H.R.1280 (AKA Police Reform) - A Great Opportunity to Get Encryption Banned

[techguru]

H.R.1280 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2021

Summary of H.R.1280 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2021

www.congress.gov

"This bill addresses a wide range of policies and issues regarding policing practices and law enforcement accountability. It includes measures to increase accountability for law enforcement misconduct, to enhance transparency and data collection, and to eliminate discriminatory policing practices."

I think this bill creates a great opportunity for us to ask our senators to add a encryption ban (on main channels, tactical/drug exempt) to this bill in the spirit of transparency.

If you agree please write your senators (and maybe others) asking them to add a encryption ban (exempting the tact and drug channels) to the bill.

 

[RaleighGuy]

@techguru Perhaps you should provide a summary or link to the bill as most people have no clue what you are talking about here.

 

[N7OLQ]

HR 7120 was the 2019-2020 bill. It is no longer valid. The new bill for the 2021 session is HR 1280. It has already passed the House and is waiting on Senate vote.

George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2021 (H.R. 1280)

To hold law enforcement accountable for misconduct in court, improve transparency through data collection, and reform police training and policies.

www.govtrack.us

 

[mmckenna]

Anyone else agree?

No.

 

[APX8000]

I cannot support a bill that takes away qualified immunity from LEO's. I couldn't even get past that text.

 

[techguru]

I cannot support a bill that takes away qualified immunity from LEO's. I couldn't even get past that text.

So while asking your senators to add a encryption ban ask them to remove the part(s) you do not approve of.

 

[GlobalNorth]

I cannot support a bill that takes away qualified immunity from LEO's. I couldn't even get past that text.

Absolutely!

 

[marksmith]

Absolutely!

Completely agree. Have no idea what else is in this bill but this would be a no vote all by itself.

 

[GlobalNorth]

Does anyone believe that the USSS, the FBI, ATF, DEA, USMS, and other Federal agencies such as USAFOSI, USARCID, or USNCIS are going to surrender their radio security? All of these are LE agencies and would be affected. What about other state, county, and local agencies? What about HIPPA mandates for EMS, Fire, hospitals?

Who is going to enforce it? The FCC? The FCC only acts if big money is involved or if someone is becoming obnoxious enough such as crank hams, pirates, etc.

It is a stupidly written bill with no basis in the reality of governmental operation.

 

[APX8000]

So while asking your senators to add a encryption ban ask them to remove the part(s) you do not approve of.

Ask them to remove parts??? That's hilarious. How about the fact that they didn't allow ANY law enforcement agency to have any input on this partisan bill. I don't want to turn this political, but know what you are expressing your support for.

Here is the stance from the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association (FLEOA) from their website as an example:

The nation’s largest non-partisan, not-for-profit professional association representing nearly 30,000 federal law enforcement officers across 65 federal agencies—denounced the actions of the House of Representatives last week to ram through its partisan approach to police reform, the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, without allowing consideration of any amendments; without the input of federal, state, and local law enforcement stakeholder groups; and with only one hour of limited debate.

"In order to truly improve policing in our nation, law enforcement must be at the table. Their input is necessary to ensure any reforms are realistic, pragmatic, and targeted towards the needs not just the optics. Instead what we saw last year and, again last week, was that the House passed a partisan bill with no law enforcement input that includes unrealistic and dangerous provisions that undermine the law enforcement profession and make our communities more dangerous."

 

[techguru]

I don't want to turn this political

Nor should it be. Encryption is a completely non-partisan issue. Here in Texas we have (D) and (R) cities that are completely encrypted and (D) and (R) cities that are completely open. It seems to be whatever the particular chief or sheriff wants. There does need to be some kind of standardized guidance on the books stating when & where it can and can not be used.

There really needs to be a stand alone bill on this issue, but good luck with that, Congress likes to "bundle".

 

[StoliRaz]

Congress likes to "bundle".

In football, they call it the quarterback sneak. Sneak it across the goal line when no one knows what's going on. Hide it on the 75th page, where no one looks, reserved for items no one in their right mind would ever agree to

 

[GlobalNorth]

The best place to deal with this is at the local level - open channels for Fire and an encrypted one to deal with tactical situations and another to deal with patient information. All other FD frequencies open. EMS, the same. PD should have open dispatch channels, while tactical operations, detectives, information, search warrants, etc. would by encrypted. There is no reason why park rangers, code enforcement, public works, water, the library, etc. should or need to be encrypted. Local politicians can be more easily persuaded to open up their towns, cities, and counties in an effort at 'transparency' than Congress or a State can.

Start there and win some governments over.

 

[darkness975]

The best place to deal with this is at the local level - open channels for Fire and an encrypted one to deal with tactical situations and another to deal with patient information. All other FD frequencies open. EMS, the same. PD should have open dispatch channels, while tactical operations, detectives, information, search warrants, etc. would by encrypted. There is no reason why park rangers, code enforcement, public works, water, the library, etc. should or need to be encrypted. Local politicians can be more easily persuaded to open up their towns, cities, and counties in an effort at 'transparency' than Congress or a State can.

Start there and win some governments over.

I agree with this.

 

[N8YX]

There are different ways to skin this proverbial cat. If a department chooses to encrypt, fine. That doesn't make their vehicle transmitters immune from interception and identification via TGID and radio ID, which can possibly be obtained via control-channel decoding. You use the data along with the Close Call function (and a wet-noodle, low-gain antenna) to identify mobile transmitters near a fixed location.

Put many of these "locators" into operation for a given region, all connected via computer to a centralized aggregator/mapper. There are different ways to display agency data and position it on a map; maybe a combination of the presentation used in APRS and the old Etherman/Etherape network traffic visualization software. Real-time position verification for users of the system could be implemented via a function of a mobile applet being used to display the data.

Something I'd considered developing for the challenge of it. My local PS agencies don't encrypt (relying on cell phones for very sensitive comms) and I wouldn't advocate "capturing" unencrypted departments such as theirs. For the others...all bets are off. We don't care what you say...we just care WHERE you are, and WHEN.

 

[nd5y]

What about HIPPA mandates for EMS, Fire, hospitals?

It's HIPAA and it doesn't mandate encrypted radio communications.

 

[ten13]

I find it difficult to believe that normal, apparently intelligent, people feel that their "right" to monitor the police supersedes safe police operations, solely because they spent over $600 for one...or more...scanners.

Even if they were to negate the use of encryption, it would only lead to more dispatchers telling the sector cars, "Call the desk...," if they had a job they didn't want going over the radio. And there probably would be a number of them.

It would also open up grand business opportunities for such operations like Zello, etc.

Encryption, especially for big PDs, like the NYPD, is something whose time has come. If anyone listened to the Summer Series of Riots over the past summer (and coming to a city near you this summer!) know that malicious radio interference, as well as false radio calls, peppered the nights' activities more often than not.

That cannot continue.

 

[N8YX]

And FedGov wants to eliminate end-to-end data encryption on the Internet because reasons/children/drugs/terrs...

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Encrypt everything, or encrypt nothing. Period. Further, the summer riots had zilch point squat to do with encrypted comms or the lack thereof; that was TOTALLY on leadership who refused to do their jobs and chose appeasement over enforcement.

Towns that still espouse a community-oriented policing approach (including in-the-clear comms) typically don't have the problems that larger-city forces do, as the populace is enfranchised to help their public service folks. Outfits which attempt to hide or obfuscate their activities merely cast suspicion on same and DIS-enfranchise their constituents.

To use an oft-thrown-around phrase yet again: "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about." That particular sword cuts BOTH ways.

 

[bill4long]

If you agree please write your senators (and maybe others) asking them to add a encryption ban (exempting the tact and drug channels) to the bill.

Thanks for the heads up. I will ask my representatives to oppose this.

Police matters, including encryption, are state/local issues. FedGov can kiss off.

 

[pro106import]

Encryption, especially for big PDs, like the NYPD, is something whose time has come. If anyone listened to the Summer Series of Riots over the past summer (and coming to a city near you this summer!) know that malicious radio interference, as well as false radio calls, peppered the nights' activities more often than not.

That cannot continue.

I was very upset monitoring the jamming this past summer on the CW channels. Just an FYI, encryption will not prevent this from happening 100% . I'm sure most people on these forums know why, so no need to elaborate. It will in fact prevent the false calls though which is a plus.