Defund Encryption Update

657fe2

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Apr 6, 2014
Messages
49
Location
pasadena
Hopefully, we can put our heads together and come up with some good arguments for Transparency. Maybe the probable election to President of a Candidate with ZERO state and local law enforcement support will open some eyes, maybe not. But at this point what do we have to lose, there are some states with significantly less encryption and they are cheaper to live in too.
 

mmckenna

I ♥ Ø
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
15,858
Location
SNCZCA01DS0
Second, when everyone can hear what is going on we can all be eyes and ears for them.
Police departments are well aware of this, it's not something they don't know.

Yet, they still choose encryption. And do you know why? Because the benefits of encryption is felt to outweigh the costs.

When you say "we can all be eyes and ears for them", I'd counter that with the question of "Who's we?". If "we" is a small percentage of the population that owns a scanner, then that's a small chance of the unencrypted radio traffic being beneficial.
If you compare that small percentage of scanner listeners to the number of people that have internet/smart phones, there's a higher penetration when public safety agencies use social media, IPAWS, Reverse 911, or any other other ways to reach a much larger population. An added benefit is that they can better tailor the information to the general public and add photos.
So, take a few minutes to put together a description and a photo and release it to 98% of the population, or rely on a small number of scanner listeners that may or may not be listening, may or may not understand what's going on, and may or may not be in a position to act? I think anyone who lives in an area with an agency that actively uses Reverse 911 or Social Media can answer that for you.

But, hey, if an agency chooses to not use encryption, and someone with a scanner can help, then that's a great resource for them. Each agency is going to choose what's best for them. Like so many things in life, there isn't one answer that fits ever question.
 

657fe2

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Apr 6, 2014
Messages
49
Location
pasadena
If we consider the state of relations between the police and community currently, some LE Brass need to make better decisions. Or be held accountable for these sorry state of affairs we are in.
 

trentbob

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Feb 22, 2007
Messages
3,131
Location
Bristol, Pa.
Chiming in late to the party as usual. I did take the time to read the whole thread and this one's especially frustrating compared to all the others.

The world is also alot different than it was then.
Police departments are well aware of this, it's not something they don't know.

Yet, they still choose encryption. And do you know why? Because the benefits of encryption is felt to outweigh the costs.

When you say "we can all be eyes and ears for them", I'd counter that with the question of "Who's we?". If "we" is a small percentage of the population that owns a scanner, then that's a small chance of the unencrypted radio traffic being beneficial.
If you compare that small percentage of scanner listeners to the number of people that have internet/smart phones, there's a higher penetration when public safety agencies use social media, IPAWS, Reverse 911, or any other other ways to reach a much larger population. An added benefit is that they can better tailor the information to the general public and add photos.
So, take a few minutes to put together a description and a photo and release it to 98% of the population, or rely on a small number of scanner listeners that may or may not be listening, may or may not understand what's going on, and may or may not be in a position to act? I think anyone who lives in an area with an agency that actively uses Reverse 911 or Social Media can answer that for you.

But, hey, if an agency chooses to not use encryption, and someone with a scanner can help, then that's a great resource for them. Each agency is going to choose what's best for them. Like so many things in life, there isn't one answer that fits ever question.
The world is different than it was then. As a long time newspaper reporter or as we were called then... gumshoes... the way things worked was indeed, different than it is now.

To echo what I said earlier tonight on another thread, transparency and disclosure by the police was governed by the local newspapers. If police put out a release that says no shots were fired and the lazy so called reporters of today just accept the press release verbatim and write their story from it without going to the scene and seeing the bullet-riddled car then the police avoid a lot of controversy and splainin to do. Before encryption, it would be heard in The Newsroom by many... "Shots fired, shots fired"

Today we have all the nitwits running around with their cell phones hearing police calls and then taking video both with the phone and putting it on social media, they are not verifying anything and pretty much making up the story that goes with the video in accordance with their own spin and interpretation.

In the old days we had personal relationships with the police, we were always on the street with them, that was true transparency, after work we would drink together at a place called The Corner Inn, the local cop bar.

Things were different then, police tape was for the public, not the media. We didn't have all the bozos running around with their cell phones getting in the way and trampling on empty shell casings and other evidence.

The cops had no problem with the media, first responders and serious hobbyist with good intentions listening to them with sophisticated expensive equipment. Yes sometimes those folks could be helpful by picking up the phone and dropping a dime.

Things are different now.
 

norcalscan

Interoperating Spurious Emissions
Joined
Feb 7, 2003
Messages
400
Location
The real northern california
I believe the argument FOR having transmissions in the clear is ... wait for it .. officer safety.
THIS is my entire argument against encryption for rural departments. Encryption WILL kill a rural officer in my lifetime. And it just nearly happened yesterday in my rural community. 11-99 shots fired, and 3 separate law agencies all heard it on their radios because everyone scans and listens to everyone as one big amazing team, and they rolled code 3 instantly. CHP, Sheriff, Fish and Game. As many badges with guns on scene as possible as fast as possible. On top of that, my brother was on shift at the FD and was able to pull an extra FF on board for more hands and get the engine started and ready to roll before the fire dispatch had any clue of an incident, and they had a few extra seconds to get into the mental mindset of the type of call and location.

Less than one minute here (second marks)
:38 "I believe I'm out with the subject...he has something in his hands"
:55 "code 33 subject armed"
:09 "start addl units code 3"
:26 "11-99 shots fired shots fired!!"

Other agencies immediately focused in at the code 33, and then switched gears at start addl units, shaving at least a minute off making the inter-dispatch phone calls to SO and CHP and explaining the situation, and having those incoming units monitor the situation as they responded.

Yreka PD is even worse with usually 2 beat officers and may a Sergeant on shift. 3 badges, 3 guns. Siskiyou Sheriff can't monitor them, CHP Yreka can't monitor them. CA DFG can't monitor them. USFS Law Enforcement can't monitor them. All of those extra badges with guns, some maybe 45 seconds away at their office, would all have to wait 90-120 seconds for the suddenly-intensely-busy dispatcher to call their respective dispatcher, and then pass the info along, and continue to pass updated info along, and then arrive on scene with still no radio comms out of the hot zone.

If my local PD starts going down this route, this argument will be my letter to the editor and on the minutes of the city council meetings. I will get them to nod and acknowledge this new risk. I know some of the families and spouses of the officers here. I wonder how they'd feel if backup is now 2 minutes delayed, minimum, or they're backing someone else up and entering a hot zone with zero intel. How many citizens inadvertently in the hot zone will either distract the officer's attention due to unclear situational awareness, or worse, be mistaken as a suspect?

Multiple times I have heard a rural deputy call for backup and I know nearest agency backup is 20 minutes away code 3. A minute later that deputy has come over the radio and said Fish and Game just pulled up, or an Edward unit just pulled up, addl units can reduce. Because our ruralness is their front yard. They monitor and have situational awareness and can literally pop out of the bushes "was just in the neighborhood..." style. Extra badge extra gun on scene in 2 instead of 20.

I don't even monitor law enforcement from May to November during fire season, except when responding as public safety and looking for more situational awareness. Off fire season, they're on just to make the scanner say something in 10 minutes of silence. So the hobbyist in me wouldn't miss them much at all if they went E. I have UPRR, Oakland Center, some hilarious local business traffic etc that could fill in the quiet moments.

Don't even get me started on managing keys and the bumbling mess our local radio shops would be at key loading and sharing etc. Our radios still have CLEMARS in them, just sayin'
 

gmclam

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Sep 15, 2006
Messages
5,875
Location
Fair Oaks, CA
Police departments are well aware of this, it's not something they don't know.

Yet, they still choose encryption. And do you know why? Because the benefits of encryption is felt to outweigh the costs.

When you say "we can all be eyes and ears for them", I'd counter that with the question of "Who's we?".
Everyone other than the perpetrators. It is the adjacent agencies, it is anyone who has enough of an interest in the area that they are monitoring. Don't be short-sighted and think I am only talking about hobbyists. I believe that most people who monitor (and are labeled as hobbyists) have some interest in it (adjacent agency at work, family member works in LE/FF, off-duty LE/FF, and the list goes on).

If you compare that small percentage of scanner listeners to the number of people that have internet/smart phones, there's a higher penetration when public safety agencies use social media, IPAWS, Reverse 911, or any other other ways to reach a much larger population. An added benefit is that they can better tailor the information to the general public and add photos.
It sounds like you are only thinking of cities. I don't use a smart phone, let alone while driving. Reverse 911 doesn't reach all such as when travelling out of town. I don't use social media (although I know most do). And when I am out, I often don't even have a cell signal; but my radios are still quite active.

Again, cities and rural are different cases, or are they. I stated the reasons above for rural. When it comes to big cities, it is really a lot of little cities all adjacent to each other. Are they all going to be on the same system and use the same encryption key? There will still be outliers of people who can help when disaster strikes who are now locked out from monitoring.

A huge complaint reported by the 9-11 commission was that everyone needs to communicate on the same "channels" and use the same language. Stop using code. Stop using systems that don't work together. The changes that have been made since that report have all led us in the opposite direction. Yeah there are now so-called inter-op channels, but they are slow to be activated and would likely only do so when there is a "once in a lifetime" event. It doesn't solve the kind of events we're hearing that are taking place.

But, hey, if an agency chooses to not use encryption, and someone with a scanner can help, then that's a great resource for them. Each agency is going to choose what's best for them. Like so many things in life, there isn't one answer that fits ever question.
They are choosing what they THINK is best for them. For some, that isn't going to play out well and many criminals will still successfully evade arrest.
 

mmckenna

I ♥ Ø
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
15,858
Location
SNCZCA01DS0
THIS is my entire argument against encryption for rural departments. Encryption WILL kill a rural officer in my lifetime…..

Don't even get me started on managing keys and the bumbling mess our local radio shops would be at key loading and sharing etc. Our radios still have CLEMARS in them, just sayin'
I think these are good points.

Maintaining interoperability is key. That can be solved, but it's going to require everyone being on the same page, and everyone cooperating (not all agencies are good at the cooperation part). Maybe that's keeping primary dispatch channels in the clear (an idea I totally agree with). Maybe it's addressing the ability to share keys (that has been done in some areas). Maybe it's avoiding this all together and staying unencrypted for small agencies that rely on mutual aid.

But not all agencies rely on mutual aid. Some large departments have enough manpower to respond to their own incidents.

It's not a 'one size fits all' situation. The lack of interoperability can happen in a lot of places, not just where encryption is used. Adjacent agencies being on different bands? Improperly programmed radios? Agency using P25 while adjacent agency is too poor to upgrade from analog only radios? Lack of funding? Officers too busy to listen to other agencies? Out of coverage area?

And lets not forget it isn't just Yreka. Mammoth Lakes switched to FirstNet PTToC, so it's going to have the same issue. As has been said before, Interoperability isn't a technology, it's an attitude.
 

mmckenna

I ♥ Ø
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
15,858
Location
SNCZCA01DS0
Everyone other than the perpetrators. It is the adjacent agencies, it is anyone who has enough of an interest in the area that they are monitoring. Don't be short-sighted and think I am only talking about hobbyists. I believe that most people who monitor (and are labeled as hobbyists) have some interest in it (adjacent agency at work, family member works in LE/FF, off-duty LE/FF, and the list goes on).
I agree. However, how many people in a given city own scanners and are actively listening to them 24x7? Not saying your approach won't work, because it does work. But it's not a scalable solution.

It sounds like you are only thinking of cities. I don't use a smart phone, let alone while driving.
Most people do have smart phones.

Reverse 911 doesn't reach all such as when travelling out of town.
Reverse 911 will reach any phone number it calls, any mobile device it texts, any e-mail address it sends a message to, and any social media platform it's set up to use. If you are out of the area, then you may not hear scanner traffic, and likely wouldn't be in a place to help anyway.

I don't use social media (although I know most do). And when I am out, I often don't even have a cell signal; but my radios are still quite active.
Many more people are using social media than have scanners. Many more people have cell phones that will handle voice calls or text messages than people that have scanners. Cell coverage is not ubiquitous, so that's always going to be an issue.

My point was that law enforcement, in these situations, want to reach as many people as possible with the message they choose. They can reach a wider audience with phone/text/e-mail/social media/broadcast radio/TV than they ever will with relying on scanner listeners. Never once in my career have I ever heard a dispatcher, officer or anyone else broadcast something to scanner listeners in the hopes that they'll hear and react.

Again, cities and rural are different cases, or are they. I stated the reasons above for rural. When it comes to big cities, it is really a lot of little cities all adjacent to each other. Are they all going to be on the same system and use the same encryption key? There will still be outliers of people who can help when disaster strikes who are now locked out from monitoring.
It's not a one size fits all solution. I never said it was. Each agency is going to need to decide what works best for them. There are a lot of other variables to consider than just want scanner listeners want. Public safety agencies do not rely on scanner listeners to do their job. If a scanner listener hears something and can assist, then great, but no agency is going to rely on that as a reliable solution.

A huge complaint reported by the 9-11 commission was that everyone needs to communicate on the same "channels" and use the same language. Stop using code. Stop using systems that don't work together. The changes that have been made since that report have all led us in the opposite direction. Yeah there are now so-called inter-op channels, but they are slow to be activated and would likely only do so when there is a "once in a lifetime" event. It doesn't solve the kind of events we're hearing that are taking place.
That's a training issue. Interoperability and encryption can co-exist.

They are choosing what they THINK is best for them.
You are underestimating the people that make these sorts of decisions. Encryption is not something new that has suddenly appeared on the market and suddenly they are rushing to use it. It's been available in one form or another for a long time. Some agencies have been using encryption or scrambling for years. Some haven't.

The Chief has been asking me for years if they can encrypt. His requests are based off several situations where people were actively listening in on radio traffic. In a big protest/riot, that can be an issue, and it was. The solution was for the officers to switch to cell phones. That solved the immediate need, but had its issues. Scanner listeners/Hobbyists/concerned citizens/friends/families/neighbors/well meaning individuals are never going to be given real time access to phone calls/text messages between officers. Public safety will find a way. Pushing to forbid encryption is just going to drive them to other communications tools.


For some, that isn't going to play out well and many criminals will still successfully evade arrest.
Encryption is not going to solve ever issue every time. It's one of many tools in the toolbox.
 

es93546

A Member Twice
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Aug 18, 2020
Messages
463
Location
East of the Sierra Crest-Right Side of CA on Map
norcalscan and gmclam understand the "rural thing" very well. Most rural counties use VHF and they've had interoperability for decades. In the days when channel capacity was only enough to include the agency's own frequencies, rural area agencies talked to each other using scanner cross talk. Then, sometime in the early 80's radios with 12 or 16 channels came out. By the late 80's and early 90's the channel capacity rose to the 100's. I got my first mobile with this capacity in my USFS truck around 1990. It had dynamic memory for constructing the lists I had it programmed with. I was scanning all the other VHF agencies in the county. I had a BC-760 mounted right under that mobile so I could hear Caltrans and CHP. When I left the truck I didn't want all that noise while talking with people so I didn't scan, I just left the forest net on my handheld most of the time. If I wasn't making a lot of contacts I would scan.

I picked up traffic where I could assist the county very frequently and would respond after advising my dispatcher of the traffic and they would advise the other agency I was responding. I was often involved in the "hasty search" stage of search and rescues. A couple of times I was first on scene of incidents where a couple of minutes made a big difference. I would get on the town PD, the county SO and county fire channels quite often. I also had occasions when I used the Mammoth water/sewage district's frequency. I had the cross country ski area business frequency when I patrolled on skis there. I got on Fish and Wildlife's frequency when I had violations of state law. If they couldn't respond I would write a federal notice of violation (citation) using state law and their bail schedule (fine). This went both ways, if a state or county officer had a USFS violation or other matter that concerned us, they would get on our frequency for our assistance or response.

When anyone has a large special event, such as Mammoth Mountain Ski Area sometimes has, law enforcement officers form a task force. There are BLM rangers, USFS LEO's, Fish and Wildlife wardens, State Park rangers, CHP officers (Bridgeport Area Office), Mono County and Mammoth PD officers all using the PD's frequency or CA Law 1 (used to be CLEMARS) with earphones/mics and working dense large crowds. I was a volunteer working the comm van on some of these. This same task force often joined to have common weapons training and qualification. During the Tri County fair at the fairgrounds in Bishop, members of this task force, plus members of the greater eastern Sierra task force, that includes the Bishop PD, the Inyo County Sheriff's Office and CHP (Bishop Area Office), work it for the 3-4 days it runs. Recently the Bishop PD had an unusual incident for our area, a bank robbery. They quickly set up a perimeter, using USFS LEO's, Fish and Wildlife wardens, Inyo SO and Mono SO officers. The USFS officer blocked traffic on U.S. 395 north of the incident and a warden did so on the south end. The suspect was on a bike and was apprehended in a short time. There was another unusual event for this area, a shooting a year or so ago. It involved two perpetrators who had the intent of robbing a gas station when a CCW individual intervened. He killed one of the perpetrators, but was shot by the second who drove off and hid within the perimeter that was set up by an "all hands" response by most of the agencies in this task force. It was winter and the suspect gave up because she started to go into hypothermia and knew she couldn't get out of the perimeter.

The CHP no longer has any trouble talking on every frequency used in rural counties. This is good because in rural counties the CHP is a significant source of assistance for all agencies. For many years USFS helicopters were used by the counties for search and rescues. I was on board for a few of these. Then the Congress decided that we couldn't use federal funds to assist counties with our aircraft. We had to bill them after the incident was over. That really stunk as we had ships in good locations to assist the counties and in my opinion we should be doing so if the ships weren't needed at the time on fires and other federal project work. This direction was issued in the late mid to late 80's. The counties had to pay the daily availability rate if we didn't use the ship for federal purposes that day and if we did they had to pay a prorated share. Counties don't have the money for such things. The CHP stepped up to the plate and provides their helos for nothing. They have hoists and paramedics on board so their help is essential.

If an agency was to switch to a trunked system and/or encryption it would tear the fabric of this type of mutual aid apart. Most rural areas in any, at least, western state have had VHF High interoperability for decades, just like the eastern Sierra. The interoperability is not just radio communications, it is in operations as well. They are a well practiced and very effective team.
 
Last edited:

es93546

A Member Twice
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Aug 18, 2020
Messages
463
Location
East of the Sierra Crest-Right Side of CA on Map
norcalscan and gmclam understand the "rural thing" very well. Most rural counties use VHF and they've had interoperability for decades. In the days when channel capacity was only enough to include the agency's own frequencies, rural area agencies talked to each other using scanner cross talk. Then, sometime in the early 80's radios with 12 or 16 channels came out. By the late 80's and early 90's the channel capacity rose to the 100's. I got my first mobile with this capacity in my USFS truck around 1990. It had dynamic memory for constructing the lists I had it programmed with. I was scanning all the other VHF agencies in the county. I had a BC-760 mounted right under that mobile so I could hear Caltrans and CHP. When I left the truck I didn't want all that noise while talking with people so I didn't scan, I just left the forest net on my handheld most of the time. If I wasn't making a lot of contacts I would scan.

I picked up traffic where I could assist the county very frequently and would respond after advising my dispatcher of the traffic and they would advise the other agency I was responding. I was often involved in the "hasty search" stage of search and rescues. A couple of times I was first on scene of incidents where a couple of minutes made a big difference. I would get on the town PD, the county SO and county fire channels quite often. I also had occasions when I used the Mammoth water/sewage district's frequency. I had the cross country ski area business frequency when I patrolled on skis there. I got on Fish and Wildlife's frequency when I had violations of state law. If they couldn't respond I would write a federal notice of violation (citation) using state law and their bail schedule (fine). This went both ways, if a state or county officer had a USFS violation or other matter that concerned us, they would get on our frequency for our assistance or response.

When anyone has a large special event, such as Mammoth Mountain Ski Area sometimes has, law enforcement officers form a task force. There are BLM rangers, USFS LEO's, Fish and Wildlife wardens, State Park rangers, CHP officers (Bridgeport Area Office), Mono County and Mammoth PD officers all using the PD's frequency or CA Law 1 (used to be CLEMARS) with earphones/mics and working dense large crowds. I was a volunteer working the comm van on some of these. This same task force often joined to have common weapons training and qualification. During the Tri County fair at the fairgrounds in Bishop, members of this task force, plus members of the greater eastern Sierra task force, that includes the Bishop PD, the Inyo County Sheriff's Office and CHP (Bishop Area Office), work it for the 3-4 days it runs. Recently the Bishop PD had an unusual incident for our area, a bank robbery. They quickly set up a perimeter, using USFS LEO's, Fish and Wildlife wardens, Inyo SO and Mono SO officers. The USFS officer blocked traffic on U.S. 395 north of the incident and a warden did so on the south end. The suspect was on a bike and was apprehended in a short time. There was another unusual event for this area, a shooting a year or so ago. It involved two perpetrators who had the intent of robbing a gas station when a CCW individual intervened. He killed one of the perpetrators, but was shot by the second who drove off and hid within the perimeter that was set up by an "all hands" response by most of the agencies in this task force. It was winter and the suspect gave up because she started to go into hypothermia and knew she couldn't get out of the perimeter.

The CHP no longer has any trouble talking on every frequency used in rural counties. This is good because in rural counties the CHP is a significant source of assistance for all agencies. For many years USFS helicopters were used by the counties for search and rescues. I was on board for a few of these. Then the Congress decided that we couldn't use federal funds to assist counties with our aircraft. We had to bill them after the incident was over. That really stunk as we had ships in good locations to assist the counties and in my opinion we should be doing so if the ships weren't needed at the time on fires and other federal project work. This direction was issued in the late mid to late 80's. The counties had to pay the daily availability rate if we didn't use the ship for federal purposes that day and if we did they had to pay a prorated share. Counties don't have the money for such things. The CHP stepped up to the plate and provides their helos for nothing. They have hoists and paramedics on board so their help is essential.

If an agency was to switch to a trunked system and/or encryption it would tear the fabric of this type of mutual aid apart. Most rural areas in any, at least, western state have had VHF High interoperability for decades, just like the eastern Sierra. The interoperability is not just radio communications, it is in operations as well. They are a well practiced and very effective team.
I should also note that the radio techs in the eastern Sierra know each other and form an effective team also. It consists of federal, state and local techs, the latter often being contractors. I've never experienced or heard of "programming mistakes." The only agencies we can't talk with directly is Caltrans and State Parks. State parks have VHF mobiles in the rigs that rangers work in. Caltrans doesn't usually have scanners in their rigs so cross talk with them is not possible. Traffic with them is not as often or as critical so we just had dispatchers form the rest of the loop for us.

This is not a situation unique to Mono and Inyo Counties. It is repeated all over rural California and other western states as well. Thanks go to norcallscan and gmclam for pointing this out. gmlam also pointed out that rural counties have a lot of area where cell phones don't work at all. I don't foresee that changing as those areas are either in designated wilderness areas or in topography that prevents cell phones from working. These areas often don't have enough or any population or vehicle traffic to justify the costs of constructing and maintaining towers. In many cases there are public land issues that won't allow construction of towers. The public can strongly oppose towers in scenic areas.
 
Last edited:

mmckenna

I ♥ Ø
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
15,858
Location
SNCZCA01DS0
If an agency was to switch to a trunked system and/or encryption it would tear the fabric of this type of mutual aid apart. Most rural areas in any, at least, western state have had VHF High interoperability for decades, just like the eastern Sierra. The interoperability is not just radio communications, it is in operations as well. They are a well practiced and very effective team.
Good points. For immediate communications with mutual aid agencies, encryption can screw that up. For non-immediate needs, like a search and rescue, there are plenty of dedicated interop frequencies that all agencies should have programmed into their radios.

We're starting to tackle this new DOJ mandate here, and I've had discussions with the county radio shop about how we're going to continue to interoperate. There's ways around it, but it takes cooperation.
While this may be a big challenge, I fully expect radio techs will cooperate and develop solutions.
 

dirtrat

Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
14
People in this forum are making a big deal over nothing! The DOJ mandate is not new, they have always had this requirement! The memos that were sent out were just a reminder of the rules. Also they are not requiring encryption if the law enforcement agencies can change their procedures about how they broadcast personal information in the clear over the radios. The vast majority of law enforcement don't have the budgets to replace older radios that can no longer be encrypted or buy Secure options for their current radios especially if they have large radio fleets! Calm down people!
 

scanmanmi

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Sep 25, 2011
Messages
736
Location
Central Michigan
how they broadcast personal information in the clear over the radios.
Believe it or not the address is the PII here. If there is an ambulance call and I know my friend Mr Williams live at 32 Elm st then that is considered a possible violation. (that's the argument I've heard). Today the cops were at an address having problems with the daughter. So unless almost everything is MDAT there will be slip ups.
 

KK4JUG

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 13, 2014
Messages
3,504
Location
GA
One can go to Intelius or Spokeo and get more personal information about nearly anyone. Anyone with a complete Lexis-Nexis account can pull up more a DL/VR/III check can.
Not every state permits the release of that wide range of information. I was legal advisor for our department and had a Lexis-Nexis account. While I had access as a police officer for official purposes only, I could not retrieve most of that information as a Lexis-Nexis member.
 

wowologist

Certifiable
Joined
Jul 21, 2013
Messages
275
Location
CM87
Well here are the 2 documents that this all gells up about. I've looked at it again and again and it seems to me that what I said earlier was correct. Depts/agencies etc. are taking advantage of the ?misclarification? of the combination of PHI and PII. There are actually more States in the Union that literally, take Florida for instance that post names/pictures/arrest info/address/location of incident etc. etc. of the individuals/associated subjects and this is literally at the PRE-trial point in any proceedings, on ther associated WWW sites.

Any OTA encryption is being done "because they can" and to control the narrative of; (god forbid I need not mention a nationwide media incident(s)). I certainly wouldn't want to be a Sheriff or Police Chief that decided to encrypt and then have one of those previous mentioned nationwide media incident happen in ther juridiction ~ because at that point..it's going be a lot more then just pissed off "hobbyists" who are asking (and no need to insert the acronym's we all know them by heart at this point) WHAT ARE YOU HIDING, WHY ARE YOU ENCRYPTING RADIO TRAFFIC?? WHY ARE YOU TRYING TO CONTROL THE NARRATIVE? and then it starts the WHAT ELSE ARE YOU HIDING?? And as we all know when those acromyns and the media start to chew on public officials ....

Ok wow a 2mb .PDF is to large to post..Ok Ill break it up and attach it.
 

Attachments

Last edited:

com501

Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2003
Messages
1,377
Location
127.0.0.1
The trouble is the 'remember to switch channels', or 'remember to flip the switch'. With officers required to know and do so much, adding to the list of things they have to remember isn't popular. It's easier to just strap it for 100% encryption and leave it at that.

The FBI has been encrypted for years, but still occasionally transmits in the clear. The new APX platform was been programmed for 'strapped' now, so that problem should go away.
 

GlobalNorth

Active Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
May 2, 2020
Messages
676
Location
Verde Valley & the Hassayampa River
Not every state permits the release of that wide range of information. I was legal advisor for our department and had a Lexis-Nexis account. While I had access as a police officer for official purposes only, I could not retrieve most of that information as a Lexis-Nexis member.
Any attorney in the US willing to pay for the full L/N account has access. Same with private investigators.

What a gov't. agency doesn't allow to employees is of concern only to the executives that run those agencies.
 
Top