Fight Against Encryption

[n5ims]

Citizens should have the ability to be aware of imminent danger in their community.

Here are some ideas I've come up with on how to fight the encryption trend in our state.

1) Continue to uphold the statute requiring amateur radio license for scanners in vehicles. Educate LEOs of its existence. Include literature detailing scanner laws and penalties with every new scanner.
2) Develop harsher penalties for the use of a scanner in the commission of a crime.
3) Develop a statute making it illegal to rebroadcast/stream LE traffic on the internet or any other means.
4) Develop a statute making it illegal for a law enforcement agency to encrypt dispatch and car-to-car frequencies/talkgroups utilized for active calls. Encryption for special investigations, narcotics investigations, SWAT, etc. would be permitted and necessary.

Somehow we need to get these ideas presented to legislative representatives and for those ideas to be taken seriously. Any serious suggestions on how to do this? I know there is at least one member here that has connections - the member that helped write the current FL statute pertaining to scanners/radios in vehicles.

Any other serious ideas in addition to the four proposed here?

My thoughts:

Item 1 is OK since this is due to FCC action and case law stating that the state can't regulate amateur radio beyond reasonable zoning regulations on towers.
Item 2 should be modified since it's quite restrictive and easy for a good lawyer to get around. "But sir, I wasn't listening to a scanner, but a Motorola radio I got off eBay". Change the wording from "the use of a scanner in the commission of a crime" to something like "receiving information on police activity either directly or indirectly". That would cover someone listening to a scanner, a feed on their iPhone, or simply talking to a buddy on their phone that was listening to the PD and relaying the information to them.
Item 3 should be modified so that streaming is allowed, but that feeds with PD traffic should include a significant delay (10 mins or so) to prevent timely information to crooks.
Item 4 should be modified to allow encryption when desired, but allow FOIA (freedom of information act) requests for encrypted channels be provided at no charge and within 1 business day of the request. The only redacted information could be specific information that would violate HIPAA rules or information that was specifically indicated by a judge due to an ongoing investigation. The judge's written ruling must be included in this case.

 

[dugan]

Here is my final word on the subject, as if anyone really cares
.
If I were to go out to buy a pair of transceivers for personal or business use and I had the option that for $25 more they would be encrypted, I would buy the encrypted pair of course. Why would I want anyone to listen to my business? So I will not be at all surprised when the LE agency I listen to gets encrypted radios. I also believe two things have contributed to this trend. One is the existence of the technology and the second is the presence of LE feeds on the Internet.

Now I have to go, because my girlfriend wants me.

 

[scaninnyc]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7E18 Safari/528.16)

I agree 100% bolt now let's see some Florida feed providers take down there feeds it wnt solve encrytion over night but it's a start

Voluntarily conceding rights and privilege is never an option that an American should consider.

 

[scaninnyc]

Here is my final word on the subject, as if anyone really cares
.
If I were to go out to buy a pair of transceivers for personal or business use and I had the option that for $25 more they would be encrypted, I would buy the encrypted pair of course. Why would I want anyone to listen to my business?.

That's a really bad example, public servants are a far cry from private business. I would think that they don't have the right to assumed privacy in the conduct of public duties.

Ask a L.E.O. why they want encryption and if they are being honest, they will tell you it's a privacy issue and they are just using "safety" as a smoke screen. If they were afraid of the bad guys they would not be cops.

 

[zz0468]

Here are some ideas I've come up with on how to fight the encryption trend in our state.

1) Continue to uphold the statute requiring amateur radio license for scanners in vehicles. Educate LEOs of its existence. Include literature detailing scanner laws and penalties with every new scanner.

Irrelevant. Holding an amateur radio license is not an indicator of social morality. (Jack Gerritson, Richard Burton, Kevin Mitnick, et al).

2) Develop harsher penalties for the use of a scanner in the commission of a crime.

This won't deter people already intent on committing far more serious crimes.

3) Develop a statute making it illegal to rebroadcast/stream LE traffic on the internet or any other means.

This has no relevance to criminal elements listening to local off-the-air traffic, which is the real concern.

4) Develop a statute making it illegal for a law enforcement agency to encrypt dispatch and car-to-car frequencies/talkgroups utilized for active calls. Encryption for special investigations, narcotics investigations, SWAT, etc. would be permitted and necessary.

This is highly unlikely to ever happen. Traditionally, law makers are VERY sympathetic to law enforcement agencies, evidenced by law enforcement frequently being the last to take budget cuts.

Here's an 'educated'* opinion on the hurdles you face:

1. Law enforcement is facing threats that go beyond the run-of-the-mill criminal. Those threats include, but are not limited to...
a. Organized Crime
b. Terrorist organizations
c. Sophisticated street gangs
d. Even more sophisticated drug cartels

Buzzword-of-the-day: Homeland Security. But it runs a helluva lot deeper than that.

2. Law enforcement, in general, has the perception** that encryption will make their people safer, and potentially more effective against the threats listed above. Criminals are getting more violent and more sophisticated. Encryption is just one of many tools being looked at to deal with the threats. The fact is, most tactical responses, where the RR membership supports encryption, started out life as a routine dispatch to some sort of crime scene.

3. Law enforcement, in general, doesn't care a rats ass whether or not hobbyists listen to their transmissions. It's simply NOT a factor that gets taken into account in decisions as to whether to encrypt or not. The biggest single factor is probably financial - they ALL want to feel safer. Not all can afford it. On a worst case basis, hobby listeners are a minor annoyance, but not enough to justify the cost of encryption. The threats listed above ARE.

4. Law makers want their law enforcement agencies to be safer, feel safer, and be more effective against the threats above. The desires of hobbyists are NOT a factor to be considered. A law to protect hobbyists desire (not a right) to listen to law enforcement communications is highly unlikely to succeed. It's simply not important. The perception** of safer and more effective law enforcement is.

5. "Open government" is not dependent upon radio hobbyists having access to law enforcement communications. Many agencies provide radios configured for receive only for dispatch talk groups to the media, including encrypted systems. There are many other checks and balances used to ensure that law enforcement agencies are serving the public, as evidenced by the cases that make the news where it turns out they're not.

I started out as a kid listening to a scanner, and it turned into a career. So, I know how much you guys like it. I do too. But given the choice of my "customers" feeling safer and feeling like they might be a bit more effective, I'm going to support encryption, if that's what they want. Their need is a higher priority than our wants.

Flame away!

*30+ years in the business of law enforcement communications. This is what I do. This is what I get paid for.

** Perceptions are the "reality" that decisions are made from. That's not to say they are actually true or false.

 

[dugan]

That's a really bad example, public servants are a far cry from private business. I would think that they don't have the right to assumed privacy in the conduct of public duties.

Ask a L.E.O. why they want encryption and if they are being honest, they will tell you it's a privacy issue and they are just using "safety" as a smoke screen. If they were afraid of the bad guys they would not be cops.

It is not as simple as that.

The public duties these civil servants are engaged in involve some very private information concerning private citizens, so I don’t see how we have a right to hear it. Don’t get me wrong, I am as nosey as the next guy, but it would not surprise me if my access to LE communications will be limited in the near future and for pretty good reasons. I hear details about minors, my neighbours, unsubstantiated accusations, domestics, deaths and investigations that are really none of my business. Sure I like the idea of hearing how the police are conducting their duties and when crime hits close to home, but some stuff I should probably not know at least until the accused has their day in court, or the next of kin has been notified or whatever.

Are you suggesting that if the police come to your house and accuse you of something, that you didn't do, that could destroy your reputation, that we all have the right to hear about it?

 

[scaninnyc]

Are you suggesting that if the police come to your house and accuse you of something, that you didn't do, that could destroy your reputation, that we all have the right to hear about it?

I am suggesting nothing you stated (from left field), but I will state clearly that I am unaffected by people attempting to use irrational fear (and scenario) to manipulate my rights and privilege, whether it is in the form of public scorn because of a police radio call to my home, or "homeland security" needs.

Cheers!

 

[MR-EDACS]

So what will be next !!! Most departments weather it be public safety or utilities have moved a large amount of it's calls to Mobile Data. This cuts down on a lot of the radio chatter that would normally hear on your scanner. Now I would guess we would want to monitor their MDT data stream thinking we need to know what is going on. The hobby is changing and you can't change any ones mind on how calls will be handled on ones system. I agree with one person on their comment " If you really need to know what was going on that day you can go to the records department and request it. We can spend lots of time complaining encryption and it will not change anything " ever".

John

 

[khzairwave]

Man, I hate to say this, for I'm new and thoroughly enjoy this hobby. Theoretically I'm in your corner but the reality is different.

The LE endorsement is beyond golden to any elected official. Anything that could even be perceived to make him or her look unsupportive in that arena will be used against them come the next election. Let alone should we endure another terroist attack. The few votes to an official by the likes of you and I is insignificant compared to the possible leveraging against that same official. To even be granted audience would be a condescending meeting at best. Keep in mind, judges too are elected or appointed officials.

I'm to lazy to gather references; but last week a news article wrote of the use of 'rolling encryption' by the Mexican drug cartels' scouts in AZ. The documentary Boarder Wars showed the same cartels using real time Russian military satellite uplinks to track the Boarder Patrol and local sheriffs dept. on the boarder to move their loads. This is now, tonight, in our country. The 'simple minded criminal' defense (offense) will not carry water.

I'll donate should you wish to carry forth, but this is not a well chosen battle

 

[News_Media_News]

So what will be next !!! Most departments weather it be public safety or utilities have moved a large amount of it's calls to Mobile Data. This cuts down on a lot of the radio chatter that would normally hear on your scanner. Now I would guess we would want to monitor their MDT data stream thinking we need to know what is going on. The hobby is changing and you can't change any ones mind on how calls will be handled on ones system. I agree with one person on their comment " If you really need to know what was going on that day you can go to the records department and request it. We can spend lots of time complaining encryption and it will not change anything " ever".

John

Actually they are MDC`s not MDT`s. Most departments dont use terminals anymore, that was so 1990`s.

 

[WX4JCW]

This is why i love these encryption threads, its better than watching MSNBC - and more personal attacks as well

Several people i know attended a meeting in Orlando when Val Demmings announced that they were going total encryption, the feeds may have been a concern in their decision but the activities of anti-law enforcement groups like copwatch (led by crossley) and the rash of you tube videos of OPD's misdeeds that led to her decision, WFTV continues to pay Chief Demmings back for this decision and if OPD messes up they are on them like a whino on a bottle of MD 2020

 

[jcardani]

Thank you Jason!

Added:

WFTV (and any other Orlando media outlet), should tell OPD to pound sand the next time they ask the media to try to help them solve a crime.

This is why i love these encryption threads, its better than watching MSNBC - and more personal attacks as well

Several people i know attended a meeting in Orlando when Val Demmings announced that they were going total encryption, the feeds may have been a concern in their decision but the activities of anti-law enforcement groups like copwatch (led by crossley) and the rash of you tube videos of OPD's misdeeds that led to her decision, WFTV continues to pay Chief Demmings back for this decision and if OPD messes up they are on them like a whino on a bottle of MD 2020

 

[jcardani]

This is not about the scanner hobbyist loosing his enjoyment to listen to the police, it's about the general public knowing about where the crime is in real-time to keep them safe! Public safety officers serve, us (the public). It's not the other way around.

I am absolutely embarrassed to read some of the comments in this thread. Bolt21 only wanted constructive help here.

3. Law enforcement, in general, doesn't care a rats ass whether or not hobbyists listen to their transmissions. It's simply NOT a factor that gets taken into account in decisions as to whether to encrypt or not. The biggest single factor is probably financial - they ALL want to feel safer. Not all can afford it. On a worst case basis, hobby listeners are a minor annoyance, but not enough to justify the cost of encryption. The threats listed above ARE.

4. Law makers want their law enforcement agencies to be safer, feel safer, and be more effective against the threats above. The desires of hobbyists are NOT a factor to be considered. A law to protect hobbyists desire (not a right) to listen to law enforcement communications is highly unlikely to succeed. It's simply not important. The perception** of safer and more effective law enforcement is.

5. "Open government" is not dependent upon radio hobbyists having access to law enforcement communications. Many agencies provide radios configured for receive only for dispatch talk groups to the media, including encrypted systems. There are many other checks and balances used to ensure that law enforcement agencies are serving the public, as evidenced by the cases that make the news where it turns out they're not.

I started out as a kid listening to a scanner, and it turned into a career. So, I know how much you guys like it. I do too. But given the choice of my "customers" feeling safer and feeling like they might be a bit more effective, I'm going to support encryption, if that's what they want. Their need is a higher priority than our wants.

Flame away!

 

[rasputen246]

FWIW: I am not in Fl, but I do provide 2 LE feeds here and the majority of my late night audience seems to be LEOs themselves.
One member here is on the local PD, and he provided the link to some of his coworkers.
I can actually see the listener count go up sometimes after the shift change if something is going on they want to hear about.

So, I guess my point is....it can go both ways. The LEOs can also get the feed while thier batteries charge on their radios, or just when they don't want to carry the radio.

That solves nothing, but it is true.

 

[scaninnyc]

I am absolutely embarrassed to read some of the comments in this thread. Bolt21 only wanted constructive help here

October 2007 firestorms in northern San Diego County.

Local residents using table top and hand-held scanners to keep abreast of the fires’ progress, evacuation areas, and road closures help keep their neighbors informed.

http://www.sandiego.gov/mayor/pdf/fireafteraction.pdf

Breakdowns and delays in interdepartmental communications, command and control communications, limitations in available radios, batteries and personnel put the public at risk.

The use of legally owned and used scanner radios tuned to local police and fire frequencies can save valuable time in the publics notification of impending threat without relying on the timely implementation of public safety notification services like Emergency Alert System (TV), reverse 911 (telephone), door to door, community access phone systems, etc...

Individual preparedness is a right and duty, remove the ability to monitor police and fire and you remove individual preparedness. One person with a scanner radio can be an information source for an entire community of people.

Example...

October 2007 California wildfires - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nate Ritter, a citizen journalist that famously used twitter, flicker and online scanner feeds to inform the public.

Read some of the blogging he did here, and note the use of scanner feeds...

San Diego Fire Resources

 

[Bolt21]

Holy crap already people. Lets just FORGET about the feeds. I included it as one of my ideas because I thought it would "sweeten" the deal when ideas/proposals are presented to legislators. Joe's idea of delaying feeds is probably the best idea regarding feeds proposed in this thread.

Early on, this thread train switched tracks to a dead-end track about feeds. It is NOT about feeds. If you want active call/routine traffic to become encrypted, don't reply to this thread. If you don't want total encryption, suggest an idea(s) that may be presented to DISCOURAGE THE USE OF ENCRYPTION. I know I said I wouldn't beg for more ideas, but eliminating the hissy-fit over feeds might stimulate some more thought from members.

JUST FORGET ABOUT FEEDS!

 

[zz0468]

This is not about the scanner hobbyist loosing his enjoyment to listen to the police, it's about the general public knowing about where the crime is in real-time to keep them safe!

That's not going to make any difference when it comes to trying to persuade any law enforcement agencies to keep their communications in the clear.

Public safety officers serve, us (the public). It's not the other way around.

Yes, this is true. But that still doesn't give people any "right" to listen. We have charged these people with the responsibility to keep us safe. THEY are the ones who get to decide which tools they need in order to fulfill that responsibility.

I am absolutely embarrassed to read some of the comments in this thread. Bolt21 only wanted constructive help here.

You say this, then quote my post. You should only be embarrassed about your own rantings, not the rantings of someone else. I made my comments to give the OP a realistic view of some of the viewpoints he will run into in attempting to get laws changed. The fact is, it's probably a pointless exercise, and if he's serious about it, he will need to know what he's up against.

 

[dugan]

I am not surprised when people express an opinion that may digress slightly from the intention of the thread. I am not surprised that people have passionate opinions about safety, privacy, security and freedom of information. It is the height of arrogance when someone declares that they are embarrassed by other people’s ernest opinions and ideas.

Everyone who has contributed to this forum has read all sorts of new ideas and if they are even the least bit open-minded about things, they may come away with a more complete understanding of the issues. I see it as a good start and nothing to be embarrassed about.

Now that this discussion is out of the way, anyone interested in proceeding might start a new thread with a more specific heading and well defined thesis in his first post and see how that goes.

 

[jcardani]

My bad, I did not mean to say that your posts were embarrassing, I quoted you only to respond to the first 2 points. I added the last point in anger of some of the other useless comments in this thread. My apologies.

My "ranting" is personal, I am a Florida homeowner and my scanner has kept me informed about real-time crime in my subdivision on several occasions. Without it, I definately would not have felt as safe. I gave examples earlier in the thread.

You say this, then quote my post. You should only be embarrassed about your own rantings, not the rantings of someone else. I made my comments to give the OP a realistic view of some of the viewpoints he will run into in attempting to get laws changed. The fact is, it's probably a pointless exercise, and if he's serious about it, he will need to know what he's up against.

 

[jcardani]

Feeds

Just wanted to say that I am a provider of a citywide feed of Philadelphia Police.

For officer safety reasons, I chose to feed only citywide talkgroups, and not district patrol or sensitive talkgroups. Listeners can hear high priority crime announcements and flash information (BOLOs), traffic units, and special events only.