And that's the way it should be. Keep the routine day to day traffic in the clear, switch over for confidential or tactical traffic. Well done, Bucks!
Bucks county encryption
- Thread starter bill31089
- Start date
- Status
In our city / county (as well as the state police,) there are dedicated encrypted channels (TGs) rather than switching encryption on / off on a single TG / channel - curious what the industry suggests is the best practice. Routine operations are in the clear (as they should be.) It *might* have to do with extra personnel staffing at the EOC, but dispatchers can monitor / operate on multiple TGs from a single position.
bill31089
Member
I got the announcement on video last night The Forum won't let me upload it because it says it is too large here is a link to it on my YouTube page the video is unlisted so you can only see it if you have the link.
bill31089
Member
The entire county on police zones are operating encrypted currently for a unknown amount of time
bill31089
Member
A bit of research about the Bucks County system revealed an agreement concerning encryption signed by county commissioners, police and advisory board members, and the county CEO. It indicates that "on-the-fly" encryption will be available on the system, but the parties agree that full-time encryption is not compatible with interoperability.
A spotting of Common Sense, a creature on the endangered species list..
It is sadly funny how their next door neighbor (Montgomery County) has a completely different attitude regarding police encryption for their new system (whenever the new system eventually makes it online.).
Citizens need to speak up.
With all due respect...and say what? Point me to a case where citizens spoke up and had encryption reversed? Local government is well within their right to employ encryption, all rhetoric aside.
And express displeasure. You know, democracy. And local governments do not have rights - they have policies.
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2007
- Messages
- 6,180
So Zone 1 Bristol just made the announcement and went encrypted, and I mean the dispatcher, some cars are still in the clear, maybe they didn't get the memo.
I listen everyday and I think this is the first time I've ever heard the dispatcher on Zone 1 going encrypted. Up to now it's been an occasional car. Let's see if they come back or not, it's almost like detox. If they're going to do it just do it.
In 2000 when Bucks County went to the type II smartzone system the only way we news types could pick them up was with Motorola radios but at work we had to hand them to the next shift, so at home I had no police reception for almost 3 years until I got a pro-96 and a bc250d in 2003.
At least then there was a light at the end of the tunnel because we knew digital scanners were being developed.
This sucks.
I listen everyday and I think this is the first time I've ever heard the dispatcher on Zone 1 going encrypted. Up to now it's been an occasional car. Let's see if they come back or not, it's almost like detox. If they're going to do it just do it.
In 2000 when Bucks County went to the type II smartzone system the only way we news types could pick them up was with Motorola radios but at work we had to hand them to the next shift, so at home I had no police reception for almost 3 years until I got a pro-96 and a bc250d in 2003.
At least then there was a light at the end of the tunnel because we knew digital scanners were being developed.
This sucks.
Let's not let semantics cloud the issue. They have the right (and duty) to make and enforcre policy. Expressing displeasure is fine if not futile, but my question was what can I say to reverse the outcome of a decision already made? I'm looking for suggestions given that all the usual arguments fall on deaf ears. Thanks.
Again, governments do not have rights - people have rights.
In Maryland, the DNR Natural Resources Police initially encrypted all of their channels when they joined the new statewide FIRST system. However, they are one of the agencies responsible for responding to emergencies on Chesapeake Bay, and could not effectively interoperate with the various county fire department and Coast Guard boats that also have rescue responsibilities in these waters. So the NRP changed their operational policy and reverted to unencrypted comms on their main operating TGs, while retaining encryption on their tactical / investigatory TGs.
In DC, the fire department decided to - with very short notice - encrypt all channels. This change required 8 surrounding jurisdictions to install encryption keys in literally tens of thousands of radios to enable mutual aid responses into the city, which happen on a daily basis. Let's just say that people were upset. The fire department was soon forced / ordered by the Mayor and City Council to revert to open comms on operational TGs when it became clear that its justification to encrypt was not based on security concerns, but to avoid embarrassment (there had been several incidents that came to light by various groups that had access to the open comms.)
So, decisions / policies can be reversed when it becomes clear they adversely affect operations, or are shown not to have been justified.
In Maryland, the DNR Natural Resources Police initially encrypted all of their channels when they joined the new statewide FIRST system. However, they are one of the agencies responsible for responding to emergencies on Chesapeake Bay, and could not effectively interoperate with the various county fire department and Coast Guard boats that also have rescue responsibilities in these waters. So the NRP changed their operational policy and reverted to unencrypted comms on their main operating TGs, while retaining encryption on their tactical / investigatory TGs.
In DC, the fire department decided to - with very short notice - encrypt all channels. This change required 8 surrounding jurisdictions to install encryption keys in literally tens of thousands of radios to enable mutual aid responses into the city, which happen on a daily basis. Let's just say that people were upset. The fire department was soon forced / ordered by the Mayor and City Council to revert to open comms on operational TGs when it became clear that its justification to encrypt was not based on security concerns, but to avoid embarrassment (there had been several incidents that came to light by various groups that had access to the open comms.)
So, decisions / policies can be reversed when it becomes clear they adversely affect operations, or are shown not to have been justified.
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2007
- Messages
- 6,180
I have a suggestion but I want to stay within the guidelines of RR.
We all use sophisticated radios to be able to pick up the Bucks County system. Serious hobbyist, First Responders, radio ham operators and legitimate news types monitor with good intentions and can even assist at times.
If there was some way we could stop the ability for just ANYONE to listen to the Bucks County Police with NO effort or cost that might be a gesture that would help Stave off encryption.
At least that's what I've been told by more than one police official. Just saying.
Just a thought and I'll leave it up to your imaginations.
We all use sophisticated radios to be able to pick up the Bucks County system. Serious hobbyist, First Responders, radio ham operators and legitimate news types monitor with good intentions and can even assist at times.
If there was some way we could stop the ability for just ANYONE to listen to the Bucks County Police with NO effort or cost that might be a gesture that would help Stave off encryption.
At least that's what I've been told by more than one police official. Just saying.
Just a thought and I'll leave it up to your imaginations.
Understand your sentiment and agree, but free RR membership ($$) for folks who can already afford $1000+ radios just don't care, and just won't change ways (out of good will) for those who follow the right (logical) path. It's because of them that we'll all lose in the end.. Just ain't gonna change those types.. and then they'll cry fowl because they gotta find something else to stream to keep this benefit..
Back when digital radios were starting to be deployed in our area, news organizations complained that they would be no longer able to receive public safety communications. That was initially mitigated by the news agencies being allowed to buy P25 capable radios through the government. Shortly thereafter, the market responded by releasing scanners that could decode P25 voice, and saved these organizations a lot of money.
However, encryption is a different animal in that the market cannot respond, thus we are back to a government agency providing a path for (I assume) vetted organizations to purchase capable radios to monitor certain comms. If the agency wanted to, they could allow a (vetted) person or organization to purchase a capable device - maybe a pager? - that is equipped with the proper keys and locked down so the user cannot read or change its configuration to monitor allowed channels. I'm sure there would be some sort of NDA or other agreement attached to the permission. Another solution would be for the agency to provide a stream / feed of their comms. A public feed could be delayed, or a private feed could allow for a subscription or secure access for vetted persons.
- Status
Similar threads
