Encryption. What are your thoughts?

[sepura]

After all this talk about encryption being implemented for GENERAL DISPATCH CHANNELS, I was just curious what everyone views are on the topic. From a logical standpoint, do you think police general dispatch channels should remain/go encrypted? Why or why not? Me personally, the police are certainly my favourite thing to listen to however, I do agree with encryption being used.

1. No one deserves to have their private information shared. (Address, type of calls, running names, ID numbers, even for some PDs are running credit card numbers over the air, ect.)
2. There are criminals out there that use police scanners for criminal activity.
3. It is safer for the officers
4. If you were a police officer, would you really want thousands of people listening to your every move?

 

[fourthhorseman]

well,

1-not much actual info is transmitted now,at least not here in philly,the personal data is dropped to the units MDT
2-true,they also use firearms,automobiles,masks,ect,
3-true,but the citizenry has a right to know whats happening,not all channels,but most should be clear
safty is one thing,Secrecy is a whole different animal.
4-If i were a Public Servant,,id try to never forget that the People were my boss,and my boss has the right to monitor what im saying on the company phone,or computer.
they want privacy,go work for TripleCanopy or Xe.

the logic for encryption is obvious.however,closed doors will always lead to corruption.
that is fact.Public Service is Not the place to work if you want Privacy..

 

[48alfaone]

Hi, i am a new member, good to be here. I agree you have some points with your 1 to 4 comments. Still, after listening to police, ems & fire since 1969, it stings to slowly loose one of my most enjoyable hobbies! First i lost the Vancouver Police & B.C. Ambulance Service, Vancouver B.C. Canada. Then the RCMP, and soon we will loose all the Fire channels as well. On top of the fun of scanning, it was also nice to know whats going on around where i live with crime rates going way up, most of all violent crime! You just don't get that from the news. Thank God for the internet and sites like this or all i would have is the Tow Truck's, haha.

 

[FFEMTCURRENCE]

encryption should be used in Narcs Ops and Swat or any undercover crime units...but for regular old PD i like to hear whats going on...and now some P25 systems will go to Phase 2 where you wouldnt be able to monitor crap since as of now no scanner can read a phase 2 system...i know the criminals can hear the traffic and get out of trouble if they hear it but like fourth said they also use firearms and cars...

 

[JnglMassiv]

Obviously, you could have hardly picked a more biased audience for the poll.

Clearly, the reasons for encryption are apparent and the OP listed several. The reasons against are harder to articulate and often boil down to either 'I want to listen' or 'I have a right to listen'. There is no right to listen and simply wanting to monitor isn't a very convincing argument, especially against officer and public safety reasoning. Hobbyists are such a tiny, insignificant fraction of the population that our silly desire to listen in isn't going to factor into the decision to encrypt.

How do you think the majority of police officers would answer the poll?
How do you think the majority of criminals would answer the poll?

 

[TrenchFeeder]

Fact of the matter in any case, is when the police adapt, so will the criminals. If every police unit in the country went encrypted people would simply do more to break encryption. No technology is 100% secure, encryption can be broken just like everything else.

If police units did a widespread blackout of radio comms, they would only be removing any place they had to hide at all. I feel, it would only drive people to break the encryption. If they want security in comms, they should encrypt important information, but leave some general dispatch open, so people feel they aren't completely left out.

Besides once more and more police departments move over to in car computers with their own access to CAD systems, radios themselves will fall out of sue except in emergency situations, as individual police units no longer need to rely on a dispatch center for all their information.

So what we should really be thinking about is how advance with them, instead of how mad we'll be if they change tactics

 

[eaf1956]

This says it all...

I think this reply about encrytion from a LEO says it all:

Posted by Taxpayer 1124 on July 13, 2010
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" or "Who guards the Guardians?" Sheriff Basque understands and listened. WE THE PEOPLE are the government, not those hired to administer it. If they feel it is not safe to work for us if we know what they are doing, they maybe it is time for a career change. I personally have 15 years in Law Enforcement on both the State and local levels. Only once in that time did I encounter a situation where the offenders were using scanners to listen in and the officers involved knew that. They throw out terms like ”Officer Safety”? Yes, safety from misconduct lawsuits, from nosey defense attorneys, from an involved citizenry. If the past is any proof of how well “Staff members still monitor the radio use” then let the racial and ethnic profiling begin or in actuality continue…. If there is a need to provide confidential info, then by all means use the available encryption. But, it should be the rare exception, not the rule.

 

[FoeHammer]

There are ways to be compliant with privacy while maintaining public oversight , encrypt the sensitive data or use mdt & leave routine traffic in the clear ,...Why? because we live in a free society , that is supposed to be built on transparency & trust with our public servants, while some may still believe this leaves too much risk...because of criminals ,
I think far more good , normal people pursue this pasttime rather than criminals..
The very nature of our free North American society has always placed great value in freedom transparency & trust & has always looked at countries that have secret police & authorities that control information as tyrannies that pose a threat to freedom , Now which way are we headed? & are you comfortable with it?
Every time the word encryption is brought up here its sparks debate , & ultimately gets locked ...It seems to me it's those that are for some reason infatuated with the ideas of everything going encrypted that usually
argue the most vehemently & begin the rudeness & name calling .
In the end I suppose it wont matter , they will get what they want .
We will live the amount of tyranny we accept & so far we are pretty accepting,....

 

[zz0468]

The issue of encryption vs. public oversight is relatively easy to handle. Many agencies provide radios configured for receive only to legitimate news organizations, newspapers, TV/Radio stations etc.

One of the things driving encryption is the perception that the nature of criminals is evolving. Police are facing organized crime, drug syndicates, and potential terrorists. If law enforcement feels that they'll be safer and more effective in dealing with these threats by encrypting their daily communications, then that's what's going to happen.

Public oversight doesn't have to take place with a scanner, it can be accomplished just as effectively in other ways.

 

[brandon]

I have no problem with encryption being used on surveillance nets. As for general dispatch operations.... my simple and most biased answer is NO.

 

[sragen]

Obviously, you could have hardly picked a more biased audience for the poll.

Clearly, the reasons for encryption are apparent and the OP listed several. The reasons against are harder to articulate and often boil down to either 'I want to listen' or 'I have a right to listen'. There is no right to listen and simply wanting to monitor isn't a very convincing argument, especially against officer and public safety reasoning. Hobbyists are such a tiny, insignificant fraction of the population that our silly desire to listen in isn't going to factor into the decision to encrypt.

How do you think the majority of police officers would answer the poll?
How do you think the majority of criminals would answer the poll?

When I was Local LE we had scanners in the patrol cars with all surrounding town freq. . SPEN was being used mostly for "serious?" matters. But you couldn't beat having a scanner for situational awareness. Perhaps some jobs were low priority, but it was a different kind of on-going mutual aid running real time. If there was anything confidential, we used a hard line, call box, or went back to HQ. However, I would like the capability to have encryption in some circumstances. At that time some agencies used "inversion" periodically, but it was for a lot of private stuff (coffee etc?)

 

[gmclam]

It is not just encryption that is bad, digital is bad too

Reasons the OP favors encryption:

1. No one deserves to have their private information shared. (Address, type of calls, running names, ID numbers, even for some PDs are running credit card numbers over the air, ect.)
2. There are criminals out there that use police scanners for criminal activity.
3. It is safer for the officers
4. If you were a police officer, would you really want thousands of people listening to your every move?

My rebuttal:
1. I have never heard a credit card number over police (dispatch) channel. And yes there are some people that do deserve to have their names put out there.
2. And there are honest people, including LE in adjacent jurisidctions that use them to help.
3. Don't create a false sense of security. Just because you are braodcasting encrypted does not mean the bad guys are always totally ignorant.
4. Yes. For those who don't, perhaps another profession or branch of LE would be better work for them.

My reasons for no encryption:
1. Generally speaking, use of digitized voice signals for 2-way radio communications is not a good idea. When there is poor reception of an analog signal, often the listener can make out what is said. When it is a marginal digital signal, forget it. Digital is required before you can encrypt. Poor radio communication threatens officer safety.

2. When a dispatch channel is in the open, adjacent jurisidictions and agencies can monitor on personal equipment. Here in California any metropolitan area is made up of several different police departments. The whole public safety picture involves fire agencies, highway patrol and others. When an officer needs help, and the closest LE (or whoever can help you) is a few feet away in an adjacent jurisdiction, do you really want to require your mayday to have to go to your dispatcher and then to them? When otherwise the person could come to your aid "instantly"? Making your dispatch signals effectively private threaten officer safety.

3. I don't know of any LE agency that can be effective w/o the eyes and ears of many. It could be another LE, someone in the media or just a decent member of the public. You need as many eyes and ears out there paying attention and helping. Making your dispatch signals private locks out any help you would otherwise get and means your agency is an "island", all on its own.

4. I don't buy ANY argument these days about private personal information. Us taxpayers are apparently now not only paying for 2 way radios, but also paying for each officer to have a cell phone. When something really needs to be private, no one hesitates to say give me a "21".

I could go on but this reply is long enough.

 

[TrenchFeeder]

Fact of the matter in any case, is when the police adapt, so will the criminals. If every police unit in the country went encrypted people would simply do more to break encryption. No technology is 100% secure, encryption can be broken just like everything else.

If police units did a widespread blackout of radio comms, they would only be removing any place they had to hide at all. I feel, it would only drive people to break the encryption. If they want security in comms, they should encrypt important information, but leave some general dispatch open, so people feel they aren't completely left out.

Besides once more and more police departments move over to in car computers with their own access to CAD systems, radios themselves will fall out of sue except in emergency situations, as individual police units no longer need to rely on a dispatch center for all their information.

So what we should really be thinking about is how advance with them, instead of how mad we'll be if they change tactics

Besides what i said above.

I'll say this, my scanner has probably saved my life. Being a delivery driver at night in the ghetto is not a nice place to be, and more than once, I have been inclined to avoid some of my delivery areas, due to reports of armed robberies, carjackings, ect.

If they go encrypted, technology will only adapt to the change. The only real hope they have is to stop using any kind of communication that can be intercepted except by specific equipment/software that is not available to the public, and good luck with that one.

 

[zz0468]

The only real hope they have is to stop using any kind of communication that can be intercepted except by specific equipment/software that is not available to the public, and good luck with that one.

Luck has nothing to do with it. Such equipment is already available to any agency that wants to shell out the money.

 

[SAR923]

As has been said, you are preaching to the choir about encryption. We all want to hear everything. In today's world, some encryption is not only inevitable but needed. OTOH, it's not just scanner hobbyist that are having a problem with encryption. As a retired LEO with 30 years of experience, I think SRAGEN already wrote about the most important issue - encyption makes it impossible for LEO's to cross talk using a scanner. This was the ultimate in interoperability. As long as both units had a scanner, we could talk to each other no matter what frequency we were on. I have gotten to mutual aid calls faster then the dipatcher could get them to me because I heard the incident on the scanner. Other LEO's came to my aid when I asked of backup much more quicly because they heard my call on their scanner. With encryption, all this is down the tubes. This is a huge officer safety issue which hasn't been adequately addressed.

As far as criminals using scanners, I ran across two in 30 years. The vast majority of criminals use lookouts and cell phones to warn their partners in crime we are in the area. I had a dash cam and body mike. Both recorded every move I made. There is no privacy for LEO's. If you're a bad cop, you're going to get caught. Anything that's really sensitive can be transmitted by MDC, encrypted comms, or even cell phones. There is no officer safety issue I can see with dispatch channels in the clear, but I've already pointed out the officer safety issues inherent in full-time encyption of dispatch channels.

 

[sheriff205]

i think the only information shared. should be (Address, type of calls, thats it

 

[colby4601]

Gotta love arm chair quarterbacks who think they know everything about officer safety. What a joke.

 

[mypoppa60]

If you have the money,encryption is not a problem.

 

[radioman2001]

To "colby4601" maybe you would care to elaborate on your comment? And to those who think it isn't a right to know what YOUR public servants are doing your thinking is wrong. This topic has been hashed and rehashed. I will not re-post all my comments about my feelings about encryption but one. You as the public who pays for these personnel to provide for your safety do have a right to listen in to normal everyday traffic. It's called freedom of information act, enacted back in the 70's. Every document every phone call, every fax every thing is available as a result of this FEDERAL LAW. In Connecticut you have additional protection called the SUNSHINE LAW. Use them to the max, if your local agency goes totally encrypted, complain, complain complain. Better yet, if you get nowhere vote the bums out that implemented it, and vote in someone who has enough common sense to allow day to day traffic in the clear.

 

[RadioDaze]

If you have the money,encryption is not a problem.

That's an interesting assertion. Please expand on that thought.