encrypted fire traffic ?

[CAPTLPOL1]

True! You hit on what I was trying to get at in what I put in bold. Too often there are conspiracy theorists or cynics ready to level accusations of an agency having something sinister worth hiding because they choose to go with an encrypted/unmonitorable system. While I'm not suggesting that every person in every agency is perfect or without fault, the idea of there being agency-wide corruption as the motivating factor for using this type of system is just silly.

Sometimes we just don't want people listening to us, simple as that! It's a screwed up, politically correct and uber-sensitive world we live in, where almost everyone has a recording device of some sort that is always rolling. Couple that with the fact that people are so quick to criticize or bring litigation based on usually nothing more than circumstantial or anecdotal "evidence", and it's no wonder so many agencies are moving towards these unmonitorable technologies!

That is much more constructive then stating hey I am not a taxpayer in your jurisdiction and that I should move along now.

 

[radioman2001]

Encryption on day to day traffic gives the wrong idea to the public, that the agency has something to hide. Besides the problem associated with the encryption itself, namely poor range and poor audio compared to unencrypted. Now I'm not saying undercover or tactical communications shouldn't, they should.
Per the freedom of information act you can go down to your local agency and request a transcript or tapes of any radio traffic you want. (drive them crazy and request 30 days worth of audio) Also I would go to your local town , village etc and ask why day to day normal radio traffic is encrypted, and if you are not satified with the answer, I suggest you run for office and do something about it.
Nearly 20 years ago I had a nose to nose shouting match with a PD Captain about the fact they were going ASTRO, his response basically was that the Police were better than the people they served and they would do what they wanted. Not very comforting to know that you agency has that kind of attitude. How many times have Police and Fire or even public officials been caught doing something wrong, while using encrypted or unmonitorable comunication.
I have been radio communication for over 30 years, no one should have encrypted communictions that don't need it. The public isn't allowed it, why should the people that govern us have it.

 

[Grog]

If I'm buying a car I have no obligation to consult with other drivers as to the options I purchase for my car.
:roll:

Do you use millions of taxpayer dollars to buy your car?

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

 

[Grog]

no one should have encrypted communictions that don't need it. The public isn't allowed it, why should the people that govern us have it.

The public is allowed to use encryption.

 

[CAPTLPOL1]

Besides the problem associated with the encryption itself, namely poor range and poor audio compared to unencrypted

They have fixed that with DES-OFB & AES. Oh and by the way, these are not restricted items and you may purchase said items and place them in your radio and use said items in your radio system.

 

[scannersnstuff]

if the county that i live in goes to an encrypted fire system,i'll basically loose my desire to scan.i really could give 2 hoot's about pd encryption.i suppose i could listen to other jurisdictions fires.i'm mainly interested in hearing what's going on im my county fire wise.if any idiot say's "well you can still listen to taxi's,drive thru's,plumber's,roto-rooter,blah,blah,blah", i'll be very tempted to sock them in the eye. LOL .

 

[CAPTLPOL1]

In lieu of socking them in the eye, why don't you attend the meetings and then tell the powers to be that you will not vote for them in the next election if they propose such a thing.

 

[Zaratsu]

My theory is that it is to reduce transparancy.


The level of paranoia as a nation is increasing, and the police are no exception.

The easy justification to the public would be "public safety" or "terr'ists!"

The real justification would probably be our litgious society.

 

[scannersnstuff]

captlpol1 my friend.that would be the civilized and best way to handle it.i would probably be an audience of one though.where stuff like this is concerned,i could name myself and a few other's that would give 2 rat's patooties about encryption.there was a discussion on here recently about how many actuall scanner buff's there are usa wide.the percentage is so small that we would be an insignifigant voice.i hate to go along with the doom sayer's that say that scanning is slowly going down the tube's,but i think in the long run they will be right.i guess i can find another thing to do to fill my spare time like cello lesson's ?.only kidding.a lot of contributing factor's are nailing the monitoring coffin.among them,post 9-11 homeland security hype,over zealous radio sale's people,politician's and us the diehard monitoring crowd.although just talking about it didn't do us in.it didn't help. off my soapbox.

 

[JoeyC]

Do you use millions of taxpayer dollars to buy your car?

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

Poor analogy. Everything is relative.

Find me a nice digital Motorola Smartzone system for around $30,000 I'll agree with you! :roll: :roll:

 

[fire4117]

Orangeville, Ontario Canada is VHF P25 Encrypted as well. I don't know exactly why they decided to go that way, but Orangeville Police went encrypted first and then fire followed.

I don't know, maybe they got a good deal on all the radios?

 

[Grog]

Poor analogy. Everything is relative.

Find me a nice digital Motorola Smartzone system for around $30,000 I'll agree with you! :roll: :roll:

No, it was a perfect analogy. You're the one talking about people having input on the car you buy, and so if it's taxpayers paying for it then they do have that right.

 

[Zaratsu]

Poor analogy. Everything is relative.

Find me a nice digital Motorola Smartzone system for around $30,000 I'll agree with you! :roll: :roll:

Eh, It works well for me.

An individual has the right to blow their hard-earned money any way they want. It is their right to buy excessive and useless features and it is no ones' business or responsibility as to why except their own.

The government should ideally purchase what will allow it to most effectivlly service the needs of the taxpayers.


I have seen several times in my local area, there are municipalities that spend millions on comms upgrades. Then the damn things dont work well at all. Then they are on their backup system (usually the previous VHF duplex system). Granted much of this money comes from "use it or lose it" federal grants and sold under the guise of "interoperability," but I cannot still understand why a town with half the population of my own, feels that they must upgrade to digital, or even upgrade at all, or just because they got a good deal on it.:roll::roll:

 

[CAPTLPOL1]

captlpol1 my friend.that would be the civilized and best way to handle it.i would probably be an audience of one though.where stuff like this is concerned,i could name myself and a few other's that would give 2 rat's patooties about encryption.there was a discussion on here recently about how many actuall scanner buff's there are usa wide.the percentage is so small that we would be an insignifigant voice.i hate to go along with the doom sayer's that say that scanning is slowly going down the tube's,but i think in the long run they will be right.i guess i can find another thing to do to fill my spare time like cello lesson's ?.only kidding.a lot of contributing factor's are nailing the monitoring coffin.among them,post 9-11 homeland security hype,over zealous radio sale's people,politician's and us the diehard monitoring crowd.although just talking about it didn't do us in.it didn't help. off my soapbox.

Look at it this way. What is the percentage of folks that attend these meetings anyway? A small percentage. Their is always going to be a small percentage of folks that participate.

 

[JoeyC]

No, it was a perfect analogy. You're the one talking about people having input on the car you buy, and so if it's taxpayers paying for it then they do have that right.

Most taxpayers would be indifferent on the matter and would side with the opinion of those knowledgable in planning communications networks. Only scanner listeners (read: tiny percentage of the population) get their panties in a bunch when the word encryption is brought up. Yes a communications system is a hell of a lot of money. But its only a portion of the governments budget. The government or those in charge may push for encryption for "security" reasons. Whether there are any security concerns resolved with encryption in fire ops IS A MATTER OF OPINION. If you want to voice your opinion in the planning stages of these changes, become more active in the community and lobby against it.

I am no fan of encryption by any means, and people can gripe and whine all they want, but the scanner listening lobby isn't going to change the world.

 

[N4DXX]

I think most police department's and fire department's are going encrypted to hide from the media frenzy.That way if an officer makes a boo boo like breaking in the wrong house to serve papers and shoots an 81 year old lady the press won't hear of it right away and it will give them some breathing room and figure up a few lies to tell the press.. Like joeyc i have right to my opinon.if they didn't have anything to hide why would they be encrypted,and you would think this would be very dangerous in a disaster like hurricane katrina where mutual aid would be needed and it really does have an effect on some peoples lives few but some.and like if my neighbor's house was being broke into if i had a scanner and i could here the dispatcher giving the complaint I could grab my shotgun and my four wheel drive shoot that dude between the eyes..thats why we need to be able to hear these types of communication's..

 

[oldranger]

RE: Encryption

I may need to start a new thread with what I am about to say,but I think no public service communications should be encrypted or be transmitted by a means the tax paying public can't hear them.We still have right to know how they are using our money.
If it is a matter of security,there methods that can be utilized to secure communications without making it inaudable.

 

[ibagli]

I have seen several times in my local area, there are municipalities that spend millions on comms upgrades. Then the damn things dont work well at all. Then they are on their backup system (usually the previous VHF duplex system). Granted much of this money comes from "use it or lose it" federal grants and sold under the guise of "interoperability," but I cannot still understand why a town with half the population of my own, feels that they must upgrade to digital, or even upgrade at all, or just because they got a good deal on it.:roll::roll:

I feel you. My town (of 8,000) is buying a brand new P25 system ("more secure" as "there are no scanners that can listen to it") because their old TRS (which was overkill anyways) broke down. They could have done fine with 3 VHF duplex channels (one for each department using it), which is what the neighboring town of 50,000 had.

I may need to start a new thread with what I am about to say,but I think no public service communications should be encrypted or be transmitted by a means the tax paying public can't hear them.We still have right to know how they are using our money.

I don't want encryption any more than you do, but that's the biggest BS argument there is. You do not have a right of immediate access to any taxpayer-funded info. Go tell the CIA or military that and see yourself get laughed out.

 

[JoeyC]

...you would think this would be very dangerous in a disaster like hurricane katrina where mutual aid would be needed...

I've not heard of law/fire common channels that are used for mutual aid that are encrypted.

and like if my neighbor's house was being broke into if i had a scanner and i could here the dispatcher giving the complaint I could grab my shotgun and my four wheel drive shoot that dude between the eyes..thats why we need to be able to hear these types of communication's..

Right. Complaintant makes a burglary in progress call at your neighbors house and you blow away the perp with your shotgun. Woops, busybody complaintant made a mistake and didn't realize "burglar" was owners brother. Now you in a heap of trouble son.

 

[oldranger]

Scrambling And Encryption

I feel you. My town (of 8,000) is buying a brand new P25 system ("more secure" as "there are no scanners that can listen to it") because their old TRS (which was overkill anyways) broke down. They could have done fine with 3 VHF duplex channels (one for each department using it), which is what the neighboring town of 50,000 had.



I don't want encryption any more than you do, but that's the biggest BS argument there is. You do not have a right of immediate access to any taxpayer-funded info. Go tell the CIA or military that and see yourself get laughed out.

I spent 22 years in the Army.We never used electronic encryption on my watch.When I was in combat zones we encrypted or messages that were "sensative " in nature.We aiso used brevity codes,but I wasn't speaking of the military or our intelligence agencies.
I was purely speaking of public service types.