• Effective immediately we will be deleting, without notice, any negative threads or posts that deal with the use of encryption and streaming of scanner audio.

    We've noticed a huge increase in rants and negative posts that revolve around agencies going to encryption due to the broadcasting of scanner audio on the internet. It's now worn out and continues to be the same recycled rants. These rants hijack the threads and derail the conversation. They no longer have a place anywhere on this forum other than in the designated threads in the Rants forum in the Tavern.

    If you violate these guidelines your post will be deleted without notice and an infraction will be issued. We are not against discussion of this issue. You just need to do it in the right place. For example:
    https://forums.radioreference.com/rants/224104-official-thread-live-audio-feeds-scanners-wait-encryption.html

Anti-encryption Bill Introduced In Colorado

Status
Not open for further replies.

milf

Careful, I CAN hear you!
Database Admin
Joined
Dec 18, 2002
Messages
12,781
Location
Indianapolis, IN
No one here have political experience or friends/family in politics huh. This goes nowhere at warp 10. Sub, sub, sub committee will eat it, spit it out, chew more, and flush it down toilet. Never see an full vote and never see the Gov. desktop. Hate to seem an ahole, but trust me here, this is already dead and just does not know it yet. It will go about as far as that anti encryption lawsuit in AR did. Nowhereville one way. Unless it gets added to say an SPENDING bill or the like as an hidden rider and not read AT ALL. Which its too late for now. TY for that by posting it here.
 
Last edited:

DaveNF2G

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jan 23, 2001
Messages
9,218
Location
Rensselaer, NY
New York can't even manage to exempt first responders from its mobile scanner law. Anti-encryption won't happen here, either.
 

MTS2000des

Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2008
Messages
2,805
Location
Cobb County, GA Stadium Crime Zone
While I think the bill is well written, there are a couple of points here:

The COST of "decryption" in an agency that went full time encryption. An agency can make a solid argument that their system was configured a certain way, say at staging, and any change to a system with hundreds/thousands of subscribers and console dispatch sites incurs a monetary impact. Who's going to pay for this?

Which brings me to the second point: FirstNET/LTE. 5-10 years from now after a bill like this works it's way through the process and let us assume it actually becomes law, nothing in it addresses First NET. LTE by nature is fully encrypted end to end, and it is actually illegal to attempt to monitor any cellular/PCS/AWS per the ECPA (nevermind the technical challenges). So once public safety migrates to LTE (which it will and is only a matter of time and money), than a bill like this is no longer relevant.

As we move away from LMR and legacy technology, if one wants to draft a bill requiring public access, they should include text to address the next generation of government communications such as LTE. The argument of open government should be agnostic to technology, as it is forever changing and evolving.
 

WX4JCW

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jun 26, 2006
Messages
2,395
Location
All Over USA
While I think the bill is well written, there are a couple of points here:

The COST of "decryption" in an agency that went full time encryption. An agency can make a solid argument that their system was configured a certain way, say at staging, and any change to a system with hundreds/thousands of subscribers and console dispatch sites incurs a monetary impact. Who's going to pay for this?

Which brings me to the second point: FirstNET/LTE. 5-10 years from now after a bill like this works it's way through the process and let us assume it actually becomes law, nothing in it addresses First NET. LTE by nature is fully encrypted end to end, and it is actually illegal to attempt to monitor any cellular/PCS/AWS per the ECPA (nevermind the technical challenges). So once public safety migrates to LTE (which it will and is only a matter of time and money), than a bill like this is no longer relevant.

As we move away from LMR and legacy technology, if one wants to draft a bill requiring public access, they should include text to address the next generation of government communications such as LTE. The argument of open government should be agnostic to technology, as it is forever changing and evolving.
The only problem with the cost argument is that most newer radios aren’t that difficult to unencrypt granted the cost involved to bring the radios back for reprogramming, but yes LTE is a different ballgame, I’m sure a compromise could be reached, but not all departments have the same mentality towards the issue
 

milcom_chaser

Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
862
THREE WORDS FOR THAT! Hooray, yes & please. Good job Colorado!! Makes me want to move there even more than before if it actually happens. It will bring back the scanner listening / public safety scanner monitoring hobby back for some living in Colorado & hopefully in the future, for all or most states including New Mexico where I live. Encryption is being used in New Mexico because when my digital scanner lands on a encrypted frequency or frequencies, it will always be silent & show in the top left corner (ENC).

My digital public safety scanner that I paid good money for has become increasingly quiet & pretty much worthless especially in the 165-174 Mhz Federal range due to encrypted communications used by Federal agencies such as forestry which is mainly what I always monitored & had intentions of always listening to for my own concern & safety due to extreme fire danger in my local forest that is just 100 feet from my home.
Where in the state of NM do you reside? Which forest service has gone encrypted???
 

MTS2000des

Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2008
Messages
2,805
Location
Cobb County, GA Stadium Crime Zone
The only problem with the cost argument is that most newer radios aren’t that difficult to unencrypt granted the cost involved to bring the radios back for reprogramming,
Having to touch every radio, console, AIS and related hardware is expensive, and I speak from the position of someone who has done it. No it's not technically challenging, but it is logistically challenging, especially if the system does not have POP-25 or Radio Management (Motorola).

That costs money and the logistics alone are a tremendous burden.
 

MTS2000des

Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2008
Messages
2,805
Location
Cobb County, GA Stadium Crime Zone
FirstNet is not supposed to be a replacement for two-way voice communication over radios, according to what I've read.
But LTE will indeed replace LMR as time goes on. It just makes sense. I'm about to have a presentation from our AT&T rep regarding FirstNET, integration and their plans for First NET implementation in my state. It will be interesting to see how they describe the rollout.

LMR has a limited life span in the big picture. Take a look at what is happening in Europe, TETRA is being phased out in favor of LTE. The same thing will happen here eventually. It is only a matter of time.

To accommodate serving the public, agencies should consider putting delayed streams of dispatch traffic online. There is a cost of doing this, but as technology is evolving, it should come down. This is where a third party like Broadcastify could bid for the project, and do it "turnkey".
 

milf

Careful, I CAN hear you!
Database Admin
Joined
Dec 18, 2002
Messages
12,781
Location
Indianapolis, IN
Having to touch every radio, console, AIS and related hardware is expensive, and I speak from the position of someone who has done it. No it's not technically challenging, but it is logistically challenging, especially if the system does not have POP-25 or Radio Management (Motorola).

That costs money and the logistics alone are a tremendous burden.
OTAP.. Its pretty standard for systems now.
 
Joined
Jun 16, 2013
Messages
3,275
Location
Texas
But LTE will indeed replace LMR as time goes on. It just makes sense. I'm about to have a presentation from our AT&T rep regarding FirstNET, integration and their plans for First NET implementation in my state. It will be interesting to see how they describe the rollout.

LMR has a limited life span in the big picture. Take a look at what is happening in Europe, TETRA is being phased out in favor of LTE. The same thing will happen here eventually. It is only a matter of time.

To accommodate serving the public, agencies should consider putting delayed streams of dispatch traffic online. There is a cost of doing this, but as technology is evolving, it should come down. This is where a third party like Broadcastify could bid for the project, and do it "turnkey".


Make sure you demand that they be capable of meeting acquisition and latency times set forth by P16. That’s the big problem with LTE currently, acquisition and latency are too great as suggested by those standards when it comes to voice traffic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

DaveNF2G

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jan 23, 2001
Messages
9,218
Location
Rensselaer, NY
As we move away from LMR and legacy technology, if one wants to draft a bill requiring public access, they should include text to address the next generation of government communications such as LTE. The argument of open government should be agnostic to technology, as it is forever changing and evolving.
Legislators never look ahead when it comes to technology. They are always trying to cope with the last set of changes.
 

ILjim

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Sep 9, 2016
Messages
157
Location
Cook Co, IL
That's awesome. I wish we had something like this here in IL, but there's no way that would happen. Cook County would never agree to have dispatch in the clear. Anyway, I like how it addresses the need for transparency and also punishes those who abuse that ability.
 

AI7PM

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Sep 6, 2015
Messages
450
Location
The Intermountain West
No one here have political experience or friends/family in politics huh.......
You might want to do a little research on the guy who wrote it. Not his first rodeo, very competent, and with background that relates to all of the parties involved.
 

poltergeisty

Deep Thinker
Joined
May 7, 2004
Messages
3,817
Location
RLG, Fly heading 053, intercept 315 DVV
House committee kills bill aimed at stopping widespread encryption of police radio

Legislation designed to stop law enforcement agencies and other governments in Colorado from encrypting all of their dispatch radio communications died Thursday in a committee of the state legislature.

Rep. Kevin Van Winkle, a Highlands Ranch Republican, introduced House Bill 18-1061 because of what he called a “troubling trend” among police and sheriff’s departments to block the public from monitoring their radio traffic using scanners, receivers and smartphone apps.
http://coloradofoic.org/house-committee-kills-aimed-at-stopping-widespread-encryption-police-radio-traffic/



Here is the bill that was introduced: https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb18-1061

I can't believe this. It was well written with good intent. No agency should go full secret squirrel. I can see Tac channels, SWAT Ops and what not, but not the whole enchilada. Would you believe Bismark North Dakota of all places encrypts their fire department Coms? WTH! That's just ridiculous.

Anyone know of a way to get this back into committee or something? I was going to E-mail each and every representative, but then I saw that it was killed.

Thing is, I don't even monitor my scanner all that much anymore anyway. But I do when something is going down near me and I'd like to know what's up. Also, the 4th of July is an awesome time to monitor.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top