CVPD now encrypted
- Thread starter disp10
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2016
- Messages
- 692
- Reaction score
- 855
See for yourself.
The CLETS policy cites the law which empowers the policy and the specific access policy requiring that data from CLETS is protected. In part, it reads:
The short answer is that it's codified in California law and not just someone on a power trip.
By the way, that little bit of research took just 3 minutes, including time to search the pdf for the specific information I was after. A better approach for you to this subject would be to put your prejudices aside and actually look into things.
By the Way, are you going to answer my question as to whether this is an act of the Legislature or an Administrative Regulation, Do you know the Difference?
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2016
- Messages
- 692
- Reaction score
- 855
No. Yes.
kayn1n32008
ØÆSØ Say it, say 'ENCRYPTION'
If the network has OTAP, they don't need to touch the radio again, just push a new template to the subscribers minus the old system. If the network has OTAR and a KMF. As long as the radio isn't zeroized, no need to touch the radio. Just rekey over the air.
The RCS radios have OTAP standard, encrypted ones have OTAR standard. We were in the process of upflashing our RCS OTAP radios to OTAR, Escondido gave the OK for us to be keyed for them, but then they revoked their authorization when the CLETS thing hit.
I would expect they would want to quarantine radios set to OTAP/OTAR, because you don't want an officer performing this in the field on duty.
Paul
I would expect they would want to quarantine radios set to OTAP/OTAR, because you don't want an officer performing this in the field on duty.
Paul
This thread is depressing.
Very... I am hoping that what Paul posted about SDPD is a glimmer of hope, but only time will tell. I am concerned that with OC, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties all going full encryption, it is just a matter of time for SD County. Very concerning, to say the least.
SDBud
Member
SO far, only Escondido, Chula Vista, National City, and La Mesa have decided for full encryption. San Diego City and SO say they're fine with the encrypted channels they have, and have NO plans for encrypting dispatch channels. No word from other agencies.
SDBud
Member
A friend in Coronado said that a PD Officer he talked to says that they (Coronado) will be going encrypted soon. SO MUCH bad stuff happening there, I guess.
Reading the CA DOJ CLETS Information Bulletin and FBI CJIS Security Policy section 4.3, it looks like PII integrity can be maintained by encrypting a separate records/inquiry channel where names/DLs are already run vs. encrypting everything. SDPD already encrypted their Inquiry 1 and Inquiry 2 talkgroups, and Sheriff could very easily do the same.
It's unfortunate that the bulk of the RCS small LE agencies are defaulting to the convenience of blanket encryption vs. taking this very easy step to encrypt Inquiry only.
It's unfortunate that the bulk of the RCS small LE agencies are defaulting to the convenience of blanket encryption vs. taking this very easy step to encrypt Inquiry only.
Very concerning trend... Almost afraid to look at this thread, out of concern that another agency has or will be making the switch. I wish there was someway to stop this trend.
I know you're focused more on the RCS and probably existing radio operators dedicated to covering the Inquiry/Records channels, but in other smaller departments without a dedicated Records channel, implementing one to fulfill this new requirement might not be possible without hiring additional radio operators to cover both channel 1 and the new "channel 2" 24/7. That's a hard cost right up front.
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2010
- Messages
- 447
- Reaction score
- 93
*delete*
Last edited:
Agreed, and I brought up Inquiry/Records specifically because Chula Vista PD already *had* a dedicated Inquiry channel and still chose to use the DOJ CLETS Information Bulletin to encrypt 100% of their traffic anyway. With smaller departments that are used to running everything on their primary channel all the time, I agree that full time encryption is the easy solution that doesn't require some type of training or or change in routine behavior, so I could see why it's so appealing to them. But there are other options, such as flipping the ring switch to encryption or switching to an encrypted Ch 2 to run any records check, then switching back to Ch 1.
Motorola MCC7500 IP/Gold Elite consoles make it very easy for a single dispatcher to run two channels simultaneously, and I personally have past experience with it. The primary channel selected with a white box goes to the headset and Tx is controlled with your headset PTT or foot-switch. Any other non-selected channels with volume turned up can be monitored simultaneously through the speaker at the console, and Tx is controlled by mouse clicking the transmit button on the screen for that channel.
Personally I like the idea of a primary dispatch channel in the clear, secondary inquiry/records channel encrypted. Officers radios would scan both channels and would easily hear if their one dispatcher on duty was tied up running a DL on the secondary channel.
That would be ideal - and I agree. But we are radio people, and officers are not. Technically it can all work, like you said with one operator running a console with multiple channels on it, and an officer's radio scanning channel 1 while on 2. But technically interoperability is a piece of cake as well. It's that darned human factor that becomes the lowest common denominator to a $1.5M radio system. Lots of new muscle memory and spatial awareness of the officer being on 2, but hearing the dispatcher suddenly back on 1 running a hot call and the officer forgetting he's on 2 because he's hearing 1. Any transmissions back are on 2. If that officer gets in a pickle themselves, will the mashing of the PTT and squeezing out an 11-99 be heard while going defensive? There's a line that gets reached pretty quick I think where a department's operational size would outgrow the sole-operator-two-channel solution.
I've noticed my local rural PD is a lot quieter lately as they run a lot over their MDC now, including CAD calls and chat, so radio traffic is sparse other than "131 enroute to call 18, do you have any further?"
Don't let me take this in the weeds though, I know I'm preaching to the choir. Back to lurking from my quaint norcal ruralness.
This is like a woman saying her man could get her flowers every day...sure, she wants it, it's completely doable, makes swesnse, but there is a very low likelyhood it will actually happen.
Paul
Paul
aaron1964
Member
My favorite hobby...GoneThis thread is depressing.
- Status
