

I've broadcast the Arlington Police four divisions for a few years now with success. I would encourage residents to voice their concerns about transparency and the fact that all police/fire comm activities will be secret after the end of this year. If you research radio reference, you will see that most cities don't choose to encrypt....why is that? It really has nothing to do with money. These cities spend like drunken sailors on a regular basis. What's another ~$20-30K for enhanced radio features. Usually just a few people in leadership make these misguided decisions, usually based off who knows what. I just know that people in leadership in equally competent departments make the opposite decision...why? Again, if you look at some of the largest counties, you will see a mixture of encrypt/open on routine TG's. Most just encrypt tactical TG's and leave routine patrol channels open. Again, voice your concerns to the mayor, council members, chief's of respective departments. They all work for you. I am sure that the elected politicians don't have a clue about any of this. Most in this society are sheep, it's up to a small percentage of us to affect for the greater good.
Having said that, my feed will go silent on March 16th, 2014. I will continue to fight this march towards secrecy. The fact that some in leadership actually believe this is a good step in the right direction should give one pause. They will spout off platitudes left and right, none with much merit. Just keep everything close to the vest. It is best for the citizens not to know, just let us do our jobs. When scandal occurs, we will handle it internally. We don't need external scrutiny. WHERE IS THE MEDIA ON THIS??? Even some on this forum take a quasi defensive posture on this migration to secrecy. There are greater consequences than just a ultra small percentage of citizens that want to monitor there police/fire departments freely. There will be a backlash, how strong or the duration....only time will tell.

73...Ken
Reply With Quote
  #38 (permalink)  
Old 03-03-2014, 9:02 PM
MesquiteWx's Avatar
Member
   
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Texas
Posts: 289
Default

The point I am trying to make is a lot of cities don't know what they are buying. They will say yeah they are going encryption but have no clue exactly what that means. Example being Forney. Several media articles about it saying how they are buying this X million dollar P25 system and it will be encrypted yada yada yada. Yeah, it's P25 Phase II but the new radios are able to monitor it. So I think before a lot of fuss and feathers are ruffled it might be good to see exactly what Arlington is considering as "encrypted" and in fact it is a system that can't be monitored.
Reply With Quote
  #39 (permalink)  
Old 03-03-2014, 10:08 PM
Member
  Audio Feed Provider
Audio Feed Provider
Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Arlington, Texas
Posts: 51
Default

I wish that were true but the below is directly from their comm admin last week. They are not hiding anything:

"Arlington expects that our P25 system will be fully implemented by the end of this year with an anticipated go-live in early December. Arlington will be utilizing encryption on public safety talk groups. At system implementation, our police patrol talk groups (N,E,W, and S divisions) will be encrypted and eventually our fire talk groups will be encrypted as well but fire mutual aid activities make that a little more challenging."
Reply With Quote
  #40 (permalink)  
Old 03-04-2014, 12:13 AM
MesquiteWx's Avatar
Member
   
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Texas
Posts: 289
Default

What I am saying is that is nothing to get all worked up over. It doesn't say what kind of encryption it is doing other that them saying they will be doing encryption and most cities misuse the term "encryption". Like I said, Forney said the exact same thing. They said they were going P25 Phase II with encryption? Well maybe the need to define encryption because I am able to monitor them just fine despite the small issue with dispatch sounding like crap and I don't know if that is their system or this radio but, I am leaning towards their system as I have heard others inside that dept and county complain about it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTrlGr9WMk8
Reply With Quote
Reply

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 On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 3:46 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
All information here is Copyright 2012 by RadioReference.com LLC and Lindsay C. Blanton III.Ad Management by RedTyger
Copyright 2011 by RadioReference.com LLC Privacy Policy  |  Terms and Conditions