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

[mmckenna]

It's just, well, Cali is well known for some crazy rules and regs, that's why I singled it out. I have people I do business with who live their that will tell you the same thing. This of course has nothing to do with you personally, I hope you're not under that impression.

No, I don't take it personally. I have lived here most of my life.
California has become a target for many. That's OK, doesn't bother me. I'm making great money and the taxes are not as bad as some may want you to think. I own a house in a great area. I'm a few miles from Monterey Bay and have a really nice commute. I don't have any worries at all about retiring here. Never felt the need to move, and no issues with crime.
Sure, the housing can be expensive, but the trade off is great weather, great scenery, great jobs. Get a good job, and the cost of housing isn't an issue at all. Skip education, get a stupid job, and get stupid pay. It works out well.

There are some silly laws, but there are a lot of good ones, too. And I travel extensively, and I've seen equally silly laws and issues in every single one of the states I've been to. After all that travel, I still come home here and am happy to be where I am. Some that live here may not like the state. They are welcome to leave, we don't need them. Some just love to complain, and no matter where they are, they'll find something to complain about.

However, if you're a concerned taxpayer like stated in your previous post, you should be concerned. A statewide 700 system will probably be presented by the big Mothership. No company is going to invest AES encryption into lowband. It's just not gonna happen. And to set a mandate so soon just seems ludicrous. This of course is just my own opinion, so take it with less than a grain of salt.

Well, lets clear something up.
My comment about statewide 700MHz coverage was a joke. I thought that was plain. There's no way they could ever build enough sites to make 700MHz work like low band. It would be a stupid solution. The CRIS system is not and never was intended to cover all the state.
Since a large portion of the more rural areas of the state are actually controlled by USFS and Bureau of Land Management, the restrictions on antenna sites would probably come from the federal level. Sure, it's fun to blame the state, but anyone who knows what they are talking about will realize that the feds control a lot. One of the things that the previous administration didn't seem to be aware of. I spoke extensively with USFS about using one of their sites for a microwave path, and they pretty much told me it wouldn't happen in my lifetime. That wasn't the state stopping it, it was the feds.

Kenwood is already making low band mobiles that will do encryption, so it's not an issue with companies not producing it. It's already done. The state is big enough that if they decide they want to migrate to encrypted low band, Kenwood would have more than enough reason to build a suitable repeater. They used to do it with the TK-690 in a cabinet, so no reason at all that they wouldn't be able to do it with the NX-5600.

And remember, some of this is federal stuff, from the FBI, so coming soon to a department near you!

 

[K9JLR]

The federal government does it with grants for radios. If you use federal grant money for radio equipment, it must be capable of P25 use (or something to that effect). They could do the same for forcing open primary dispatch frequencies. If an agency wants federal grant money, the agency must maintain an open dispatch frequency.

Yes, power of the purse strings is an option, BUT that's different than the original suggestion, which seemed to imply that it be mandated via explicit legislative fiat, regardless of the revenue source(s) paying for the radio(s).

 

[PrivatelyJeff]

Yes, power of the purse strings is an option, BUT that's different than the original suggestion, which seemed to imply that it be mandated via explicit legislative fiat, regardless of the revenue source(s) paying for the radio(s).

do it via the FCC. They already limit encryption on certain bands and such that way.

 

[DeoVindice]

do it via the FCC. They already limit encryption on certain bands and such that way.

That is not going to happen, nor should it.

 

[12dbsinad]

Kenwood is already making low band mobiles that will do encryption, so it's not an issue with companies not producing it. It's already done. The state is big enough that if they decide they want to migrate to encrypted low band, Kenwood would have more than enough reason to build a suitable repeater. They used to do it with the TK-690 in a cabinet, so no reason at all that they wouldn't be able to do it with the NX-5600.

And remember, some of this is federal stuff, from the FBI, so coming soon to a department near you!

Highly doubtful Kenwood is going to start getting biggly into lowband. Yeah, they saw some market to produce a mobile probably from CHP but even then everyone thought they were to dump LB once they ended the 90 series. There just isn't enough market for it. A couple years ago the market saw a 10% decrease in 10 years and do not suspect LB will become a upward trend. That came from Kenwood themselves. If there was any money in it, Motorola would be on it, and you can take that to the bank.

You would need a turnkey solution for encrypted lowband, not just some mobile radio stuffed in a cabinet at a tower site or something cobbled together. This goes back to why I shake my head about this mandate when a large public safety agency like CHP can't even meet it.

Encryption push is for sure coming, along with interop, but it aint gonna be with LB or LMR. It's called Long-Term Evolution.

 

[mmckenna]

It's called Long-Term Evolution.

Likely, but again, getting coverage on LTE capable bands isn't going to happen in this state.

It will be interesting to see what they do. I haven't not heard anything, other than they are in the process of replacing all the mobile radios with EFJ 4 RF decks and one control head.

To meet the PII requirements, maybe they'll end up on some sort of other system completely. Who knows, maybe Elon Musk will get his fingers in this somehow with satellite internet.

 

[palmerjrusa]

I am not talking about keeping the public entertained. That is your straw dog argument.

The "riots" resulted in essentially zero deaths - public or private. The encryption used at Lafayette Park in DC almost resulted in the total loss of democracy in the USA.

For further info, follow Andrew C Laufer, Esq at Twitter.com - @LauferLaw - check his timeline for multiple other Twitter accounts that are digging for the truth. It is not a matter of Republican vs Democrat - it is a matter of good vs evil.

(Note - New Mexico just repealed qualified immunity - per retweet from Laufer)

Good for New Mexico, following in Colorado's path.

Transparency should always win out unless there are very, very compelling reasons to the contrary.

 

[PrivatelyJeff]

Likely, but again, getting coverage on LTE capable bands isn't going to happen in this state.

It will be interesting to see what they do. I haven't not heard anything, other than they are in the process of replacing all the mobile radios with EFJ 4 RF decks and one control head.

CHP could always make it political.
“The state says we can’t use our radios to do our jobs and it’s going to put lives at risk! Call your representatives to tell them what you think!”

 

[mmckenna]

CHP could always make it political.
“The state says we can’t use our radios to do our jobs and it’s going to put lives at risk! Call your representatives to tell them what you think!”

Oh yeah. The old "What if you called 911 and no one came?" trick. That's been used in political advertising for years. It usually results in the "Mothership" getting a large contract awarded with zero competition.

But, something is going to need to happen. I don't think anyone knows what that will be. Finding a replacement for the low band system would be impossible. But then again, look at what CalTrans did, or tried to do.

 

[12dbsinad]

Is there any reliable data (and I'll say California for example purposes) on the percentage of crime committed with a scanner or scanner feed app?

 

[mmckenna]

Is there any reliable data (and I'll say California for example purposes) on the percentage of crime committed with a scanner or scanner feed app?

I am not aware of any such statistics. Not sure if they exist or not.

Crime statistics aside, the driver is protecting personal info. That's common across the entire IT world. Radio is just catching up with everything else.

 

[12dbsinad]

I am not aware of any such statistics. Not sure if they exist or not.

Crime statistics aside, the driver is protecting personal info. That's common across the entire IT world. Radio is just catching up with everything else.

Thanks

If the IT world is about protecting personal info they are certainly doing a poor job. What personal info do you hear in Cali anyway? Do they send out SSN over the air or something?

Many police dept's in my area still put out random "police logs" on facebook that go into detail, so not sure I worry to much about the radio

 

[mmckenna]

Thanks

If the IT world is about protecting personal info they are certainly doing a poor job.

That's the truth. We just had a big data leak at work and we have our own IT security group. Trouble is, they seem to be playing catch up most of the time. Even with annual training, end users still do stupid stuff. But just because PII gets leaked doesn't mean that it's not worth protecting.

What personal info do you hear in Cali anyway? Do they send out SSN over the air or something?

Drivers license, name, birthdate. Sometimes there is additional info depending on the situation. Returns usually include home address. Never heard SSN myself, but I'm sure it's happened in the past. My uncle was a police officer and he taught us back in the 70's to never ever use your SSN as a form of ID. There are very few people that actually need to have it.

But the FBI document I linked to above talks about what data is restricted.

Many police dept's in my area still put out random "police logs" on facebook that go into detail, so not sure I worry to much about the radio

I think we'll see some of that change. While California is doing this now, it's important to remember that the FBI is the one writing the book on this. It's going to start getting enforced in other states as the FBI starts cracking down, scanner hobbyists or not.

 

[12dbsinad]

I think we'll see some of that change. While California is doing this now, it's important to remember that the FBI is the one writing the book on this. It's going to start getting enforced in other states as the FBI starts cracking down, scanner hobbyists or not.

You would think with all that's going on with law enforcement today (and has been before camera's) you'd want more transparency, not less.

And I'm still having a hard time wrapping my head around what crimes are committed using radio, when one can literally go online and find out anything about a person even with only a license plate number. It just seems like grasping at straws in the grand scheme of things.

 

[mmckenna]

You would think with all that's going on with law enforcement today (and has been before camera's) you'd want more transparency, not less.

I believe in the overall scheme of things, scanner listeners account for a very small portion of the population. If an agency wants to be 'transparent', there are many ways to do that. The oversight of law enforcement isn't something that rests solely on the shoulders of scanner listeners.
The news media plays a role, and many agencies have addressed the encryption challenge by providing a radio set to RX only for them. Public safety agencies are not required to cater to the needs of hobbyists.

And I'm still having a hard time wrapping my head around what crimes are committed using radio, when one can literally go online and find out anything about a person even with only a license plate number. It just seems like grasping at straws in the grand scheme of things.

The burden of proof of what crimes have been committed is not on me. I'm not arguing anything here. I'm simply sharing what I've experienced on my side of this.
The current requirement in California is to address the protection of Personal Identifying Information.
Just like the credit card company doesn't need proof of a crime to not share my personal financial information with anyone that doesn't need it. It's my information and no one else needs it. Just like if someone rear ended me and my drivers license, name and birthdate was shared over the radio by the police. No one has a need to have access to that sort of information.

 

[12dbsinad]

I believe in the overall scheme of things, scanner listeners account for a very small portion of the population. If an agency wants to be 'transparent', there are many ways to do that. The oversight of law enforcement isn't something that rests solely on the shoulders of scanner listeners.
The news media plays a role, and many agencies have addressed the encryption challenge by providing a radio set to RX only for them. Public safety agencies are not required to cater to the needs of hobbyists.



The burden of proof of what crimes have been committed is not on me. I'm not arguing anything here. I'm simply sharing what I've experienced on my side of this.
The current requirement in California is to address the protection of Personal Identifying Information.
Just like the credit card company doesn't need proof of a crime to not share my personal financial information with anyone that doesn't need it. It's my information and no one else needs it. Just like if someone rear ended me and my drivers license, name and birthdate was shared over the radio by the police. No one has a need to have access to that sort of information.

The funny thing is 95 percent of encryption google searches bring up "officer safety issues", "bad guys with scanners and phone apps" and all these bad things that really just don't happen with no data to support it. After all, the taxpayers have to pay for it in the end, the least that could happen is be honest with them, right? This is why people fight it tooth and nail.

It's really sad we have to worry about someones name given over the radio that .00000000000000001 percent of anyone is listening to at a given time but we subject our complete lives to the un-secure interwebs where the real crime is committed.

 

[12dbsinad]

The thing about using "protection of privacy" is where does it end? Perhaps we should go after cameras? First amendment?

What's the first thing that happens at any scene before the broadcastify gets opened up... cameras. Cameras everywhere. That then gets live streamed and sent to every social media platform for instant gradification. Talk about privacy..

Certainly that happens WAY more than the small number of scanner hobbyist's that may be listening to your name if you ever get rear ended.

 

[W8KIC]

I believe in the overall scheme of things, scanner listeners account for a very small portion of the population. If an agency wants to be 'transparent', there are many ways to do that. The oversight of law enforcement isn't something that rests solely on the shoulders of scanner listeners.
The news media plays a role, and many agencies have addressed the encryption challenge by providing a radio set to RX only for them. Public safety agencies are not required to cater to the needs of hobbyists.



The burden of proof of what crimes have been committed is not on me. I'm not arguing anything here. I'm simply sharing what I've experienced on my side of this.
The current requirement in California is to address the protection of Personal Identifying Information.
Just like the credit card company doesn't need proof of a crime to not share my personal financial information with anyone that doesn't need it. It's my information and no one else needs it. Just like if someone rear ended me and my drivers license, name and birthdate was shared over the radio by the police. No one has a need to have access to that sort of information.

Law enforcement officials are first responders and with the exception of their own private lives, which also includes attending to their own physiological needs, have no expectation to privacy under the guise of “public safety” or any other creative excuse. I fully understand the need for encryption of TAC and SWAT frequencies or channels but when the decision is made to encrypt dispatch as well, the optics look terrible from a PR standpoint. My gut tells me the reason government officials on the state and local level haven’t faced much of anything in the way of opposition to total encryption of their communication systems is that they’ve never bothered to place the issue in front of their citizens to begin with and ask them what they think about it. That of course makes the process of implementing across the board encryption a whole lot easier.

 

[mmckenna]

It's really sad we have to worry about someones name given over the radio that .00000000000000001 percent of anyone is listening to at a given time but we subject our complete lives to the un-secure interwebs where the real crime is committed.

We have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Most of us choose not to share info on the internets that we don't want shared with the rest of the world.
One of the many reasons I don't share any of my call signs, phone number or e-mail address. Same reason I have passwords on accounts.
And as for me, personally, I don't want any of my personal info shared over the radio. I've met some of you scanner listeners, and you're a shifty lot….
Nice thing is, it'll soon be in my favor. My personal info doesn't belong freely floating around on the airwaves for anyone/everyone to listen to.

 

[mmckenna]

... the optics look terrible from a PR standpoint.

I think the position of the 'optics' depends on where you are standing.

The trick is to be able to separate ones self from their easy chair and start looking at things from different perspectives and realize that maybe there are many ways to look at this, and maybe the singular point of view from sitting in front of the scanner isn't the only one that matters.