• 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

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

Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
9,905
Location
Point Nemo.
Let's ban twitter, instagram, snapchat, facebook, yelp, etc. since they are really to blame.

Discuss.
Like most things, you control the variables you can, and deal with the rest.

As for banning social media, there's probably some good reasons to at least consider how these sorts of events get portrayed on social media as well as traditional mass media. Most of these nutjobs are looking for exposure, and that's how they get it. Not that I'd expect them to stop if we took it away...
 

WX4JCW

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jun 26, 2006
Messages
2,128
Location
All Over USA
it's only a dead argument because it's annoying those in the "Business", I've been on both sides of the fence, so let's be honest, the whole encryption thing is political, I do agree some things should definitely be encrypted for sure, but not everything, we are even seeing a trend of some agencies removing encryption on certain talkgroups, some agencies choose not to encrypt, Yes DHS put out guidelines, but not every agency is choosing to follow it, yes it is an old argument, but the fight is certainly not dead yet
 
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
9,905
Location
Point Nemo.
so let's be honest, the whole encryption thing is political,
I disagree. That's overly generalized. There are a lot of good reasons to encrypt, and not all of them are politically motivated.

I do agree some things should definitely be encrypted for sure,
And this is why. Some stuff needs to be encrypted, you are correct.

I'm for primary dispatch being in the clear.
I'm also for there being an encrypted channel, full time, that doesn't require any user intervention to use. Simply switch to that channel and traffic is secure.

If you've been in the industry, then you'll probably know that when radio systems are designed, there's never any discussion about making life easier for hobbyists. Scanner listeners don't even come into the discussion.
 

KeithKenobi

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Aug 4, 2013
Messages
39
Location
Santa Cruz, California
How about licensing receivers of encrypted traffic? ...For;
Off-Duty personnel, adjacent agency personnel, accredited news agencies, volunteer Law and Fire, retired Law and Fire and others.
Those who can be eyes and ears,,,, those who HELP our society.
Hell, you could even let the units affiliate and GPS track the Media or volunteers, just disable all TX as needed.
There could even be a good-guy scanner listeners license that you could disable if needed.
 
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
9,905
Location
Point Nemo.
How about licensing receivers of encrypted traffic? ...For;
Off-Duty personnel, adjacent agency personnel, accredited news agencies, volunteer Law and Fire, retired Law and Fire and others.
Those who can be eyes and ears,,,, those who HELP our society.
Hell, you could even let the units affiliate and GPS track the Media or volunteers, just disable all TX as needed.
There could even be a good-guy scanner listeners license that you could disable if needed.
No.

Too easy for a radio to fall into the wrong hands. On an LMR radio I can send a Kill command to kill the individual radio. Can't do that with receivers.

Also, the background check process is expensive, very time consuming for the agency and probably way beyond what most hobbyists would put up with or even pass. It's difficult enough to find people that can pass them for our dispatchers.
Without background checks, and extensive ones at that, it would be difficult to know who's who.
Add in that some agencies are smart enough to periodically update their encryption keys, having someone who'd make sure all those radios get updated is a huge effort. It's hard enough doing it for an agencies own radios.

As for those that can be eyes/ears, there's many ways to achieve that:
Dispatch channel in the clear.
Use social media to request help from the public.
Use mass media to request help from the public.
"Blue Alert" Blue Alert
Public Safety alerting apps. Specifically for your area: Community Notification Enrollment

I understand what you are saying, but that's a non-starter.
 

ten13

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
278
Location
ten13
As for those that can be eyes/ears, there's many ways to achieve that:
Dispatch channel in the clear,
Use social media to request help from the public.
Use mass media to request help from the public.
Or call 911 from your ever-present cell phone....
 

bob550

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Apr 5, 2005
Messages
838
Location
Albany County, NY
but the fight is certainly not dead yet
How does a bunch of hobbyists arguing among themselves constitute a "fight"? I haven't yet seen a reference to any organized public anti-encryption effort. Most average citizens outside the hobby probably don't even care. Anyway, we can discuss this until pigs fly, but we don't get to vote on encryption.
 

darkness975

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Nov 4, 2016
Messages
245
How does a bunch of hobbyists arguing among themselves constitute a "fight"? I haven't yet seen a reference to any organized public anti-encryption effort. Most average citizens outside the hobby probably don't even care. Anyway, we can discuss this until pigs fly, but we don't get to vote on encryption.
Colorado tried.
 
Joined
Feb 17, 2007
Messages
605
Location
Fightin\' River, Michigan
How about licensing receivers of encrypted traffic? ...For;
Off-Duty personnel, adjacent agency personnel, accredited news agencies, volunteer Law and Fire, retired Law and Fire and others.
Those who can be eyes and ears,,,, those who HELP our society.
Hell, you could even let the units affiliate and GPS track the Media or volunteers, just disable all TX as needed.
There could even be a good-guy scanner listeners license that you could disable if needed.
When my county LE went totally encrypted in 2006, the reporter who covers the police and courts for the local newspaper asked the PD for a receive-only radio so he could still monitor them. He was given an emphatic "NO". Even our county road department is encrypted now; not sure what they don't want us to hear; you can track the locations of their plow trucks in real time on their website.
I suppose the argument could be made for government transparency, but who knows how much mileage you'd get out of that.
 
Joined
Sep 28, 2003
Messages
1,198
Location
127.0.0.1
It is obvious that encryption affects Blanton's business model, hence the flag on top of the forums and the nonsense about infractions. Such as the location of this thread. The banner message says it is in 'Rants' and clearly the thread is NOT in 'Rants' but in off-topic wireless. IT SHOULD be in Rants. Perhaps sone introspection by the owner here might result in the realization that encryption is a result (in some cases) of streaming and cell phone apps.
 
Joined
Jan 16, 2008
Messages
13
I find it quite odd that "they" want to encrypt radio messages containing medical information, as now done where I live, and "we", ie., the medical profession, do not generally encrypt medical records transmitted from the source to recipient, no matter what form they are transmitted.

For example, HIPAA laws require me to have medical records protected under "two layers" of protection. Layers are defined as 1) a lock on the door, 2) an alarm system, 3) a password to get to electronic record, 4) a second lock and key to get to paper record, etc. This keeps the records safe and secure, in theory anyway.

However, once I put medical records in the US mail, FAX the records, or email the records, I am NO LONGER RESPONSIBLE, by law, to anything that happens to the patient's medical records. If someone intercepts them, I an not legally liable. It would seem to me that radio transmission would fall under the same laws of delivery.
 

jboczek

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jan 21, 2006
Messages
44
Location
DuBois, Illinois
I disagree. That's overly generalized. There are a lot of good reasons to encrypt, and not all of them are politically motivated.



And this is why. Some stuff needs to be encrypted, you are correct.

I'm for primary dispatch being in the clear.
I'm also for there being an encrypted channel, full time, that doesn't require any user intervention to use. Simply switch to that channel and traffic is secure.

If you've been in the industry, then you'll probably know that when radio systems are designed, there's never any discussion about making life easier for hobbyists. Scanner listeners don't even come into the discussion.
Washington County Sheriff (Southern Illinois) has decided to use their "tac 2" channel almost exclusively for radio traffic. It's encrypted. Bad thing is city police departments, fire, ems don't have capable radios to listen to them. I disagree with the sheriff, but if that's what he wants, that 's what he'll get.
 
Top