Illinois State Rep Dan Brady introduces anti-rebroadcast legislation

[N_Jay]

Sure they do - P25 is as good an example as any.


Shelley
K0SHL

Explain why you believe this?

Link? Example? Rational? etc.?

 

[rdale]

Oh, and my sources are the system people I've worked with over the past many years.

Shelley
K0SHL

Your sources are wrong, or you misunderstood.

 

[N_Jay]

Oh, and my sources are the system people I've worked with over the past many years.

Shelley
K0SHL

Then either they misunderstood what they were working on (or were discussing much older systems), or you misunderstood what they said.

 

[shelleys1]

Explain why you believe this?

Link? Example? Rational? etc.?

Because the people I've worked with for many years, who have worked with and designed radio systems for over 30 years, have told me. Considering the fact that I'm anything but stupid, that I'm also not naive, that I also have discussed some of these things with St. Louis Electronics, I believe it. You can take it however you want to.

Shelley
K0SHL

 

[N_Jay]

No one said you were stupid.

Maybe you can explain it to me the way they explained it to you and we can find the point of confusion that either you or I am having.

 

[shelleys1]

No one said you were stupid.

Maybe you can explain it to me the way they explained it to you and we can find the point of confusion that either you or I am having.

I'll be happy to. A good example is the new St. Louis City P25 system. It has some problems but the discussion was about some of their departments using encryption...those being their undercover drug guys, their intelligence group and a couple of others. I was sitting in on the discussion and it was said, during this discussion, that when all of the groups went encrypted at the same time they ran into problems because of a lack of bandwidth. To be perfectly honest, at that point in the discussion they got more technical than I could understand - but I did clearly hear what was said before they went "over my head" with the techno geek stuff and that was the lack of bandwidth. This is a new Moto P25 system that St. Louis City put in a year or so ago. Initially City screwed up spec'd it to Moto incorrectly. But they've straightened out what they messed up (by moving the FD out of the new system and back to the old) and now it's working properly - except when they tried to run all the groups they wanted to have encrypted at the same time. And that's what I know and what was said.

The discussion was with techs, not a bunch of people who think they know what they're talking about. So that's why I said what I did. Nothing more, nothing less.

Shelley
K0SHL

 

[N_Jay]

My guess is they were using the term incorrectly.
P25 uses a 9.6 KBPS data rate for both clear and encrypted.
There is no difference in bandwidth used over the air or on the back-haul network.
In the past DVP/DES (11 KBPS CVSD) encrypted systems used a wide-band modem on analog microwave systems, so that could be an issue but it was not used dynamically so once set up there is not change with user loading.
Also older systems used to have a limited number of channels equipped for encrypted use, so if everyone was running encrypted they were sharing a subset of channels instead of all the channels. In P25 there is no reason to do this unless someone put an artificial limit somewhere in the system.

I hope this helps.

 

[shelleys1]

My guess is they were using the term incorrectly.
P25 uses a 9.6 KBPS data rate for both clear and encrypted.
There is no difference in bandwidth used over the air or on the back-haul network.
In the past DVP/DES (11 KBPS CVSD) encrypted systems used a wide-band modem on analog microwave systems, so that could be an issue but it was not used dynamically so once set up there is not change with user loading.
Also older systems used to have a limited number of channels equipped for encrypted use, so if everyone was running encrypted they were sharing a subset of channels instead of all the channels. In P25 there is no reason to do this unless someone put an artificial limit somewhere in the system.

I hope this helps.

I actually do understand the DVP/DES encrypted system used on a wide-band modem on an analog microwave system - that's what we're using on the St. Louis County PD system. And I do know that it definitely causes a bandwave hit if/when our detectives (or whomever) use encryption. (I've worked with the St. Louis County Emergency Ops people for the last 12+ yrs - thus a good deal of experience with what goes on with our old, but still working well and probably to be replaced in 2 yrs) analog system, etc.

Obviously I must have misunderstood what the tech guys were talking about! That's certainly possible. LOL Sometimes I think the guys like to go off-the-board techno - just to make me have to ask questions or to laugh when I get a totally confused look on my face. Hahaa

Thanks for straightening me out. I *always* like to learn something new or "fix" something I thought was right but wasn't!

Shelley
K0SHL

 

[Spfld800MhzTrunking]

Stupid Law

I broadcast Starcom 21 P25 Audio on here. And havent had one issue nor do I broadcast Encrypted as you cant hear encrypted anyways so to **** with Senator Brady and his stupid Illinois Laws. Once Agian The State Of Illinois hard at work..

 

[Oldglide]

No matter what you do...this law will pass.

As a life-long resident of the state of Illinois, 60+ years, this is how this state works. It's not run by the people in Springfield, it's run by the Chicago machine. The state is run by M. Madigan a hand picked Chicago politician. Brady has Madigan's ear, that's all that counts. Brady gets his law passed, Madigan helps, everybody's happy, except us. The law-makers use the pretense that they need this legislation to keep the "bad guys" from intercepting law enforcement communications, good idea, but in reality they consider hobbyists as nothing more than eavesdroppers and ambulance chasers. Suggest you voice your opposition to M. Madigan as well. If this law doesn't pass I would be very surprised. Continue to fight the good fight!

 

[DaveNF2G]

The only provision in the bill that makes any sense - unauthorized "radio access" to state systems - is both vague and preempted.

What exactly does "radio access" mean? Can some official reasonably interpret it to mean receiver?

Federal law already contains the restriction on transmitter access to licensed radio systems, and Congress has fully occupied the regulatory arena with respect to radio transmitters, to paraphrase the Supreme Court's language on federal preemption.

Interesting how some people cried "fascism" during the Bush Administration, and now are fully expecting a White House and Congress controlled by the other party to follow a course of restricting freedoms.

As for the "subordinate to federal laws" idea, the states may not restrict individual rights beyond what the U.S. Constitution authorizes for the federal government. The First Amendment argument for monitoring (I'm sure the media in IL has funds for purchasing permits, or the necessary political connections to get them for free) has not worked well for the general public. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has said that routine police business is the kind of activity that falls under important public interests worthy of protection.

Unfortunately, lawsuits are expensive. Ham operators have an organization that is moderately effective at protecting some of their interests. Scanner listeners have no such advantage, and the hams' ARRL does not care much for non-ham hobbyists.

 

[PeterGV]

What exactly does "radio access" mean? Can some official reasonably interpret it to mean receiver?

This initially concerned me, too... but it doesn't really matter in context of the overall article of the bill, because it seeks to restrict people from gaining access by "duplicate the identity of a radio unit" on the system or "cloning".

In other words, clone a radio --- even to listen -- and you're guilty of a misdemeanor.

While almost certainly unnecessary, I think that's probably a reasonable provision.

Peter
K1PGV

 

[fwradio]

It will be interesting to see where this goes. It most likely will pass (see the above post regarding the Chicago machine). There may be challenges that it violates federal laws, but remember that Chicago politics runs DC now. If Chicago wants it, America has to take it. It would be followed by federal laws that would prohibit the same.

 

[jobes]

I have been in contact with the CARMA group and they are very firing-off a letter to our wonderful IL Rep Dan Brady. I hope they chime in here and post the letter for everyone's reading.

Kudos to CARMA

 

[AZScanner]

I love how these tools try to control the internet. Give me a break, like a law can stop someone who is hell bent on doing it anyway.

If this law passed here in AZ, I'd do 3 things:

1. Change my feed here on RR to anonymous.
2. Route the stream itself thru an anonymous proxy in Prague.
3. Sit back, drink a beer and laugh. F*** 'em if they can't take a joke.

-AZ

 

[n1das]

Re: Anti-rebroadcast: I'm disturbed by it but also not really surprised by it. If interpreted as being more restrictive than what's allowed by Section 705(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, then I'm against it like everybody else here.

Re: Listening...
If I were visiting IL, I'd listen on my P25 commercial gear instead of my scanners given that it's what I use on the ham bands and therefore counts as my ham transceiving equipment so the ham federal preemption of state anti-scanner laws applies.

Also, how does IL get around the "it shall not be unlawful" clause in the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA '86)? ECPA'86 specifically states that it shall not be unlawful to monitor public safety comms. It seems that if listening to public safety comms were expressly prohibited by state law it would directly conflict with ECPA '86.

I'm not a lawyer, nor do I pretend to be one either. These are my opinions only, so take them with a grain of salt. Don't listen to anything I wouldn't listen to. <wink>

 

[shelleys1]

Re: Anti-rebroadcast: I'm disturbed by it but also not really surprised by it. If interpreted as being more restrictive than what's allowed by Section 705(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, then I'm against it like everybody else here.

Re: Listening...
If I were visiting IL, I'd listen on my P25 commercial gear instead of my scanners given that it's what I use on the ham bands and therefore counts as my ham transceiving equipment so the ham federal preemption of state anti-scanner laws applies.

Also, how does IL get around the "it shall not be unlawful" clause in the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA '86)? ECPA'86 specifically states that it shall not be unlawful to monitor public safety comms. It seems that if listening to public safety comms were expressly prohibited by state law it would directly conflict with ECPA '86.

I'm not a lawyer, nor do I pretend to be one either. These are my opinions only, so take them with a grain of salt. Don't listen to anything I wouldn't listen to. <wink>

Obviously, monitoring isn't the issue, which I believe is all ECPA '86 covers and I don't think addresses rebroadcasting. But I may be incorrect. Also, as far as I've been able to find, there hasn't been anything close to a test case yet on rebroadcasting. So this may be it, if Illinois does pass the bill and, of course, if someone/some entity challenges it.

I too am not a lawyer nor have I done any Lexus/Nexus searches on this. (And probably won't.) I have though written to all of the representatives on the committee expressing my "concerns" about the path they're going down with this bill. Given the Illinois track record on such things and the fact that I reside only in an adjoining state, I doubt my emails will elicit any responses.

Shelley
K0SHL

 

[n1das]

Obviously, monitoring isn't the issue, which I believe is all ECPA '86 covers and I don't think addresses rebroadcasting. But I may be incorrect. Also, as far as I've been able to find, there hasn't been anything close to a test case yet on rebroadcasting. So this may be it, if Illinois does pass the bill and, of course, if someone/some entity challenges it.

I too am not a lawyer nor have I done any Lexus/Nexus searches on this. (And probably won't.) I have though written to all of the representatives on the committee expressing my "concerns" about the path they're going down with this bill. Given the Illinois track record on such things and the fact that I reside only in an adjoining state, I doubt my emails will elicit any responses.

Shelley
K0SHL

Agreed. The "unauthorized radio access" part is vague (and preempted) as DaveNF2G pointed out.

 

[XTS3000]

I love how these tools try to control the internet. Give me a break, like a law can stop someone who is hell bent on doing it anyway.

If this law passed here in AZ, I'd do 3 things:

1. Change my feed here on RR to anonymous.
2. Route the stream itself thru an anonymous proxy in Prague.
3. Sit back, drink a beer and laugh. F*** 'em if they can't take a joke.

-AZ

Unfortunally if the feds want you, a proxy isn't going to hide your identity. New software installed at the internet backbone will now resolve any hidden or spoofed IP - something like 99% effective.

How do you think the feds are catching all these disgusting pedofiles? Even these creeps know about proxies and hiding, yet they are get busted left and right nowdays - THANKFUILLY!!!!

The days of hiding behind a proxy is over guys - hate to barrer of bad news....

 

[KIKINWING]

However, the U.S. Supreme Court has said that routine police business is the kind of activity that falls under important public interests worthy of protection.

Good Professor,

Do you or could you please provide the case that this issue was decided??? Secondly, in your learned opinion, should we the scanner community set up a legal defense fund to take a shot via one "test" case to reverse the trend of public safety encryption? Maybe the good people at RR would let a corner of the home page be used for donations to such an endeavor?? I think it is time.... NO it is way past time!!!!!

If they criminalize scanners only criminals will have scanners!!!!!