RadioReference on Facebook   RadioReference on Twitter   RadioReference Blog
 

Go Back   The RadioReference.com Forums > U.S. Regional Radio Discussion Forums > Pennsylvania Radio Discussion Forum


Pennsylvania Radio Discussion Forum - Forum for discussing Radio Information in the State of Pennsylvania.

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 07-16-2017, 1:36 PM
Member
   
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 125
Default Encryption editorial

Read this Encrypting police transmissions is a blow to transparency and openness in government | Editorials | lancasteronline.com
Sponsored links
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 07-16-2017, 3:32 PM
KK4JUG's Avatar
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Columbus, GA
Posts: 875
Default

Excellent editorial. I hope Lancaster doesn't rely on Mutual Aid Agreements or Memoranda Of Understanding from other agencies. They'll have to use cell phones or yelling to communicate with the other agencies.
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 07-16-2017, 3:59 PM
Member
   
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 458
Default

If others around jump on in same keys or all use interops which can be patched it shouldn't be a problem if done correctly.
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 07-16-2017, 5:29 PM
MikeOxlong's Avatar
Forums Manager/Global DB Admin
  RadioReference Database Admininstrator
Database Admin
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Central Ontario
Posts: 9,568
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LosRio View Post
If others around jump on in same keys or all use interops which can be patched it shouldn't be a problem if done correctly.

Well said. Using mutual aide as an argument against encryption rarely holds water.

In this area, we have analog, P25, DMR, NXDN, trunking, different frequencies and encryption but somehow they all manage to handle mutual aide without a problem.

Patches and dedicated frequencies are the answer.
__________________
Mike.

Sorry but I don't accept PM's. Please use email instead.
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 07-16-2017, 5:43 PM
Member
   
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New Orleans region
Posts: 2,428
Default

As has been said many times before, encrypting everything only goes to the benefit of the radio vendors bank account. I have no reservations on encrypting specific channels and or talkgroups for things like SWAT, Admin and drug teams. But for the most part, it can become a major problem for the daily dispatching.

The radio vendors have refined their wine and dine tactics to the point they know exactly when to spring the big E on the management people they are meeting with. They make it sound like it's a life and death situation if everything isn't encrypted. Then these same vendors smile all the way to the bank. In their wake is the headaches of trying to communicate with other agencies, changing the encryption keys now and then and trying to keep track of who needs what encryption key.

Been in this radio field a really long time and have seen this wave of pushing for full encryption through the entire fleet of radios across the country. If an agency is upgrading to a new P25 system, even more effort is put on these agencies by the sales force to get encryption included with the new radio system. The poor tax payer ends up taking it where the sun don't shine.

I know this topic has been beat to death.
__________________
Jim
Sponsored links
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 07-16-2017, 6:29 PM
NYRHKY94's Avatar
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Brunswick County, NC
Posts: 1,266
Default

Encryption of all communications (not just sensitive operations) is in essence a "policy decision". While a given public safety department's views on this matter (Chief or otherwise) may be the initial impetus behind a move to full encryption, the decision to do so ultimately rests with those who that same department/Chief report to: City Mayor, Town Manager/Town Council, County Executives etc.

Technology and vendor sales pressure aside, it's the elected political powers in a given jurisdiction that make the final call as to whether or not all communications will be Encrypted. These same elected officials are also responsible for upholding a certain level of transparency & openness in their government operations - including allowing their constituents (public and media) some level of access.

Like any other policy decision, it's incumbent that our government officials strive to find a healthy balance between the need to protect officer safety and the right of those they serve (the public) to have transparency in the government they pay for. I personally believe this is where the dialogue around this whole issue needs to move to.

That compromise for lack of a better word is somewhere in the middle IMO. Encryption of sensitive operations if a department so desires/needs, while leaving day-to-day patrol activities in the clear is something most rational people and hobbyists can probably support. Easier said than done....but it can be done.
__________________
BCD536HP/BCD436HP/BCD325P2/BCD996XT/BCT15X/PSR-600/PSR-500/PRO-197
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 07-16-2017, 7:42 PM
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 136
Default

my experiences with this are that at least initially, the media is to be left out in the cold with the public.

then, they will write some not so nice articles about the police and how this affects public trust, transparency and all those other buzz words.

then the media will be provided appropriately equipped radios so they can (again) monitor the agency in question.

and that's the last you will ever hear about it in the media.... because as a tax paying peasant, you shouldn't have any interest in what the police are doing.
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 07-17-2017, 9:32 AM
Member
   
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 299
Default

The mainstream media are also "for profit companies" with a vested interest in monitoring public safety activity.

Last edited by TDR-94; 07-17-2017 at 9:37 AM..
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 07-17-2017, 3:23 PM
mmckenna's Avatar
Member
   
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: WTVLCA01DS0
Posts: 7,487
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NYRHKY94 View Post
Encryption of all communications (not just sensitive operations) is in essence a "policy decision". While a given public safety department's views on this matter (Chief or otherwise) may be the initial impetus behind a move to full encryption, the decision to do so ultimately rests with those who that same department/Chief report to: City Mayor, Town Manager/Town Council, County Executives etc.

Technology and vendor sales pressure aside, it's the elected political powers in a given jurisdiction that make the final call as to whether or not all communications will be Encrypted. These same elected officials are also responsible for upholding a certain level of transparency & openness in their government operations - including allowing their constituents (public and media) some level of access.

Like any other policy decision, it's incumbent that our government officials strive to find a healthy balance between the need to protect officer safety and the right of those they serve (the public) to have transparency in the government they pay for. I personally believe this is where the dialogue around this whole issue needs to move to.

That compromise for lack of a better word is somewhere in the middle IMO. Encryption of sensitive operations if a department so desires/needs, while leaving day-to-day patrol activities in the clear is something most rational people and hobbyists can probably support. Easier said than done....but it can be done.

Well said.

I'd add that in the cases where the City, County, Agency, etc. has their own radio shop, does their own programming, etc. (like most large ones do) the guys in the radio shop need to be in on this.
In the end, there should be a subject matter expert on the side of the agency that is involved and can provide input to the decision makers. This, in many cases, would be the agency radio guy, shop, tech, sergeant, etc.

That person should understand what encryption is and how it impacts things. If everyone agrees that the benefits to encryption outweigh the costs, then that may very well be the right decision.
On the other hand, the same radio guys should be making sure that band specific interoperability channels be programmed into the radios and that it's included in part of the training (they do have a training plan, right?). That's something DHS has been pushing for years, but seems to be falling on deaf ears.

As for the hobbyist side of it, I'm not really that involved. I can say from my point of view that making sure hobbyists have access to listen in on agency communications usually isn't on the list of deliverables.
With freedom of information acts, recorded dispatch audio, delayed feeds, etc. making sure that a scanner listener can monitor at will is not a concern of most departments. In fact I've been specifically asked on occasion how we can block on line scanner feeds.
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 07-17-2017, 5:31 PM
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: 127.0.0.1
Posts: 1,079
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jim202 View Post
As has been said many times before, encrypting everything only goes to the benefit of the radio vendors bank account. I have no reservations on encrypting specific channels and or talkgroups for things like SWAT, Admin and drug teams. But for the most part, it can become a major problem for the daily dispatching.

The radio vendors have refined their wine and dine tactics to the point they know exactly when to spring the big E on the management people they are meeting with. They make it sound like it's a life and death situation if everything isn't encrypted. Then these same vendors smile all the way to the bank. In their wake is the headaches of trying to communicate with other agencies, changing the encryption keys now and then and trying to keep track of who needs what encryption key.

Been in this radio field a really long time and have seen this wave of pushing for full encryption through the entire fleet of radios across the country. If an agency is upgrading to a new P25 system, even more effort is put on these agencies by the sales force to get encryption included with the new radio system. The poor tax payer ends up taking it where the sun don't shine.

I know this topic has been beat to death.
Motorola has just included AES256 for free on the APX line, I suspect that more agencies will adopt this standard.
__________________
Making your scanner useless, county by county.
Encryption, it pays my mortgage.
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 07-17-2017, 5:56 PM
Member
   
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: In the 'patch
Posts: 4,449
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jim202 View Post
As has been said many times before, encrypting everything only goes to the benefit of the radio vendors bank account. I have no reservations on encrypting specific channels and or talkgroups for things like SWAT, Admin and drug teams. But for the most part, it can become a major problem for the daily dispatching...
How does it 'become a major problem for the daily dispatching' exactly.

The lower mainland in BC is replacing their ancient EDACS system with a P25/phase 2 system that will be 100% AES256 encrypted. EVERYBODY. Police, fire, and ambulance. Even the interop channels are encrypted.

OTAR for the win, and a bunch of departments that have their poop in a group to be able to coordinate encryption keys.

Sent from my SM-G870W using Tapatalk
__________________
Interoperatablity is not a technology, it is an attitude!!!
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 07-18-2017, 5:22 AM
Member
  Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: FM19xs
Posts: 917
Default

I had to check to make sure I was still in the PA forum, as I don't think a single comment in this thread is from anyone local.

The system already has encryption on it. The police are just turning it on on their everyday operation TGs. They offered all Fire and EMS stations to have their own dedicated TGs encrypted as well if they choose to. My department has chosen to do it. There's nothing interested said there anyway. It's a chit-chat TG that we use for fundraisers and stuff.

The cost to taxpayers will be when we get kicked off of T-Band and have to relocate. No one's talking about that in this county yet. I think they hope it won't happen.
__________________
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 07-18-2017, 8:17 AM
LEH's Avatar
LEH LEH is offline
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Yorktown, Virginia
Posts: 1,177
Default Encryption comment

While I am not local to Lancaster County, I do visit occasionally (the Ren Fair) and I also live in an area that has elected to encrypt the majority of their transmissions.

I have mixed emotions on public safety encryption. As an long time scanner enthusiast I certainly do not like encryption. From an 'officer safety' standpoint, I can partially understand the desire for encryption. Though for the most part I do not think that is a truly valid point.

For day to day routine transmissions, I DO NOT support encryption. Police and fire are, as was pointed out in the article, public servants and this does not lend well to keeping the public informed. It gives the impression of a police state trying to hide their actions.

That said, I heartily support encryption in certain cases. In situations such as a SWAT, call out or undercover operations (where officer AND PUBLIC safety are truly a consideration), or dignitary protection encryption should be encouraged.
__________________
Lynn
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 07-18-2017, 10:54 AM
FiremanSparky's Avatar
Member
   
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Somewhere in the Rocky Mountains
Posts: 284
Default Encryption Editorial

Quote:
Originally Posted by com501 View Post
Motorola has just included AES256 for free on the APX line, I suspect that more agencies will adopt this standard.

As much as they are charging for these radio's, they can afford to.
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 07-18-2017, 8:19 PM
equalizer245's Avatar
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Lexington,SC
Posts: 169
Default Encryption Commetn

Iím in South Carolina and in a county were the sheriff department been encrypted sense late 90s you can always use EMS and Fire for a backup what i do here anything big EMS or FIRE will respond i believe police should have encrypted channels but not there dispatch that should be open just like a incident here in February where 4 people were shot it was a domestic situation they were looking for the guy they were asking for help from municipal police they made a statement they couldnít get on the countyís channel due to encryption so they had to send a officer to the countyís command post to relay information thatís to much passing on info and all when time is valuable thatís just my two cents worth
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 07-18-2017, 8:40 PM
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Toledo, Ohio
Posts: 14
Default

One of the counties near me has gone to DMR but the Sheriff has even been kind enough to offer a low power analog feed of the DMR channel for the public. They also have an encrypted channel for the SWAT team but it is rarely used. What is causing difficulty is the increasing use of RAS hashed passwords with Motorola DMR repeaters. Only DSD+ or recent Whistler or Uniden scanners can ignore them and Tyteras or CS radios as well as Motorolas will not decode the audio when the RAS password header is encountered.
I understand that encryption also decreases the range of the radios. Montreal, Quebec has had P25 encryption for years.
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 07-18-2017, 8:57 PM
mmckenna's Avatar
Member
   
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: WTVLCA01DS0
Posts: 7,487
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fluke281 View Post
I understand that encryption also decreases the range of the radios.
Not with digital. It's the same ones and zeros, just arranged differently.
  #18 (permalink)  
Old 07-18-2017, 9:20 PM
Member
   
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New Orleans region
Posts: 2,428
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by com501 View Post
Motorola has just included AES256 for free on the APX line, I suspect that more agencies will adopt this standard.
Don't think this came as a peace offering from Motorola. It came about partially due to DHS saying it would no longer fund any grant money if AES256 wasn't part of the encryption package. Motorola has been offering AEP for nothing up to this point. So this may now be the new wave of the future.
__________________
Jim
  #19 (permalink)  
Old 07-19-2017, 5:20 AM
whsbuss's Avatar
Member
   
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: SE Pa
Posts: 526
Default

Soon our hobby will be dead for public safety
  #20 (permalink)  
Old 07-19-2017, 6:01 AM
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 72
Default

I was just on Long Beach Island, NJ and found a couple of the towns have switched their lifeguards to encrypted DMR radios. I had found that monitoring lifeguards before getting to the beach can give me a good idea on surf conditions, water temp, rip currents and other hazards. I hadn't realized lifeguards are at high risk of ambush and media interference.
Closed Thread

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 4:45 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
All information here is Copyright 2012 by RadioReference.com LLC and Lindsay C. Blanton III.Ad Management by RedTyger
Copyright 2015 by RadioReference.com LLC Privacy Policy  |  Terms and Conditions