Fight Against Encryption

[cifd64]

Why is this issue only important in Florida? If you find a way to get the lawmakers to adjust, dont you think the rest of us, especially in the Northeast would like to know how you did it? There is no exclusivity on RR. Its as if you want this THREAD to be encrypted. Cant have it both ways.

 

[Bolt21]

Why is this issue only important in Florida?

It is NOT important ONLY in Florida. But if encryption is to defeated, it has to start at a state level, not a federal one. The founding fathers intended the states to govern, not BE governed. Every state has different laws. Florida already has specific laws regarding scanners. Not all states do.

Also, we haven't accomplished this yet. Look no further than the resistance on this very thread from people that consider themselves "scanner hobbyists." We can't even get folks to band together on this site. They want to listen in, but don't want to sacrifice what is driving the current march to encryption in the state of Florida. But I guess I'm just a "simpleton" for observing what's happening, and proposing a way to fix it.

To paraphrase a bumper sticker - Don't blame me, I voted for a way to fix it!

Waiting for the troll's response....

 

[cifd64]

But most do. And I dont need a civics lesson from a state that cant count ballots. I am sure when the Founding Fathers got together there number one priority was keeping all LEO comms "in the clear". Use that as your argument. the red dogs down there cant resist a good founding father story, no matter how rediculous it sounds.

 

[cifd64]

Also, we haven't accomplished this yet. Look no further than the resistance on this very thread from people that consider themselves "scanner hobbyists." We can't even get folks to band together on this site. They want to listen in, but don't want to sacrifice what is driving the current march to encryption in the state of Florida. But I guess I'm just a "simpleton" for observing what's happening, and proposing a way to fix it.

Its not the proposal, its the delivery.

 

[cifd64]

Some have. We just find other things to listen to.

 

[tampabaynews]

Ryan, don't feed the troll.

I'm done, I'm thinking about creating a private chat room for us because some people can't read, or post without being a royal you know what. Arguments with people who resort to pointing out typos aren't making a point anyway.

I was tempted for ripping him a new one because he forgot to capitalize "I" but that would put us on the same, low level. So I'll just accept it because I don't expect everyone to be Edgar Allan Poe.

Reminds me of a saying about arguing on the internet, I won't post it because it's not politically correct. I'll probably get flamed for it the same way as we are for discussing ways to save scanning. At this rate, I think we'll get more support on a law enforcement forum...

Remember what they tell you... "Just go with it, it's all for our safety."

Some have. We just find other things to listen to.

That may work for you, but for others that may not be an option.

 

[Bolt21]

I'll probably get flamed for it as we are trying to save scanning.

Sad, isn't it.

 

[LetterX]

Why is this issue only important in Florida?

It's not only important only in Florida, but the original poster specified that he wanted to discuss how the issue affects the state of Florida. Anything else is really off topic. Rest assured, if anyone here in Florida figures out how to get legislation passed that prohibits LE from encrypting their radio traffic, it won't be a secret. Don't hold your breath though, because it's not going to happen. No how, not ever.

 

[Baylink]

Ryan sez:
> We are tackling some of the issues that are causing encryption, the biggest is the "service" some of us are providing whether some of us want to admit it or not. [ ... ] I don't see how people can assume that steaming law enforcement traffic is legal.

Well, those are two different questions, Ryan, though if the latter implication can be proved, then clearly it would affect the former.

The latter question is pretty clearly within the domain of the FCC, and I think it chops all the way back to the basic provisions of the Communications Act, as it's presently amended. I believe both NF2G and someone involved in the "can I rebroadcast fire in Cali" threads have chimed in on it this week, and to the best of my knowledge, the answer is that yes, you can, with the exception of analog AMPS cellular traffic, which it's illegal to receive or own a receiver for.

There's a legal dictum, which I can't remember the name of, that says that if you *tell people that something illegal in certain specific cases*, then it is by definition legal in any other circumstances.

The common example is this: if in your county there are signs saying "No Turn On Red" at *some* intersections, then you may safely assume that it is legal for you to turn on red at any non-signed intersection.

By that dictum, you could infer that if the FCC prohibited *reception* of AMPS cellular, that it's legal to *receive* anything else.

The controlling statute, though, which does not appear to be in need of all that deep reading, appears (IANAL) to be 18USC2511, section 2-g-ii-II:

United States Code: Title 18,2511. Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited | LII / Legal Information Institute

where 18USC2510, section 16 covers what's "readily accessible to the general public":

United States Code: Title 18,2510. Definitions | LII / Legal Information Institute

That covers the legality of *listening* to it pretty clearly, AFAICS.

Now, as to retransmitting it:

2511 1c covers "disclosing" such intercepted communications, underneath "Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter". So let's see if we can tie the exception to this hook.

Section 3 doesn't apply, as it's specific to *people providing the communication service*, and there's nothing else in 2511 to authorize it.

And I can't find a specific exception that *does* authorize it... but NF2G's website posts a quote of an FCC opinion that says that 2510 et seq does *not* forbid the streaming of "police and fire" communications:

"""
From: "FCC FCCTSR17" <fcctsr17@fcc.gov>
To: <wnolen@hvc.rr.com>
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 8:13 AM
Subject: Re: FCC Consumer Center Response - Ref# 02777194


Mr. Nolen:

Section 705 of the Communications Act generally does not prohibit the publication on the Internet of fire department and police department radio broadcasts. The interception of these radio communications is legal under the criminal wiretap statute, 18 U.S.C. 2510 et seq., to the extent the communications are readily accessible to the general public, which police and fire department radio communications generally are.

Therefore, the rebroadcast of police and fire department radio communications that are obtained legally does not constitute a violation of section 705 of the Communications Act.
"""

Where by "obtained legally", they mean, generally "were broadcast in the clear, unencrypted, and not in one of 3 or 4 categories of transmission licensed by (I think it's) Part 74"; there's language in 2511 that covers this.

As for whether it would ever be possible to get legislation passed forcing any PS traffic without a clear need for encryption to be in the clear... I dunno; stranger laws have happened.

 

[tampabaynews]

That's a great post Baylink.

See, I can respectfully stand corrected when presented with facts and research.

Good work. This is the kind of discussion we need in this thread.

 

[LetterX]

and to the best of my knowledge, the answer is that yes, you can, with the exception of analog AMPS cellular traffic, which it's illegal to receive or own a receiver for.

Moot exception, since there are no longer any carriers using analog AMPS cellular in the United States. Not even for emergency 911 calls anymore. Those frequencies are silent for now. The very last carrier in North America servicing AMPS is SaskTel in Saskatchewan, Canada, and that service is soon to be turned off. I wonder if that means receivers that cover those frequencies are no longer illegal?

 

[Baylink]

That's a great post Baylink.

See, I can respectfully stand corrected when presented with facts and research.

Good work. This is the kind of discussion we need in this thread.

NP.

I actually started that last night, and had to save it on my laptop when I had to run out the house. NF2G did the heavy lifting; it was *remarkably* difficult to find out exactly what law made the changes, but once I did, Thomas came to the rescue.

I'm going to print out 2510 et seq, and try to figure out what they based their decision on.

Now, none of this speaks to the original premise, which was that "the availability of scanner-received public safety transmissions *over the internet* somehow has a much larger *real* (not just perceived) negative impact on the departments being listened to".

There are quite a number of elements involved in that:

1) statistically, the majority of people *able* to listen to a stream will be outside the RF receive area of the system.
2) inside that area, what percentage of *actual* listeners will be using scanners, and what percentage listening to streams?
3) if people *are* listening to streams, then--while this is slowly becoming less and less true--they're probably not mobile.
4) the 5 states which do ban scanner listening, only ban it while you're in a vehicle (though how clearly they do it is open to discussion).
5) it's not clear whether any perceived impact on a public safety agency from either RF *or* internet scanner listening would be *operational/safety* or (let's say it softly) political -- part of the cameraderie amongst LEOs and FFs happens over the radio, and indeed civilians tend to misinterpret some of that, just as they do when we point the parabolic network mic at the NFL huddle. This is the fault of the *civilians*, not the public safety workers, but grandstanding legislators and administrators will Do The Wrong Thing about reports of such things *anyway*.

My personal opinion is that the latter item, and it's corollary, are the *underlying* issue here, and I'm not entirely clear how you'd fix it.

Hiring Police and Fire Chiefs with the backbone to tell their superiors to fold it until it's all sharp corners is the most likely candidate, but if we want that, we're going to have to provide them with some support.

Nailing down what the *real* problem is will be difficult, for all the obvious reasons.

If you are, or personally know, a LEO or FF who has heard discussions about encryption in their agency, and/or has an opinion...

Hmmm. Lemme see if I can find a tool for taking an anonymous survey with essay questions. I *think* SurveyMonkey will do this. I'll work on some question phrasing, and we'll set up a survey.

 

[Baylink]

Moot exception, since there are no longer any carriers using analog AMPS cellular in the United States. Not even for emergency 911 calls anymore. Those frequencies are silent for now. The very last carrier in North America servicing AMPS is SaskTel in Saskatchewan, Canada, and that service is soon to be turned off. I wonder if that means receivers that cover those frequencies are no longer illegal?

It does not mean that, since 47USC305 was not amended again... and GSM uses those freqs now, unless I'm mistaken. That's what the WP article said, anyway.

 

[Baylink]

I didn't want to miss this post, as it draws several conclusions I question:

Fact is, internet streams open up listening to anybody, scanner or not, and that's a much bigger demographic than scanner owners.

No it's not. Since neither "having an internet connection and a smartphone" nor "buying a scanner which can pick those same local signals up directly" are restricted categories, the number of people in each *who are within RF range of the system* -- the only ones we care about, in theory -- is the same.

People who *buy* *and* *use* scanners, or who *download* *and* *use* scanner streamplayer apps are the actual material numbers, and while the latter number is slightly easier to acquire than the former by the nature of streaming and RF, I see no reason to assert that one of the latter groups is *necessarily*, inherently, disproportionately larger than the other... or in some other way more dangerous, given the arguments currently presented.

More importantly, the people LE are worried about, "the bad guys," can listen with any smart phone, and that's their real concern.

Those guys aren't gonna get carded for a BC396XT either, and *it's cheaper* -- the smartphone will cost them ca $600-1200 a year, plus the cost of the phone. *And even more importantly*, if they're using a scanner, there's no logged proof that they were listening at all, which is *decidedly* not the case in the smartphone case -- I'm not a *lawyer*, and I could convict a Bad Guy with 3 or 4 subpoenas and a court order.

I see the argument you're making, I just don't see that the premises are proven -- if indeed they're provable.

And indeed, no one's actually explained the connection between "bad guys hears a scanner dispatch call" and "cop gets hurt"... *in detail*.

 

[LetterX]

No it's not. Since neither "having an internet connection and a smartphone" nor "buying a scanner which can pick those same local signals up directly" are restricted categories, the number of people in each *who are within RF range of the system* -- the only ones we care about, in theory -- is the same.

My point is that, right this moment in any given geographical area, there are *far* more people who can listen to an internet stream than can receive the RF. The cost of a smartphone vs. scanner is not relevant, since so many people already own a smartphone (and that number is growing daily). Besides, any computer with an internet connection can receive an online feed.

And indeed, no one's actually explained the connection between "bad guys hears a scanner dispatch call" and "cop gets hurt"... *in detail*.

Seriously? It's not at all hard to imagine endless hypothetical situations. Example: Dangerous fugitive with a warrant hears a call dispatching police to his trailer after his ex-wife rats him out. Fugitive grabs his handgun and ducks behind a rusting old car, waiting to open fire.

When a LE officer loses the element of surprise, their job becomes more dangerous, especially when that element shifts to the side of the "bad guy," like in the the scenario above. Any call where dispatch indicates someone may have a weapon becomes more dangerous when that person is aware the police are on the way. At least that's how many of the people in charge apparently perceive it to be, and that's really all that matters when we're discussing their desire to encrypt.

 

[Baylink]

My point is that, right this moment in any given geographical area, there are *far* more people who can listen to an internet stream than can receive the RF. The cost of a smartphone vs. scanner is not relevant, since so many people already own a smartphone (and that number is growing daily). Besides, any computer with an internet connection can receive an online feed.

Sure.

But that doesn't increase *the number of people who care*.

And see my other observation, which you missed (because it doesn't serve your argument?) concerning how easy it would be to prove a perp was listening to a stream, vs how hard it would be to *prove* he was listening to a scanner, even if you caught him with it in his car.

Seriously? It's not at all hard to imagine endless hypothetical situations. Example: Dangerous fugitive with a warrant hears a call dispatching police to his trailer after his ex-wife rats him out. Fugitive grabs his handgun and ducks behind a rusting old car, waiting to open fire.

When a LE officer loses the element of surprise, their job becomes more dangerous, especially when that element shifts to the side of the "bad guy," like in the the scenario above. Any call where dispatch indicates someone may have a weapon becomes more dangerous when that person is aware the police are on the way. At least that's how many of the people in charge apparently perceive it to be, and that's really all that matters when we're discussing their desire to encrypt.

Fine. But you're asserting that because streams putatively make it easier to listen, *more bad guys* will listen? On, what, the "rising tide lifts all boats" argument?

If we can't nail down an answer to their perceptions, then of *course* we can't fix the problem.

But your argument: "disproportionately more perps will use PS transmissions to do harm to cops *because they can get them via streams to their smartphones* still sounds suspect, to me. It's the category of argument that would only carry the day, in my universe, if supported by statistics, that will be -- let's face it -- pretty hard to get.

if the argument were "...because mobile scanners are illegal and mobile streams are not", it would be a different category of argument entirely... not that perps care if the scanner's illegal too, very much, of course.

But if I can't convince you, who has no dog in the fight, clearly, it will not be easy to convince departments, either. Well, *someone* in a department; these things are generally not decided by voting, I wouldn't think.

 

[Bolt21]

I'd be tickled if I could just get people to read post #1 and post #9 again. If I remember correctly, these ideas are what I had in mind when I created this thread.

 

[Baylink]

No, not really.

You and LetterX concur on point 3, on which I disagree on the grounds that you haven't proven your case, which is pretty much what I just told him.

Anything that involves reducing the audience of people who can watch the watchers is something I construe, personally, as an extraordinary claim (that that's a Pretty Neat Idea), and therefore requires extraordinary proof.

Which, as I explain above, I don't think it's going to be easy to acquire.

And for that matter, it seems contrarian to the Reagan quote in your sig...

 

[Bolt21]

When I see LE agencies encrypt routine traffic and then reference their disgust with feeds, that pretty much tells me that feeds are the problem, no matter how they are received. It doesn't matter how many people listen to feeds vs. how many listen via a scanner. It's the fact that LE perceives, I repeat perceives FEEDS as the threat, not Joe Law Abiding Citizen listening in with his scanner. One guy listening with a scanner is only one guy listening. One guy running a feed is for all intents and purposes broadcasting LE traffic for an almost limitless number of people to hear. The unsolicited private message I received proves my point.

This thread was supposed to be about a way to get legislators to write laws that would discourage LE from using encryption on routine traffic. And since you want to delve into the Reagan signature, I'm pretty sure that he'd agree that total encryption is a stepping stone towards a police state (the opposite of freedom). But this thread is not about Reagan nor my signature. It's about stopping the encryption of routine LE traffic. I don't know why most people who reply to this thread can't understand this. The feed issue is just one of many ideas that would be submitted to lawmakers to enable the public to stay informed, and stay out of harm's way.

 

[LetterX]

And see my other observation, which you missed (because it doesn't serve your argument?) concerning how easy it would be to prove a perp was listening to a stream, vs how hard it would be to *prove* he was listening to a scanner, even if you caught him with it in his car.

I don't see how that matters in the least. If a situation turns horribly wrong because a fugitive is tipped off by listening in, proving that they were listening in after the fact is inconsequential. It's too late to do anything about it. The officer already has the bullet in his chest.

Fine. But you're asserting that because streams putatively make it easier to listen, *more bad guys* will listen? On, what, the "rising tide lifts all boats" argument?

Of course more people, bad or good, will do something -- ANYTHING -- if it's made easier and more accessible. I'm honestly surprised you're arguing otherwise, since it's common sense.

But if I can't convince you, who has no dog in the fight, clearly, it will not be easy to convince departments, either. Well, *someone* in a department; these things are generally not decided by voting, I wouldn't think.

FWIW, if you read back in this thread, I was the one arguing that online feeds should be permitted and encouraged. The way I see it, if *some* people have access to listen in (because they have a digital scanner), everyone should be able to listen in. Not everyone can afford a digital scanner, or has the knowledge to program one, so internet feeds provide equal access. It's only fair. Everyone's tax dollars pay for the radios doing the transmitting and the salaries of the people whose voices we hear, and the signals are passing through everyone's body just as equally. Owning a digital scanner doesn't make me elite or give me special access. If online feeds put LE personnel in more danger, then they should encrypt if they find it necessary. Then nobody can listen in, and that would suck, but at least it's fair.