Ark Citizens Suing Over Radio Encryption

[Jimru]

I rest my case. Not the lawsuit, but everyone knows what I mean



My response in opposition to the motion to consolidate is only waiting on the city attorney to actually file said motion



That statement is only true because of many bad pro ses trying. One should absolutely never take on something like a lawsuit if one doesn't have the knowledge. But apparently, pro ses really upset judges. Especially here in the south. Since city attorney carpenter has already done his fair share of research on me, I guess it can't hurt for me to repeat; I have extensive courtroom experience. Pro se was initially a tactical pick. Didn't want the defendants to get their defenses up. I'm still not going to reveal more until it's "known to all parties", so probably after the first hearing.

I thanks to everyone for your support.

Wishing you lots of luck!

 

[durango5550]

where are the numbers coming from that criminals are using scanners to monitor police traffic? Honestly I think most criminals are to stupid to do that. Scanner feeds are delayed so that wouldn't help anyone , and last time I checked an officer doesn't relay his position every five seconds.

I applaud these guys but I bet the defending attorneys bring up the HIPPA laws. During a traffic stop alot of personal info is released in open comms. Drivers lic number , address , social security numbers ( sometimes )

That is going to be their defense for encryption.

As a scanner junkie myself I am disappointed to learn that the system I listen to will be going encrypted. Unsure the extent of the encryption but in the board meeting minutes they are talking about the radios being flashed for encryption so it is coming.

Good luck to you gentlemen and to the rest of us as well

 

[INDY72]

HIPPA only applies to medical data and has no bearing on law enforcement communications.

 

[Citywide173]

It's HIPAA not HIPPA. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. I have lectured on HIPAA at Northeastern University and countless EMT courses. It drives me crazy to see people who try using it as an excuse for encryption to not even take the time to learn the correct abbreviation. People have tried hiding behind this for years, but it really doesn't change much from EMS communications of the past. As long as a person cannot identify the patient from the information, it is HIPAA compliant

The stuff referenced above may be considered as CORI in many states, but does not fall under laws anywhere near as restrictive as HIPAA.

 

[03msc]

HIPPA only applies to medical data and has no bearing on law enforcement communications.

This is what I've always understood as well. Thanks for clearing that up!

 

[wheels63]

If they stop using encryption,they will just use there cell phones.Thats the way my local police and sheriff depts do it.

 

[03msc]

If they stop using encryption,they will just use there cell phones.Thats the way my local police and sheriff depts do it.

Some comms should be private - either encrypted or via phone. No offense intended, but I highly doubt that when an officer is making a traffic stop he calls dispatch on the phone instead of notifying them via the radio. That is what is being challenged in the lawsuit and discussed here - that general comms should be "in the clear", i.e. not encrypted. The other stuff - lengthy details about a domestic dispute, comms for an operation to 'hit' a drug house, etc. - should be encrypted or kept private.

I say this because it seems you missed the point - they don't use their* cell phones for general radio traffic (traffic stops, accidents, etc.) or, at least, they shouldn't as that would mean other officers wouldn't be privy to what was going on so that they could assist, if needed. However, they most likely do for certain private information or extended details about a situation...and no one is arguing that those should be in the clear anyway.

 

[tsalmrsystemtech]

Brandon,

I'm going to make a suggestion. STOP. Stop posting, as what you have already posted makes you appear less than fully intelligent. Grammatical errors, run on sentences and misspelled words do nothing to help your case. If it was "just a forum," I would say fine, but you are posting to one of the most utilized communications tools on the internet. System managers, chiefs and corporate counsels all visit this site for different purposes. If you think the attorney defending against your suit isn't reading what is posted here, you are only kidding yourself. You are making yourself look like a vigilante out to take away as many police jobs that you can, and you are using the suit as the catalyst.

I do not support encryption of police dispatch channels, and I applaud your efforts to attempt a legal remedy against those who are doing it. The only problem is that if you start to spout off on a message board, expect to be demonized into a radical by the opposing counsel. The posts you just made are inflammatory at best, and may border on libelous at worst. You can expect to see them again, most likely as evidence in a motion to dismiss. If your case is thrown out, it only makes future attempts more difficult, as precedent has been set. My advice is to not appear pro se, as most people do not have the requisite knowledge to represent themselves in a court of law-get an attorney and follow their advice-EVEN IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT. Most of all, keep to yourself-the WWII saying Loose Lips Sink Ships applies here.

Brandon: You keep posting here and don't let some bully members here on this site scare you saying that system managers, chiefs, and opposing counsel reading this site. Who cares. These people don't get the final say on what happens. The judge will make the final decision on your complaint in Little Rock.

Keep fighting the fight but do clean up the grammar. What I usually do is right my rough draft in word and do spell check and then paste it when it comes to legal stuff.

 

[brandon564]

Brandon: You keep posting here and don't let some bully members here on this site scare you saying that system managers, chiefs, and opposing counsel reading this site. Who cares. These people don't get the final say on what happens. The judge will make the final decision on your complaint in Little Rock.

Keep fighting the fight but do clean up the grammar. What I usually do is right my rough draft in word and do spell check and then paste it when it comes to legal stuff.

Did you get my point?

 

[MadSpleen85]

If anyone subscribes to it, the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, has another story that was posted on Tuesday (September 2nd) appears to be about this suit.

All I can see is the paywall. Not sure if this is anything new or not. I refuse to pay a penny to read an online news article.

Official aims to merge suits on encryption

 

[dave90000]

Here is a link to the actual case that is filed

https://caseinfo.aoc.arkansas.gov/c...=P&case_id=60CV-14-3271&begin_date=&end_date=

 

[KF5OBS]

There's some movement in my case. I filed an amended complaint thats reaching a bit deeper into teh matter and removing the possibility of LR screwing me by simply providing the requested recordings. You can see the filings under the link dave90000 provided.

https://caseinfo.aoc.arkansas.gov/c...=P&case_id=60CV-14-3271&begin_date=&end_date=

But that's not the relevant movement. This is: Little Rock decided to respond to another FOIA request of mine and provide recordings of encrypted audio recordings on CD. Unredacted no less. Once I pick up the CD on Tuesday I will report further.

 

[szron]

Not surprised they did that.

How can you proceed with the suit if they responded to your request?

 

[KF5OBS]

Not surprised they did that.

How can you proceed with the suit if they responded to your request?

If it were that easy, everyone would be a lawyer, right? But that's not how it works. Asides from the fact that, as stated above, they responded _another_ FOIA request, not the one in litigation, it still wouldn't work. To essentially 'void' a lawsuit, the opponent would have to fulfill ALL requested remedies. That is impossible, especially after the amendment has been filed. My lawsuit does ask for the recordings but the subject of the lawsuit is more so the declaratory action in which I ask the court to declare that Little Rock has violated the Arkansas FOIA. So if they provide all recordings, the part trying to compel the release is pretty much void (I'd withdraw before they ask for dismissal), but the declaratory part still stands.

Analogy: You owe me $ 100. You fail to pay. I sue and ask for a judgement awarding me $ 100 and to declare that you failed to pay. If you pay, I can't get a judgement for the $ 100 anymore but I can get the declaratory part. But odds are I won't get awarded cost / attorney fees because it's an unnecessary part. If I would have solely filed a complaint for a $ 100 judgement and you paid up all of a sudden, the whole suit is moot.

EDIT: I should add that the above example doesn't make mention of the fact that pursuing different remedies in the same action can be troublesome. One is not always allowed to pursue different kind of relief (injunctive, declaratory, etc.) at the same time. So the analogy above was solely for explanatory purposes. But for this jurisdiction, the existence of another adequate remedy does not preclude declaratory relief. See: Rule 57, Ark. R. Civ. P.

 

[szron]

So declaratory relief is nothing more than an official "declaration" if you will that something happened, didn't happened etc? It's not compelling anybody to do anything right?

 

[SCPD]

FOI

I have read the KF5OBS complaint, and supporting documents.

I am surprised someone assigned by the Little Rock Police Department to respond to FOIA requests didn't know the encryption keys are exempt under the Arkansas FOIA.

 

[KF5OBS]

So declaratory relief is nothing more than an official "declaration" if you will that something happened, didn't happened etc? It's not compelling anybody to do anything right?

Sort of, kind of. At it's core it's exactly what it's called; A judicial declaration of facts. But if used properly, this does strip someone of reasons to deny an action. For instance, if the court declares that something is not exempted information, then Little Rock can not go around and refuse another FOIA based on the same information being exempted from disclosure. I mean technically they can do it but they can't argue they didn't know any better. At that point, at least in Arkansas, it becomes a crime. Even negligent violations of the Arkansas FOIA are considered a crime.

So a simple declaration can often have huge consequences. That's why you sometimes mix it in a lawsuit with other requests for relief. Declare facts and compel resolution of a situation. If the latter falls through, you don't need to argue the first part again in court if you commence another action pertaining to the same circumstances. It gets complex if you want to really want to delve into why one relief is sought after over another. Or why they may be combined and what that does achieve.

If you want to read into the basics, here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaratory_judgment

EDIT:

I am surprised someone assigned by the Little Rock Police Department to respond to FOIA requests didn't know the encryption keys are exempt under the Arkansas FOIA.

The response was very likely not written by that person but heavily influenced by the City Attorney(s). And so far your statement would earn an "Objection, facts assumed not in evidence," from me. That question has NOT been answered yet for Arkansas.

 

[SCPD]

Sort of, kind of. At it's core it's exactly what it's called; A judicial declaration of facts. But if used properly, this does strip someone of reasons to deny an action. For instance, if the court declares that something is not exempted information, then Little Rock can not go around and refuse another FOIA based on the same information being exempted from disclosure. I mean technically they can do it but they can't argue they didn't know any better. At that point, at least in Arkansas, it becomes a crime. Even negligent violations of the Arkansas FOIA are considered a crime.

So a simple declaration can often have huge consequences. That's why you sometimes mix it in a lawsuit with other requests for relief. Declare facts and compel resolution of a situation. If the latter falls through, you don't need to argue the first part again in court if you commence another action pertaining to the same circumstances. It gets complex if you want to really want to delve into why one relief is sought after over another. Or why they may be combined and what that does achieve.

If you want to read into the basics, here you go: Declaratory judgment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

EDIT:

The response was very likely not written by that person but heavily influenced by the City Attorney(s). And so far your statement would earn an "Objection, facts assumed not in evidence," from me. That question has NOT been answered yet for Arkansas.

Exemptions:

29-19-105 (b) (11) Records containing measures, procedures, instructions, or related data used to cause a computer or a computer system or network, including telecommunication networks or applications thereon, to perform security functions, including, but not limited to, passwords, personal identification numbers, transaction authorization mechanisms, and other means of preventing access to computers, computer systems or networks, or any data residing therein;

 

[KF5OBS]

Oh, while I was researching all the laws and tons of related decisions I must have totally missed that exemption. Not.

Let me repeat: For the Arkansas FOIA this has not been decided. Passwords and cryptographic keys are different in many ways. And the Arkansas Supreme Court has provided on multiple events that it doesn't like interpretations of exemptions. Its stance on the matter is pretty much "unless it is explicitly listed, it's not exempt."

But interesting to have a brand new user that solely signed up for purposes of arguing for the other side. Not that I mind, but keep in mind that you may give opposing counsel ideas and may possibly hurt this cause. Your choice.

 

[SCPD]

Point taken. I will not make any further comments.