• 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

encrypted fire traffic ?

Status
Not open for further replies.

pdfdems286

Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2006
Messages
1,680
Location
coastal/eastern Monmouth NJ
although i'm pretty advanced in general radio knowledge,i'm not real up on this aspect.does anyone know of any state,county or municipal system's where the fire frequencies or fire talkgroups are encrypted ?.if so where are they located ?.i know federal fire sometime's is encrypted.i think ?.also is there any big push on for entities to encrypt their fire communication's ?. thank's for any help or insight.
 

Grog

Completely Banned for the Greater Good
Banned
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
2,959
Location
West of Charlotte NC
It's a bad idea, just like some who use P25 for fireground comms. Hell, I think using anything but analog simplex is not in the best needs of the firefighters on the scene. If someone needs to talk with dispatch, that's what command is for. They'll be outside where its safe, so let them carry two radios.


I think Philadelphia or Pittsburgh use encryption for their fire service comms, a search of the DB should help.
 

Jay911

Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2002
Messages
9,131
Location
Bragg Creek, Alberta
Grog said:
It's a bad idea, just like some who use P25 for fireground comms. Hell, I think using anything but analog simplex is not in the best needs of the firefighters on the scene.
Grog and I agree. Incredible. ;)
 

GM

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
925
"Can you hear me now??" "Dispatch repeat the last message??" "Your coming in garbled, did you say 'get off the roof?'" Yep, Edison, NJ Fire (TRS) is sometimes P25 ENC on the Dispatch side on Fireground 1 and 2 as well as EMS Ops and Inquiry (only the Dispatch side [sometimes]).
 

RodStrong

Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2007
Messages
1,103
Most of Garfield County, Colorado's fire tactical TGs are encrypted. They do have some mutual aid fire TGs that are in the clear.
 

Grog

Completely Banned for the Greater Good
Banned
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
2,959
Location
West of Charlotte NC
Jay911 said:
Grog and I agree. Incredible. ;)

Well the stars do align just right every so often :lol: Does that mean you want to go out and pick up hot midgets with me? :cool:
 

LEH

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jan 23, 2003
Messages
1,391
Location
Yorktown, Virginia
The departments on the York County Virginia system use encryption. These are York County, James City County, Cities of Williamsburg and Poquoson.

Comms are not 100% encrypted, just enough to be a real PITA.
 

policefreak

Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2007
Messages
1,625
Location
Berlin, NJ
I believe in Cecil County, MD the comms are as good as encrypted, everything down there (police, fire, EMS) is provoice digital.
 

CAPTLPOL1

Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2003
Messages
248
OK, we have heard that these agencies are using encryption, what is their respective reasoning for doing so?
 

RogerH11

Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
128
Location
16866
CAPTLPOL1 said:
OK, we have heard that these agencies are using encryption, what is their respective reasoning for doing so?
So you can't listen to them on a scanner. That's the only reason for them to do so.
 

GTR8000

Well Known Member
Database Admin
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
7,114
Location
BEE00
CAPTLPOL1 said:
OK, we have heard that these agencies are using encryption, what is their respective reasoning for doing so?
If you're a taxpayer within a jurisdiction that uses encryption, attend a public meeting and ask your elected officials. Beyond that, you're due no explanation, justification or reason.

While I personally do not agree with using anything other than plain old analog simplex for fireground com (for safety reasons), I can certainly understand why depts would not want the public monitoring them. And no, it has nothing to do with us "hiding" anything. :roll:
 

ibagli

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 2, 2006
Messages
971
Location
Ohio
res6cue_dot_com said:
I can certainly understand why depts would not want the public monitoring them. And no, it has nothing to do with us "hiding" anything. :roll:
Actually, if you're stopping people from listening for any reason, to stop them from hearing anything, you are by definition hiding what is being transmitted. It may not be for nefarious, tinfoil hat reasons, but it meets the definition of "hiding." (Sorry for the nitpick)
 

JoeyC

Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
3,393
Location
San Diego, CA
Encryption is simply a option to buy on the radio system. If the agency wants to buy the option thats their business.

If I'm buying a car I have no obligation to consult with other drivers as to the options I purchase for my car.
:roll:
 

firetaz834

Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2007
Messages
309
Location
Metro Area, MI
That may be true, but if your working on a mutual aid system and other department are going to work with you on your frequency then if your using encryption then you will have to insure they are also using the same frequency or your going to have to buy them a car also so they can work with you.

I'm looking at it from two different fronts as a firefighter I want my command staff to insure that I'm working safe and that responding mutual aid departments are able to communicate with us properly and safely.

But, on the otherhand as a taxpayer in the community I would find it quite appaling that my department would have to spend extra money to outfit responding mutual aid departments with radio equipment to communicate with us when they would have radio equipment that would communicate without any issues if encryption was not employed.
 
Last edited:

GTR8000

Well Known Member
Database Admin
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
7,114
Location
BEE00
ibagli said:
Actually, if you're stopping people from listening for any reason, to stop them from hearing anything, you are by definition hiding what is being transmitted. It may not be for nefarious, tinfoil hat reasons, but it meets the definition of "hiding." (Sorry for the nitpick)
True! You hit on what I was trying to get at in what I put in bold. Too often there are conspiracy theorists or cynics ready to level accusations of an agency having something sinister worth hiding because they choose to go with an encrypted/unmonitorable system. While I'm not suggesting that every person in every agency is perfect or without fault, the idea of there being agency-wide corruption as the motivating factor for using this type of system is just silly.

Sometimes we just don't want people listening to us, simple as that! It's a screwed up, politically correct and uber-sensitive world we live in, where almost everyone has a recording device of some sort that is always rolling. Couple that with the fact that people are so quick to criticize or bring litigation based on usually nothing more than circumstantial or anecdotal "evidence", and it's no wonder so many agencies are moving towards these unmonitorable technologies!


JoeyC said:
Encryption is simply a option to buy on the radio system. If the agency wants to buy the option thats their business.

If I'm buying a car I have no obligation to consult with other drivers as to the options I purchase for my car.
:roll:
Good analogy, although in fairness I would suggest that if you are a resident taxpayer within a jurisdiction that is spending the money for these technologies (not cheap), you do have a right to question it using the proper forum to do so. By all means, keep them honest. Also realize and accept that in the end, they're going to do what they feel is best for their own wellbeing and, in this case, the good of the general public they are charged with protecting.

It's the people who are always crying foul because these technologies are killing their monitoring hobby that I can't quite understand. Listen, I'm not an insensitive bastard, I sympathize with the fact that it sucks if there's nothing to listen to, but it is what it is. If I hear someone exclaim one more time that it's their God given RIGHT to monitor all our communications, I'm going to puke. While it may be legal (in most cases) to monitor those transmissions which are sent "in the clear", it by no means implies any rights above and beyond that!
 

CAPTLPOL1

Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2003
Messages
248
res6cue_dot_com said:
If you're a taxpayer within a jurisdiction that uses encryption, attend a public meeting and ask your elected officials. Beyond that, you're due no explanation, justification or reason.

While I personally do not agree with using anything other than plain old analog simplex for fireground com (for safety reasons), I can certainly understand why depts would not want the public monitoring them. And no, it has nothing to do with us "hiding" anything. :roll:

I am just nearly gathering data and not questioning as to why specific agencies are doing so. I am just asking why they feel the need too. We don't do it because we feel the need not too. I just simply asked for reasons and justifications not hey you should not do that and what are you hiding. I am not a tinfoil the sky is falling type. I am actually getting ready to run for office myself if I can get enough support to go through the election.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top