Listening to Wolcott PD tonight and sounds like someone is running with encryptions. I think its only 1 radio as most communications are clear other than 1 unit. I thought most systems were either encrypted/or not. I didn't think they could run in a split mode.
wolcott pd - Unit encrypted
- Thread starter scottb908
- Start date
- Status
They can.
That's been a staple of encrypted radios for many years, the clear/secured switch.
mmckenna
I ♥ Ø
The encryption is in the radio/console, not necessarily the repeater. So, yes, one radio could be running encrypted. Depending on how the other radios/consoles are set up, they'd just decode it and the end users wouldn't necessarily notice.
As a417 said, the radio can be set up with one of the switches/buttons set up to turn encryption on/off, allowing the end user to decide when to run encryption or not. The other radios will see it and just decode the audio, but their replies will be in the clear.
Other systems might be set up where certain channels/talk groups are "strapped" to only run encrypted.
Specifically, as it applies to Wolcott PD, a friend of mine (who lives in Wolcott) and listens to the first responders, confirmed that Wolcott PD has the capability to do exactly what you mention, where only half the conversation is encrypted. His take on the situation is it’s probably just someone who forgot to change back to the un-encrypted mode after using the encryption mode. My friend tells me when the current system was first installed the PD were totally encrypted… wether for testing or a deliberate intent is not known, but after a while the PD went back to in-the-clear mode of at least their routine dispatches. He believes it may have been due to concerns from the general public, not being able to receive anymore… especially those family members and friends of the police dept. I tend to agree with his reasoning, but it’s only a guess on his part.
To the question of should encryption be used? The police know full well there are those who monitor the PD, both those responsible citizens and criminals alike. And if they allow routine dispatches to remain in the clear, it’s not hampering their ability to perform their duties. If they change from open to closed transmissions, they understand a person with criminal intent may be tipped off that the cops may be on to them, as there are scanners that will be able to hear encrypted transmissions (there’s no intelligible understanding of what’s being said, but there’s still that transmission. So, instead of going to encryption they use other forms of communications such as MDT’s (Mobile Data Terminals) or cell phones. And this concern, namely giving those criminal entities the ability to know when encryption is being used, has caused many PD’s to disregard encryption all-together, and stick to usingthe other means of comms for sensitive or proprietary exchanges of information.
I caution against hijacking this thread and turning it into an encryption topic. That topic is covered elsewhere in the forums area? The admins of RR frown upon hijacking. The only reason I mention it here is specifically as it relates to a single agency’s use, or lack of use of it. I don’t advocate to either side of the issue.
To the question of should encryption be used? The police know full well there are those who monitor the PD, both those responsible citizens and criminals alike. And if they allow routine dispatches to remain in the clear, it’s not hampering their ability to perform their duties. If they change from open to closed transmissions, they understand a person with criminal intent may be tipped off that the cops may be on to them, as there are scanners that will be able to hear encrypted transmissions (there’s no intelligible understanding of what’s being said, but there’s still that transmission. So, instead of going to encryption they use other forms of communications such as MDT’s (Mobile Data Terminals) or cell phones. And this concern, namely giving those criminal entities the ability to know when encryption is being used, has caused many PD’s to disregard encryption all-together, and stick to usingthe other means of comms for sensitive or proprietary exchanges of information.
I caution against hijacking this thread and turning it into an encryption topic. That topic is covered elsewhere in the forums area? The admins of RR frown upon hijacking. The only reason I mention it here is specifically as it relates to a single agency’s use, or lack of use of it. I don’t advocate to either side of the issue.
I was on the FD in town when the new system and radios were installed for PD/FD/EMS/DPW and one reason for not going encryption was so we at the FD can communicate with PD on their channel installed in the FD and EMS radios and will get some kind of report from 1st arriving police officer if needed also FD & EMS radios do not have encryption functions.I listen to police all the time and never heard them in E mode, they use cell phones and commputers in the cars if something sensitive needs to be said.
Yup, that’s also my take on it… except I failed to mention the FD/PD link you described. Thanks for adding to my post… good info.
- Status
Similar threads
