The pro's and con's of police digital radio's.

[moonbounce]

Well, you asked for it, now you have it. Got a beef against police use of digital radio's, then post your argument here.

I for one disagree with police use of digital radio, I don't think they are necessary, I think they are in use to hide from the people that they are their to protect, me and you . After all we are not talking about national security or anything like that, it is just cops getting the job done, traffic tickets, noise complaints, etc. I think the real reason behind digital radios is that it makes them less accountable to the public.

One of the reason that I have heard people say that the police need digital radios for their own protection, I end this post with this news article.

Are these cops above the law? - thestar.com

P.S this is the second time in two years I have read articles on police misconduct, the last time it was aimed at the R.C.M.P. and that article was a wopper.

 

[radionerd13669]

How do they hide behind digital radios?

Digital radio transmissions can be monitored.

Secure Transmissions can not?

If people wanna use digital more power to them it just requires a higher priced scanner!

 

[moonbounce]

As in the case of the London police and the police in Strathroy, Woodstock Sarnia etc, they are encrypted communications and digital.

 

[rdale]

Well, you asked for it, now you have it. Got a beef against police use of digital radio's, then post your argument here.

Who asked for it?

I monitor many police agencies that use digital RADIOS and have no problem hearing everything going on. Check your scanner or your programming if you can't hear them.

They also might be encrypted. If you don't like that, vote your representatives out of office and run on a platform of letting scanner listeners hear.

 

[East_Algoma]

Digital Radio is decode-able so to speak....So grab a Pro 96 or whatever and tune in...Digital is NOT hiding , Encryption is...However , Encrypt the Homicide, drug ops etc....Routine yacking , theres no need for that , and we are headed for a VERY TRANSPARENT Government , shortly....I think the funds **MAY** dry up , to ENC is VERY COSTLY....There was a movement some years back headed by a guy ( I think named ) Pinella ? Dave ? He called it " OPEN BROADCASTING " ( for clear Coms ) And " CLOSED BROADCASTING ( for ENC Traffic ) Not sure what became of that group....some day the tax payers will Wake Up....I use to be on a Police Services Board many yrs ago , and can tell you 1st hand the cost of ENC vs Clear is Outrageous...but that PD wanted ALL Radios ENC....that meant buying a console....new Portables....New Mobiles ( Spectra W9 ...I think ) ...and so on , plus Programing EACH Radio.....That system had a MAJOR FLAW.....if a BATT went dead....that would loose the key ( I had thought of some kind of power like CMOS has ) Anyways....8 yrs of that system...Now the Question should be " Did Crime go up or down " ? Crime went up.....we saw no real benefits...in numbers of cases solved, reduction in crime on a whole.....CLEAR or CRYPT O... It was the same.....It went up not down....we then could no longer fund that system.,,,,It was now clear...again no change in Crime stats,,,,,,I took a radio home one day after work ( With permission ) and listened to the BIG ENC.....dog barking calls.....teens drinking over here.,....quite for 3 hrs....then...OMG it was simply SIlly to pay what we were paying....The Contract ran out....we voted , ENC was just a small part of that vote,,,Poof it was gone , ONLY because 2 other members plus myself are Ham ops...we could explain this to our Board properly in laymans terms...then bring fourth to Council the same findings.....anyways...< RANT = OFF > LOL ,

 

[newtoscanning]

Right to listen?

Sorry, where does it say that you have a "right" to listen to the police. It's no different than you having the "right" to listen to a hospital patch (your're paying the doctor, the paramedics, for the ambulance, etc via tax dollars). You don't have the right to listen to fire investigators. You don't have the right to listen about park employees discuss evacuation plans with senior elected officials. You don't have the right to demand confidential information from the police. You must remember what your rights are.

You do have the right to vote, you do have the right to run as a city councillor, you do have the right to sit on the police services board. You do have the right to attend a community police liaison committee. You do have the right to become a police officer (as long as you can meet the qualifications) and do the policing yourself (the old saying is if you want something done right do it yourself).

That article the star wrote was so out of the park it isn't even funny. Most citizens can understand the situations police have to deal with, and generally have positive encounters, hence why things haven't changed. 100% of police encounters where negative, there would be swift drastic changes.

 

[exkalibur]

Wirelessly posted (BlackBerry9700/5.0.0.862 Profile/MIDP-2.1 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/332)

Also let's not forget the legislated LEGAL requirement for digital.

The FCC (and Industry Canada) has said at a future date, very narrow band will be required. Analog cannot do that. Digital can.

Digital also sounds better (in my opinion).

 

[mikewazowski]

Pretty hard to make a case against encryption when you don't even realize that digital does not equal encryption.

 

[se]

Some people are misinformed. I am guilty of that too. Its encryption that stops most scanners from monitoring the police, as well as some radio formats prevent it too, and thats only because of a stupid law that was enacted that made it illegal to decrypt encrypted signals...And yes the police have this setup this way due to secret policing, at least in my opinien anyway. My opinion on this will never change. I must say though that for most cities, the ratio of non scanner owners far outnumbers people who actyally do own scanners.

Sheldon.

 

[KR4BD]

I think Moonbounce's problem here is that some of the analog communications he is used to listening to has gone digital and, to him, is now "unmonitorable" and why should he have to buy another radio. For a while, I kind of felt that way too, but I finally dug deep and spent the bucks to get a digital scanner so I could listen again... By law, technology is changing to narrowband transmissions and I am sure further changes will be coming in the years ahead. This will force all of us wanting to keep up with it to constantly keep abreast of all the new scanners than can handle it.

 

[neondesert]

Wirelessly posted (BlackBerry9700/5.0.0.862 Profile/MIDP-2.1 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/332)

Also let's not forget the legislated LEGAL requirement for digital.

The FCC (and Industry Canada) has said at a future date, very narrow band will be required. Analog cannot do that. Digital can.

I'm familiar with the FCC Narrowbanding requirement which does NOT require digital. Is Your Part 90 UHF or VHF Radio or SCADA System Narrowband Ready? Where has the FCC stated a requirement for "very narrow band" that only digital is capable of?

Digital also sounds better (in my opinion).

That may be the case for some digital systems but not necessarily all of them. You must not have had the pleasure (or rather displeasure) of listening to OpenSky. :roll:

As far as Moonbounce's post, if he wants to monitor unencrypted digital then of course he will have to pony up the extra $$ for a new scanner. If his concern is encrypted transmissions, he's out of luck for now.

 

[gewecke]

Well, you asked for it, now you have it. Got a beef against police use of digital radio's, then post your argument here.

I for one disagree with police use of digital radio, I don't think they are necessary, I think they are in use to hide from the people that they are their to protect, me and you . After all we are not talking about national security or anything like that, it is just cops getting the job done, traffic tickets, noise complaints, etc. I think the real reason behind digital radios is that it makes them less accountable to the public.

One of the reason that I have heard people say that the police need digital radios for their own protection, I end this post with this news article.

Are these cops above the law? - thestar.com

P.S this is the second time in two years I have read articles on police misconduct, the last time it was aimed at the R.C.M.P. and that article was a wopper.

Regarding reasons for public safety to use digital comms; a reason no one has mentioned yet is "interoperability" ?? The ability for all agencies to have access to each other via digital means? I don't think it's always about thwarting "joe scanner" but more about having unified radio comms.
n9zas

 

[n1das]

The title of this thread sure is misleading!

Thread title: The pro's and con's of police digital radio's.
Corrected thread title: The pros and cons of police digital radios.

Pros:
-----
- Clear, noise-free digital audio.
- Able to operate more narrowband compared to analog-only FM radios.
- More usable all the way down to the SINAD threshold when dealing with weak signals.
- Supports high speed data capabilities in addition to voice data. Whether it's voice, video, or other data being transmitted, it doesn't matter provided the data can be represented as digital data.
- Offers encryption capabilities for secure communications when needed. Audio quality doesn't suffer compared to analog scrambling systems.
- Able to communicate in analog mode to work with older analog-only legacy radio systems.

Cons:
-----
- Radios are generally more expensive than analog-only radios.
- Locked into using a particular digital standard to communicate in digital mode(s).
- Analog is already interoperable.

 

[davidgcet]

Where has the FCC stated a requirement for "very narrow band" that only digital is capable of?

when the ultra narrow band 6.25 hits. they have not even set a date requiring manufacturers to be 6.25 capable yet, so it is probably 15-20 years out anyway. but they are already discussing the rules for it.

 

[East_Algoma]

AHhh here it is...

Canadian Case Law : Supreme Court Of Canada Regina v Philps , in saying Supreme Court Justice Louise Arbor said " Police have no expectation of privacy , they use codes which satisfies this Court that all reasonable measures are taken by Police , " It is also a well known fact that Police Radios are out there and the public will listen , thus there can be no expectation of any Privacy in regards to Police and the public wishing to listen " .


This is an older case law , just the same the only one I ever saw that used the highest court in the land...
Before you say I have no rights or whatever , perhaps ascertain the public case law aforementioned.

Sorry, where does it say that you have a "right" to listen to the police. It's no different than you having the "right" to listen to a hospital patch (your're paying the doctor, the paramedics, for the ambulance, etc via tax dollars). You don't have the right to listen to fire investigators. You don't have the right to listen about park employees discuss evacuation plans with senior elected officials. You don't have the right to demand confidential information from the police. You must remember what your rights are.

You do have the right to vote, you do have the right to run as a city councillor, you do have the right to sit on the police services board. You do have the right to attend a community police liaison committee. You do have the right to become a police officer (as long as you can meet the qualifications) and do the policing yourself (the old saying is if you want something done right do it yourself).

That article the star wrote was so out of the park it isn't even funny. Most citizens can understand the situations police have to deal with, and generally have positive encounters, hence why things haven't changed. 100% of police encounters where negative, there would be swift drastic changes.

 

[East_Algoma]

Yes

Yes SIr , you are right !!!

The title of this thread sure is misleading!

Thread title: The pro's and con's of police digital radio's.
Corrected thread title: The pros and cons of police digital radios.

Pros:
-----
- Clear, noise-free digital audio.
- Able to operate more narrowband compared to analog-only FM radios.
- More usable all the way down to the SINAD threshold when dealing with weak signals.
- Supports high speed data capabilities in addition to voice data. Whether it's voice, video, or other data being transmitted, it doesn't matter provided the data can be represented as digital data.
- Offers encryption capabilities for secure communications when needed. Audio quality doesn't suffer compared to analog scrambling systems.
- Able to communicate in analog mode to work with older analog-only legacy radio systems.

Cons:
-----
- Radios are generally more expensive than analog-only radios.
- Locked into using a particular digital standard to communicate in digital mode(s).
- Analog is already interoperable.

 

[rdale]

"It is also a well known fact that Police Radios are out there and the public will listen , thus there can be no expectation of any Privacy in regards to Police and the public wishing to listen " .

Maybe something was lost in translation - where does it say you have the right to hear police transmissions?

 

[East_Algoma]

Right here

Right here Sir : -- > Canadian Case Law : Supreme Court Of Canada Regina v Philps

Maybe something was lost in translation - where does it say you have the right to hear police transmissions?

 

[PCTEK]

Monitoring Police is a mixed bag. As a former reserve police officer, I can see why many departments are encrypting or using their CAD terminals. I wouldn&#8217;t want my personal information being transmitted for all to hear. Invites unwanted people showing up at my door after hearing my name and address. But...as a scanner enthusiast, I don&#8217;t like the trend away from open two-way radio. In our county, if the officer feels the information is best not sent over the air, they use their CAD terminals or cell phones. I'd rather hear partial communications then none at all.

 

[rdale]

Right here Sir : -- > Canadian Case Law : Supreme Court Of Canada Regina v Philps

I read it again, but I saw the English version so that may differ from what you are working with.

It says that the police cannot EXPECT privacy when they transmit in the open and scanner listeners hear. It does not say (anywhere that I can find) that the public has a RIGHT to hear all police transmissions.