Everything NYPD encryption.

[medic9351301]

This is true and hopefully I didn't give the idea there was.
What there IS are federal rules that require protecting CJI/PII at -all-times- and in -all-modes- when handling any information that is sourced or transits federal systems. This is not optional and cannot be waived by state/local laws. States are slowly catching up with this. Not sure how the Chicago way of doing things is going to get around this.



Not the way it would likely happen.
Some newer logging recorder systems used in dispatch centers will permit streaming with delay from the systems themselves. They also have a dispatcher interface that allows them to easily stop streaming. Still, relies on a human being to remember to enable/disable streaming, so not a perfect solution.

no sir you did not give that idea.

 

[medic9351301]

What are you 5 years old?

do the world a favor and grow up and realize you cant always get what you want . i hope they dont do a feed based off you . have a good day sir

 

[medic9351301]

poor little richee is getting picked on boo hoo.

 

[richee2000]

do the world a favor and grow up and realize you cant always get what you want . i hope they dont do a feed based off you . have a good day sir

 

[richee2000]

I hope everyone is reading this nonsense.

 

[ACKStatic]

I am sure of one thing. I wouldn't mind if this discussion was encrypted. SMH so embarrassing.

 

[KevinC]

I want to post this from my pvt messages . i did not write these comments the poster told me he tried to post it and its waiting on a mod to approve it.
From Davidecomm new menber:
As a lawyer and a scanner buff i have been watching this and every post about encryption. This is my take on it.
As mmckenna stated with the califorina bill that was not passed based off fedreal rules.
" there are so many loopholes that it's never going to accomplish what it is trying to" "federal rules regarding the handling of CJI/PII, and a state cannot just decide to ignore those".As of right now there are no fedreal rules that mandate encryption. It is left up to each agency to make that call. True a law suit can be filled but you have to realize that federal law trumps(no Pun intended) state and local law. and yes you can appeal to high court but again it goes back to federal law. I dont recall ever seeing a lawsuit that was filed won of "that the public has a right to listen". People can say its a violation of the 1st Amendment . No because congress has not made it a law to be able to listen to police communications.

The only law i and many others have found is in the ecpa that states its not lawfull to listen to encrypted communications. Just because the public wants something and files a lawsuit does not mean its going to happen. So nypd has 2 choices regarding a feed either do it or dont do it.

Now as for Richee and his aurgements :
yes he is right that a lawsuit can be filled and appealed. But he his aurgument is that because it worked in chicago and its going to work in new york is not correct. And just because a deputy chief wants it to happen does not mean it will .
Another thihg to look at is it feasible for them to put up a feed. with as many channels they have is it worth it ? are they willing to take x number of radios and use them for streaming, what channels do use. a logistical nightmare. Now for the media who gets it and what do they get . If you look at past history access has been given when they purchase a department issued radio or a app like motorola wave or tango tango . some departments have went as far as having them sign legal documents that say the radio or app is not to leave the news desk. Nothing for news stringers.

Richee , You have to take what u say with a grain of salt. you do have a lot of facts that make vaild points. And others have facts that are also valid. No one wants encryption by anymeans. You have stated that people are trying to control you or force you to accpect the fact that it might not happen. I dont see that at all . All they are telling you that it might not happen . if i you think i am calling you out i am not.
Just tring to get you to understand what might happen .

Now that's really odd as new members can't use the conversations feature. And what's even more odd is that member posted here from the same IP that you are using. Talk about a coincidence!!!!

With that you earned a reply ban from this thread and a points warning.

 

[KevinC]

then block me and continue to live in your fantasy world of richee is king richee is right , what richee wants richee gets . i could care less

I think you meant to say "I COULDN'T care less".

 

[richee2000]

Very interesting.... So that lawyers message was a fake account? fake lawyer? Coming from the same IP address as The "medic9351301" guy? Which means he made up that account fraudulently? Geez

 

[mikewazowski]

Perhaps now we can get back on topic?

 

[12dbsinad]

Thanks for the house cleaning Kevin. JHC...

 

[mmckenna]

I want to post this from my pvt messages . i did not write these comments the poster told me he tried to post it and its waiting on a mod to approve it.
From Davidecomm new menber:
As a lawyer and a scanner buff i have been watching this and every post about encryption. This is my take on it.
As mmckenna stated with the califorina bill that was not passed based off fedreal rules.

Now as for Richee and his aurgements :

Now that's really odd as new members can't use the conversations feature. And what's even more odd is that member posted here from the same IP that you are using. Talk about a coincidence!!!!

This pisses me off. @KevinC feel free to delete if you'd like.

I really try to help others out here. I attempt to stay out of arguments on this site and try to only chime in when I think I have useful and verified information to share.

To have a member try to drag me into a fight using a made up profile claiming to be a lawyer is a new low. To have him send me a PM making additional comments really puts the icing on the cake. Me commenting on the claimed "lawyer" post just makes me look like a sucker.

This is disturbing on an interesting level.

 

[mikewazowski]

I would have thought a lawyer would have a better grasp of spelling, grammar, and punctuation.

 

[richee2000]

I would have thought a lawyer would have a better grasp of spelling, grammar, and punctuation.

Yeah that's what I was thinking. Cause the lawyer was misspelling stuff just like the medic guy.... It was a dead giveaway when the medic guy called me an "inbread'.... (Like a peanut butter and jelly sandwich?) And his lawyer "friend" was making similar misspellings and unintelligent phrases and sentences.....

 

[mmckenna]

I would have thought a lawyer would have a better grasp of spelling, grammar, and punctuation.

You'd be surprised….

 

[Archie]

Read the legislation from Sen. Gianaris and it exempts "sensitive information" which can be interpreted any way possible by the NYPD which will have this legal loop hole if the law is enacted. Would imagine any felony call in progress being interpreted as "sensitive information." What are your thoughts on this?

 

[richee2000]

Read the legislation from Sen. Gianaris and it exempts "sensitive information" which can be interpreted any way possible by the NYPD which will have this legal loop hole if the law is enacted. Would imagine any felony call in progress being interpreted as "sensitive information." What are your thoughts on this?

Officer Safety is important, and should be considered when allowing the public to listen in....Thats why a delay is important, and the use of tac channels for 100% Encryption.

 

[ff026]

Officer Safety is important, and should be considered when allowing the public to listen in....Thats why a delay is important, and the use of tac channels for 100% Encryption.

Do you know how often tac channels or point to point as they are called by the NYPD are used daily?

Zero never. Precint tac channels were used by units in commands very sparely. Those units like SNEU have been disbanded.

ESU uses Tac U for barricade jobs and entries when needed.

Tac channels are not used for 2 reasons:
A) no dispatcher, so you can’t get info or call for help
B) range, NYPD portables all operate at 2 watts. That’s it. 2 watts extend’s battery life and the infrastructure is designed for that. Point to point gives you about 5 blocks of coverage maybe.

 

[richee2000]

Do you know how often tac channels or point to point as they are called by the NYPD are used daily?

Zero never. Precint tac channels were used by units in commands very sparely. Those units like SNEU have been disbanded.

ESU uses Tac U for barricade jobs and entries when needed.

Tac channels are not used for 2 reasons:
A) no dispatcher, so you can’t get info or call for help
B) range, NYPD portables all operate at 2 watts. That’s it. 2 watts extend’s battery life and the infrastructure is designed for that. Point to point gives you about 5 blocks of coverage maybe.

So, other than demanding 100% full encryption with no provisions for press availability and public availability to receive precinct radio dispatch communications, do you have any solutions for a compromise?

 

[mmckenna]

So, other than demanding 100% full encryption with no provisions for press availability and public availability to receive precinct radio dispatch communications, do you have any solutions for a compromise?

CAD streaming is one option, like the CHP does. CHP Traffic
It's what the news agencies use out here in California for getting traffic/accident info. Everyone has access to it. It's pretty much real time. Easy to censor protected info. Available to anyone with a computer/smartphone/etc.