• 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

Colorado Anti-Ecryption Bill is still alive

Status
Not open for further replies.

captaincraig44

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jan 19, 2003
Messages
791
Location
Arvada
#1
Last year, State Representative Kevin Van Winkle introduced HB18-1061 (No Encryption Of Dispatch Radio Communications | Colorado General Assembly). This bill was killed before it got very far, but I have been in contact with Van Winkles office and he is in the midst of consulting with the stakeholders (LEO's, city councils, etc) about revising the language in the bill in an effort to find some middle ground where it stands a chance at passage. I know things are getting a little heated with Denver set to go dark in a little more than a week, so I would encourage anyone who believes that no agency should go blanket encryption to write Representative Van Winkle (kevin.vanwinkle.house@state.co.us) and express your support for his efforts. The bill he wrote last year made allowances for encryption on sensitive communications - SWAT, Tac channels, etc, which I think most of us would be supportive of, but it required primary dispatch channels to be in the clear.
This thread is not meant to be, and should not be taken as, an "encryption sucks" thread. Please keep emotions out of the discussion - but let's have a discussion and see what we can do about keeping the hobby alive.
 
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
1,108
Location
Gilcrest, CO
#2
It's good efforts are still underway to assist agencies remain transparent. The more transparent agencies can be these days with their "routine" day to day business the better as it assists in building trust with the public. The last thing we need is for everyone on earth to finally reach the point where each person conducts 100% of all communications in an encrypted manner as no one can trust anyone any further with even the most basic of information. Hopefully, this bill will make some progress this time around.
 
Joined
May 10, 2003
Messages
164
#3
Last year, State Representative Kevin Van Winkle introduced HB18-1061 (No Encryption Of Dispatch Radio Communications | Colorado General Assembly). This bill was killed before it got very far, but I have been in contact with Van Winkles office and he is in the midst of consulting with the stakeholders (LEO's, city councils, etc) about revising the language in the bill in an effort to find some middle ground where it stands a chance at passage. I know things are getting a little heated with Denver set to go dark in a little more than a week, so I would encourage anyone who believes that no agency should go blanket encryption to write Representative Van Winkle (kevin.vanwinkle.house@state.co.us) and express your support for his efforts. The bill he wrote last year made allowances for encryption on sensitive communications - SWAT, Tac channels, etc, which I think most of us would be supportive of, but it required primary dispatch channels to be in the clear.
This thread is not meant to be, and should not be taken as, an "encryption sucks" thread. Please keep emotions out of the discussion - but let's have a discussion and see what we can do about keeping the hobby alive.
Very useful post here Craig, thank you!

I’ve sent Rep. Van Winkle an email with some arguments, and have asked how I can help.

It would be interesting to know what the ‘real’ impact on public safety is when the encryption switch is thrown. I don’t doubt encryption can make things safer for the first responder, but we as a populous matter too. Could things be less safe for the general public with encryption? If we or the media must rely on a tweet from the agency regarding active incidents or a ‘shelter in place’ , it has to be inferior (slower, less detailed) to traditional methods: scanner traffic to public, or scanner traffic to media to public. Is this play really about public safety ?

Fostering public trust, driving accountability and transparency, matter now more than ever with recent abuses even (especially?) by high powered three letter agencies being widely publicized. Power corrupts. My fear is that a dangerous precedent is in the making,

Please make your voice known if this topic is important to you.
 
Joined
Feb 21, 2010
Messages
55
#4
I sent an email to my city councilman about this issue and he will present it the public safety committee for review
 

allend

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Feb 1, 2012
Messages
1,105
Location
Long Beach, CA
#6
Well good luck on this fight in CO. I think they will listen at these public safety committee meetings but once the switch is thrown or has been thrown its too much of an uphill battle at this point. I think people do not have a leg to stand on at this point but majority of the hobby community will end up focusing their energy in a new direction instead of fighting for cities and counties to open up their comms. Denver is biggest prime example at this point in Colorado.

If you really think in our world and in a very realistic way of thinking if you were on this public safety committee once your team has made the decision there is no turning back the clock. It would have to be a big scale law accross the board nationwide to have guidelines on how public safety agencies uses encryption and so forth. I give big credit for at least trying guys but its a losing battle. Trust me I am not for this since it ruins the hobby, but you have to focus your energy where life really counts. You are not going to convince city or county governments to change their mind.

As to the first question above about how you keep this hobby alive that's the biggest unknown answer right now. I just do not know how this 50 or 60 year hobby stays alive. Life is always about change and change has been coming for a long time now. There is not much more technology that can be added to keep scanners alive in full-force. It's just about what can be maintained for the time being for our generation. Its all about your geographic location now on how you personally can keep your hobby alive. There will be certain market places that are getting more and more pushed down the pipe. But the the majority or all market places will get caught up down the road in time. Its not a matter of if, its a matter when. If you really study the data on this site and look at market places popping up with new Phase II systems the data proves the direction of this hobby.
 

citiot

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Feb 8, 2007
Messages
33
#8
I've asked the local press in my state (MN) to look into this. I've also contacted local city and county elected officials. Can't hurt. Worse case, I wasted 10 minutes of my life.
 
Joined
Jan 20, 2002
Messages
2,023
Location
Greeley, CO
#10
Looks like the link I posted is conveniently no longer.

In any case the time posted for the House transportation local government meeting is at 1:30 P.M on April 3rd.

.
 
Joined
Jan 20, 2002
Messages
2,023
Location
Greeley, CO
#12
Interesting to note that the link in post #9 for the agenda comes up with an "Access Denied" and login required warning. So much for transparency.

Also the information about the April 3rd date for the committee is nowhere to be found.

Odd that this information is suddenly absent.

No I don't have tinfoil.

.
 

ShyFlyer

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Apr 25, 2013
Messages
560
Location
Colorado
#16
I spoke to the Colorado State Patrol the other day at the state capitol and they said they told me that they are against encryption 100%
Did they articulate why they were against it? Just curious.

I found this a common thought with State PO's, lots of them are anti-encryption.
I wish this were true of my home state of NM. Rumor has it that once the statewide system in built out, NMSP will join the E club.
 

allend

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Feb 1, 2012
Messages
1,105
Location
Long Beach, CA
#19
Did they articulate why they were against it? Just curious.


I wish this were true of my home state of NM. Rumor has it that once the statewide system in built out, NMSP will join the E club.
Take the rumor as a YES. There is no more reasons why new systems are built out without locking things down now. This is the new normal now. Just be prepared
 
Joined
Jan 20, 2002
Messages
2,023
Location
Greeley, CO
#20
Posted at 4:04 P.M. on the Colorado General Assembly Site:


Hearing Item: HB19-1235
Time: 04:04:14 PM

Motion:
Postpone House Bill 19-1235 indefinitely.

Moved: Galindo
Seconded: Valdez D.



Vote tally:

Carver

Yes

Catlin

Yes

Froelich

Yes

Galindo

Yes

Hooton

Yes

Humphrey

No

Lewis

No

Valdez A.

Yes

Valdez D.

Yes

Exum

Yes

Gray

Yes

YES: 9 NO: 2 EXC: 0 AB: 0

Final Vote

ACTION: PASS
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top