Burbank, CA - Police block public from radio frequencies

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Feb 17, 2012
Messages
7
Location
Lino Lakes, MN
I know that law enforcement is facing additional threats of injury or death than when I was a police officer, but encrypting your communications is a bit much. We never had a problem with interference from the public nor did all the criminals have scanners, and if we were working a special ops, we had encrypted radios that we used for that. They must realize that adjacent agencies that may monitor their transmissions will be affected too.
 

DPD1

Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2005
Messages
1,994
Well according to them, this actually creates BETTER mutual aid. That's what the Chief of Pasadena said. Or should I say... That's one of the lines of nonsense he pitched to the media.

So here we go... Follow the leader. Interesting how all of the sudden the other towns are now claiming there's all these alleged issues they face, right after Pasadena did it... Like it has been some big problem all along. Still waiting for the examples to be listed of all these criminals supposedly being caught using scanners. Haven't heard one yet.
 

karldotcom

Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2003
Messages
1,849
Location
Burbank, CA
Burbank PD encrypted their INFO channel from the start when they switched to ICIS....which they run drivers licenses and background checks on....

Bob Hope Airport PD also encrypts their 2nd channel, which is also used for INFO.

Glendale encrypts their SWAT channel, and some others.....


Guess I won't be needing a Home Patrol anytime soon if departments keep switching!
 

kb2vxa

Completely Banned for the Greater Good
Banned
Joined
Mar 22, 2005
Messages
6,131
Location
Point Pleasant Beach, N.J.
Here are two cases where misinformation abounds thanks to ignorance of the facts, first the reporter.

"After spending $7 million on upgrades to comply with a federal 2013 deadline to switch police radio communications from analog to digital..."

Those of us in the know can tell the difference between narrow-banding and digital the article has confused.

"Pasadena Police Lt. Phlunte Riddle said that while it's not required by federal officials, her department chose to encrypt its channel to protect victims' privacy and the safety of its officers."

Encryption of sensitive communications was mandated by the FCC back in the 80s I believe, the FBI began using DES3 on VHF shortly before going to even more secure terrestrial and satellite systems.

Thankfully those with encryption capability only "go secure" when need arises while others have encryption only on channels used for sensitive communications. Unfortunately some like the local cop shop consider everything sensitive, some of da boyz 'n blue even brag about their secure radios. Isn't it illegal to punch a cop? (;->) Then sometimes I get a giggle out of another nearby when dispatch says "I can't understand you, you're on secure." and it takes a bit of fiddling around before he figures out the little switch with the dot and circle.
 
Last edited:

ipfd320

Member
Banned
Joined
Jul 30, 2008
Messages
753
Location
W.Babylon N.Y. 11704
Burbank PD encrypted their INFO channel from the start when they switched to ICIS....which they run drivers licenses and background checks on....

Bob Hope Airport PD also encrypts their 2nd channel, which is also used for INFO.

Glendale encrypts their SWAT channel, and some others.....


Guess I won't be needing a Home Patrol anytime soon if departments keep switching!

Out here in Long Island N.Y (nassau county) on uhf freq of 477.xxxx they went to scrambling (many yrs ago) some of the freq used in survellance/special ops/detective divisions/distric attorneys office/and license checks (for public privacy)on car stops so names and addresses were,nt heard--now there almost up and running on a full encrypted 500 meg-p25 system i looks to me like were gonna be in the dark and the only way to know whats happening out there is by the media
 

GrumpyGuard

Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2003
Messages
629
Location
Oregon
i looks to me like were gonna be in the dark and the only way to know whats happening out there is by the media
This means we will only know the Police want us to know.

I find it really convenient that they all speak about all the criminals that have scanners while committing crimes, yet when pressed they can never were these stats are located. I have a friend who works for our local Sheriffs Office, and he is always complaining that he always see's the criminals out there with there scanners. I asked him when the last time he arrested someone with a scanner or phone app that was using it during the commission of a crime. After some pressing he had to admit that he could not remember the last time he arrested some one with a scanner. Go figure, Lets come up with some hard numbers or loose the encryption on the dispatch channel and continue to encrypt sensitive info.

Just my $0.02 :p
 

W8RMH

Feed Provider Since 2012
Joined
Jan 4, 2009
Messages
8,112
Location
Grove City, OH (A Bearcat not a Buckeye)
Encryption of sensitive communications was mandated by the FCC back in the 80s I believe, the FBI began using DES3 on VHF shortly before going to even more secure terrestrial and satellite systems.
This is the first I have heard of this. I know of hundreds of agencies that do not use any type of encryption.

It is not about safety. People have listened to Police comms since the thirties. It is all about keeping the public in the dark so these agencies don't have to be accountable.
 

steve888

Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2011
Messages
96
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
In an open and democratic society, the police should not be allowed to operate in complete secrecy. That should be reserved for countries like North Korea, Syria, and Iran to name a few. If the police operate in total secrecy, it is all too easy for them to violate people's rights and operate without any accountability whatsoever. Last time I checked, that is not something we want occurring in the U.S. of A.

The police have the technology to simply flip a switch and move to an encrypted channel for any broadcasts they don't want the public to hear. To encrypt everything is just plain wrong.
 

MTS2000des

Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2008
Messages
3,556
Location
Cobb County, GA Stadium Crime Zone
We chose to sacrifice our liberty and transparency for the illusion of "security" after 9/11/2001.

We as a nation now believe that the "terrorist" could use such transparency in government as a tactical advantage for their future "attacks".

In some places, it is a felony to record local police on PUBLIC streets, even if you're standing clear of their scene, and just observing (several people have been charged and convicted for doing just that, under their states' wiretapping statutes). Yet the same standard does not apply to these agencies which put up elaborate camera systems, and monitor them, and use advanced facial recognition while YOU walk down the street.

The same agencies now have the power under law to observe YOUR communications without the bothersome, tedious legal process of getting a wiretap warrant, if they are investigating a claim that "you might be a terrorist..."

So to wrap it up:

1)-Police can video and audio record all their interactions with you, and observe and record you from a distance without your consent.

2)-You cannot record your encounters with the same, and you are prohibited from observing and recording the police in public passively.

3)-Police can have encrypted communications that you are prohibited from attempting to decode or decipher.

4)-Police can break encryption on your secured communications (wireless, wireline, email, etc) without warrants, your knowledge or consent.

Am I the only one who sees this as a double standard?

In a truly free society, the government should fear it's people to stay in check, not the other way around.

Oh wait, who said we lived in a free society. :roll:
 

N0WEF

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jul 29, 2011
Messages
601
Location
Mpls, MN.
If the police operate in total secrecy, it is all too easy for them to violate people's rights and operate without any accountability whatsoever.
I have to say in Burbank's case that is a big worry

This is a Police Dept. that has been sued 9 times in the last 3yrs. by it's own Officers.

This is also the same Dept. who has been the focus of 2 FBI probes in the last few years. One of which pushed a 22yr. veteran to commit a very public suicide, in the middle of a busy intersection..
 
Last edited:

kb2vxa

Completely Banned for the Greater Good
Banned
Joined
Mar 22, 2005
Messages
6,131
Location
Point Pleasant Beach, N.J.
"This is the first I have heard of this. I know of hundreds of agencies that do not use any type of encryption."

First you've heard of what, FBI DES3 or mandated encryption? OK, two birds and one stone will do. Since the FCC mandated that transmissions >of a sensitive nature< be encrypted doesn't mean they think anything is sensitive.

BTW, the FBI was the first I heard and they didn't encrypt at all their channel 1 which was the substation's repeater. The three simplex channels grouped around it were for surveillance so they were encrypted.
 

DPD1

Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2005
Messages
1,994
I have to say in Burbank's case that is a big worry

This is a Police Dept. that has been sued 9 times in the last 3yrs. by it's own Officers.

This is also the same Dept. who has been the focus of 2 FBI probes in the last few years. One of which pushed a 22yr. veteran to commit a very public suicide, in the middle of a busy intersection..
Yeah, not to sound like a bunch of gossips, but... I know numerous people in Burbank and that city has definitely had some major issues in recent years, much of which hasn't even come to the surface. Hiding from the public probably isn't a great idea at this juncture.
 

code3cowboy

Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2006
Messages
636
Location
CA
I wonder what they have to hide. I left a department several years ago as they went p25 and encrypted. In the last few months there have been two instances of officers shooting other officers and the union just took a vote of no confidence in the chief.
 
Joined
Dec 4, 2009
Messages
187
Location
brianearlspilner
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 2.3.3; en-us; DROID2 GLOBAL Build/4.5.1_57_D2G-38) AppleWebKit/533.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/533.1)

In the article it says that San Marino is thinking about encrypting! What a joke.
 

zerg901

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
3,196
Judges in Massachusetts recently ruled that it is OK to videotape the Boston Police in public. The judges seemed to say that it is the duty of the public to keep the police under control. I was really suprised to see the police receive such a forceful smackdown from the judges.
 

jmv3085

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
58
Location
Whitehall,NY
This means we will only know the Police want us to know.

I find it really convenient that they all speak about all the criminals that have scanners while committing crimes, yet when pressed they can never were these stats are located. I have a friend who works for our local Sheriffs Office, and he is always complaining that he always see's the criminals out there with there scanners. I asked him when the last time he arrested someone with a scanner or phone app that was using it during the commission of a crime. After some pressing he had to admit that he could not remember the last time he arrested some one with a scanner. Go figure, Lets come up with some hard numbers or loose the encryption on the dispatch channel and continue to encrypt sensitive info.

Just my $0.02 :p
Maybe that helps prove there point, all the ones with the scanner app are getting away. Now we'll catch more of them. ;) Just kidding but lack of examples, does not mean absence of a problem. No I'm not saying all comms should be encrypted but, some should.
 

1234567890

Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2006
Messages
63
First you've heard of what, FBI DES3 or mandated encryption? OK, two birds and one stone will do. Since the FCC mandated that transmissions >of a sensitive nature< be encrypted doesn't mean they think anything is sensitive.
What FCC rule states this?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top