Fight Against Encryption

[Confuzzled]

One guy running a feed is for all intents and purposes broadcasting LE traffic for an almost limitless number of people to hear.

I've always wondered how any of these web feeds were legal. Seems to me there is (or was) an FCC reg prohibiting rebroadcast of signals. You could receive it but there were restrictions on what you could do with it.

I seriously doubt that Billy Bob is suckin' down a Bud Lite listening to a web feed to see when Joe Law is gonna be knocking on the door of his single-wide. If Billy Bob's doin' anything on the web, it's watching Wanton Wanda do nasty things.

If anybody's listening to encrypted traffic, it's the drug cartels trying to avoid DEA.


I don't support encryption except in cases of officer safety or relaying personal names and phone numbers of complainants or witnesses, and most of that traffic can and should be done by cell phone. Normal traffic should be in the clear. Public money paid for the systems and the airwaves are managed by the FCC. The public should be able to hear how their tax money is being spent.

 

[Baylink]

I've always wondered how any of these web feeds were legal. Seems to me there is (or was) an FCC reg prohibiting rebroadcast of signals. You could receive it but there were restrictions on what you could do with it.

I gather it was loosened; I've quoted above an FCC response which says it's ok.

 

[grem467]

Public money paid for the systems and the airwaves are managed by the FCC. The public should be able to hear how their tax money is being spent.

Public money also paid for the computers in the office and the lan/wan switches they use.. should you also get to go hook up your computer to their LAN jack in the office and sniff their traffic? Tax money also paid for the helicopters they use, what do you think they would say if you asked them for a ride because you paid for it with tax money?


oh wait, i moved from florida 5 months ago, i guess that makes my opinion moot... nevermind.. carry on

 

[Baylink]

Public money also paid for the computers in the office and the lan/wan switches they use.. should you also get to go hook up your computer to their LAN jack in the office and sniff their traffic? Tax money also paid for the helicopters they use, what do you think they would say if you asked them for a ride because you paid for it with tax money?

You're right; that phrasing (not mine) was a bit weak; let me clarify it for you:

The people communicating are doing *our* work, at *our* behest, and being paid by *our* tax dollars; therefore, wherever it won't *clearly* endanger them, we are entitled to hear them do it.

(But, to pick up a comment I made earlier: we're *not* entitled to ***** about the language they use talking about it, unless they're *clearly* breaking the rules.)

Is that better?

 

[Baylink]

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.

Well that's fine, but it does make the issue of how they listened moot.

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.

Well, my assertion is that it may look easy to us, cause we're *communicators* of one stripe or another. To any Bad Guy to whom it might be useful, I'm hard pressed to believe that buying a scanner isn't equally easy, if not easier.

But at that point, yes, it's opinion.

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.

Then we're mostly in violent agreement... to that stage of the game.

But the conversation is actually about the *results* of that end-game, is it not?

This is an old argument, Heinlein wrote about it in the 80s, in _Sunset_, about the wars in the first half of last century:

"Right" to know vs. tactical need for safety.

Certainly, any department that can dispatch via MDT has little justification for encryption, except for SWAT and undercover, perhaps.

 

[JoeyC]

You're right; that phrasing (not mine) was a bit weak; let me clarify it for you:

The people communicating are doing *our* work, at *our* behest, and being paid by *our* tax dollars; therefore, wherever it won't *clearly* endanger them, we are entitled to hear them do it.

(But, to pick up a comment I made earlier: we're *not* entitled to ***** about the language they use talking about it, unless they're *clearly* breaking the rules.)

Is that better?

You didn't answer the mans question. *Clearly* hooking into their network or asking for a ride in the tax payer *owned* helicopter is not endangering them. So why not?

 

[Baylink]

You didn't answer the mans question. *Clearly* hooking into their network or asking for a ride in the tax payer *owned* helicopter is not endangering them. So why not?

Aw, c'mon: you're makin' stuff up now.

Hooking into their network and riding in their helo both impinge on their security perimeter; they require the department to suddenly become concerned with what happens inside that perimeter in a way that they previously were not.

And, as far as that goes, there are things stored on that network that you *are*, in fact, entitled to request... or at least subpoena, if needed in a court case. And, in fact, here, the "endangering" limit would still apply... unless you could make a creditable case to a judge that the reserved information was the thing necessary to prove corruption or the like -- which is what my argument was, is, and remains: quis custodiet ipsos custodes.

It's not necessary to ride in their helo to watch them, as long as you can listen to their radios.

So quit with the strawmen, ok?

 

[Confuzzled]

You didn't answer the mans question. *Clearly* hooking into their network or asking for a ride in the tax payer *owned* helicopter is not endangering them. So why not?

Computer systems are closed systems with privacy laws protecting them. You can ride in police cars in most areas as observers and some agencies have taken citizens along as observers in helicopters and fixed wing aircraft.

Radio traffic is broadcast over the open airwaves. Encryption is not guaranteed or protected as private by any law I'm aware of. I refuse to turn encryption on except as a last resort when cell service is not available.

 

[Baylink]

Confuzz: you've worked on PS radio systems that had *switchable* encryption?

 

[LetterX]

Confuzz: you've worked on PS radio systems that had *switchable* encryption?

From what I understand, this isn't uncommon. The radios can be programmed so that some groups are encrypted, and others are not.

 

[Baylink]

That was the situation I expected, LetterX; I inferred he meant that he *turned on encryption for the channel he was on*, which was the way he phrased it.

 

[LetterX]

That was the situation I expected, LetterX; I inferred he meant that he *turned on encryption for the channel he was on*, which was the way he phrased it.

Oh, I see. Okay.

 

[Confuzzled]

Yup. In the clear most of the time, but a simple push button toggles encryption on/off.

 

[sdu219]

I have been told that media outlets have made deals witht he local PD's to get a radio set up in the news room that does not transmit. What good would the live shot be unless they know about the news as it happening. I know it sounds crazy but local news is what sells papers and causes people to tune into news broadcasts. There might be no local news without radio traffic. That still does not fix it for the hobby listeners. I can just turn on my assigned portable if we ever go encrypted.

 

[Baylink]

Yup. In the clear most of the time, but a simple push button toggles encryption on/off.

So here's my stupid followup question: I assume each end of the convo has to flip that switch?

 

[Baylink]

I have been told that media outlets have made deals witht he local PD's to get a radio set up in the news room that does not transmit. What good would the live shot be unless they know about the news as it happening. I know it sounds crazy but local news is what sells papers and causes people to tune into news broadcasts. There might be no local news without radio traffic. That still does not fix it for the hobby listeners. I can just turn on my assigned portable if we ever go encrypted.

In our current context, I guess I have to ask: a radio *with encryption keys loaded*? That would surprise me a *lot*...

but for reasons we're discussing here:

http://forums.radioreference.com/motorola-forum/195336-motorola-used-scanner.html - and read all the way to the end...

that's not a really good idea, anyway. Anyone who doesn't ever need to talk should be using a scanner.

But you make an excellent point: the people who have a *financial* interest in unencrypted Public Safety comms are news organizations: has anyone looked into whether any of their national organizations are banging on this nail?

 

[News_Media_News]

In our current context, I guess I have to ask: a radio *with encryption keys loaded*? That would surprise me a *lot*...

but for reasons we're discussing here:

http://forums.radioreference.com/motorola-forum/195336-motorola-used-scanner.html - and read all the way to the end...

that's not a really good idea, anyway. Anyone who doesn't ever need to talk should be using a scanner.

But you make an excellent point: the people who have a *financial* interest in unencrypted Public Safety comms are news organizations: has anyone looked into whether any of their national organizations are banging on this nail?

I know all the local media stations in the Tampa Bay Area are provided radios from the counties and yes they are Rx only. So yes counties will provide radios with dispatch and tac channels programmed, no they are programmed with the " sensitive channels".

 

[scaninnyc]

I know all the local media stations in the Tampa Bay Area are provided radios from the counties and yes they are Rx only. So yes counties will provide radios with dispatch and tac channels programmed, no they are programmed with the " sensitive channels".

I see...

Wait... what?

 

[Confuzzled]

So here's my stupid followup question: I assume each end of the convo has to flip that switch?

Correctamundo.

 

[jcardani]

Bolt,

You should continue this topic in private. It's unbelievable that this can't be discussed in a civil manner.

Where are the mods? I run the Phillyscanner yahoo group and would never let something like this get out of hand.