Just a question about future scanning...

[idontknow82]

There is no collusion, there is no conspiracy. It's done for safety and effectiveness only.

I am gonna need to have that proven. I could compare it to other things, but it would end up off topic.

 

[N_Jay]

Yes, No, Maybe?
Do they need the patrol cars, the guns, the uniforms, the buildings or any of the other things they select?
We hire them to do a job, and that job includes deciding what tools they need to do that job.

If you believe you are better at selecting what they need, then I suggest you pick a career where you get to make such decisions.

Of course when I post something like this, some here interpret it as being "pro-encryption".
No so, just have been in the discussions enough to know both sides.
Those who go down the "They just want to be secretive, or they are all criminals, path make mo more sense than those who rant "it doesn't matter because it will be broken, or the even more ridiculous "we paid for it so we should be able to listen" crowd.

 

[zz0468]

I am gonna need to have that proven. I could compare it to other things, but it would end up off topic.

Good luck with that. I suspect that trying to prove anything to you would be an exercise in futility.

 

[zz0468]

My question is why do they really need encryption, when theses agencies all use cell phones for sensitive information, other than as a selling point for the radio system?

There are situations where a cellphone just won't cut it. A stake out, a SWAT operation, or any other time multiple users MUST hear what's said at the same time. You can't do that with cell phones.

My question to all of you who question the need for encryption is this:

Which of you is actually qualified to second guess what a law enforcement agency decides they need to be safe and effective? Raise your hands.

 

[whiskeytango]

There are situations where a cellphone just won't cut it. A stake out, a SWAT operation, or any other time multiple users MUST hear what's said at the same time. You can't do that with cell phones.

.

pretty sure the new phones have this capability.

 

[zz0468]

pretty sure the new phones have this capability.

Maybe so, but you STILL can't listen to them, can you. But even more important, it puts critical communications into the hands of a third party, i.e. the cell carrier. A lot of agencies consider that to be an unacceptable risk.

 

[cola]

Having read the posts in this thread I feel I should comment on what is going on in my area. I live in El Paso, Texas and basically the city is under constant worry about the violence over the border spilling over into our city. Granted our crime rate is relatively low but the murders continue in Juarez and as a result the city is taking precautions. Local Leo was given a new fleet of brand new Dodge Chargers with the latest tech. A couple of months ago each officer received an assault rifle along with a training session on proper use. Each officer now works with an assault rifle in the vehicle. And last but not least El Paso County frequencies will be moving to the El Paso EDACS ProVoice system. All of this is to keep the city safer.

 

[DPD1]

I'm sure I'll regret getting in on this one, but... When people say they wonder why law enforcement needs to have everything encrypted... I don't think the majority of those people wonder that because they think they're trying to get away with something, or that they're guilty in some way. I just think what a lot of people wonder is... Why do some departments now have the attitude that they can't live without it. Since they haven't had it for decades, it would seem they can. Most criminals seem to be about as dumb as ever. There's very intelligent people right here that have to ask for help to program in the new systems. I really have not seen anything that would indicate there is a huge problem with scanners helping criminals... At least not in average day to day crime. I can understand tactical and surveillance encryption for organized crime, of course. But there are counties/cities out there that have virtually everything encrypted... Even fire and some basic city stuff. I don't know... If I lived in a city/county/state where virtually everything was encrypted... Sorry, but I would find that disturbing. I'm not saying I would automatically jump to some sort assumption that they are guilty of something. But I certainly would question why that is necessary. If a private company doesn't want people listening to them, that's their business. But if a municipality encrypts something that really has no logical reason for being encrypted, and the actual unspoken reason is that they just simply don't like people listening to them... I don't think that's a good enough reason and I would not accept that. I don't think it's a terrible thing for the public to be able to have an idea what is going on with their city/county/state on some basic level.

 

[DaveIN]

There are situations where a cellphone just won't cut it. A stake out, a SWAT operation, or any other time multiple users MUST hear what's said at the same time. You can't do that with cell phones.

So how many people are on the SWAT team including supervisors? This mandates the entire system needs to use encryption? You going to have to come up with something better than that if you just want Joe scanner user not to listen in. Sounds like a sales pitch and not much to do with public safety.

My question to all of you who question the need for encryption is this:

Which of you is actually qualified to second guess what a law enforcement agency decides they need to be safe and effective? Raise your hands.

I say everyone who votes for their elected officials who control spending on such a system in their local election and pays taxes for.

 

[N_Jay]

pretty sure the new phones have this capability.

Some do have PTT, but it is slow and NOT for critical public safety use, and is usually designed for one-to-one.

 

[IEscanner]

My question is why do they really need encryption, when theses agencies all use cell phones for sensitive information, other than as a selling point for the radio system?

So you want say the supervisor of a swat team to make a phone call to each and every member of his team, not to mention the other officers that are not on the swat team preforming backup or keeping John Q public out of harms way?

 

[N_Jay]

So how many people are on the SWAT team including supervisors? This mandates the entire system needs to use encryption? You going to have to come up with something better than that if you just want Joe scanner user not to listen in. Sounds like a sales pitch and not much to do with public safety.

If you know many in public safety, and especially law enforcement, then you would be aware of the attitude, "you don't know what you need until you need it, and then it is too late to prepare."

Of course there are also those in the general population who like being such a pain that they encourage the spread of things like encryption.

I say everyone who votes for their elected officials who control spending on such a system in their local election and pays taxes for.

Really? That makes no sense. If the specific issue was on the ballot, and the electorate was properly educated, then maybe.
But to say because you pay taxes and vote, "defines" you as "qualified" is a senseless position.

 

[ff-medic]

My question is why do they really need encryption, when theses agencies all use cell phones for sensitive information, other than as a selling point for the radio system?

In " Some " places, cell phones do not cover an entire area.

Its no conspiracy, or cover up. Sometimes agencys need to transmit info that the public does not need to hear.... to prevent misunderstanding, conjecture and rumors getting started, or a large crowd forming at the area / location / scene, and the media " speculating " on the air , before thousands..if not ; millions of people.

Example, an arsonist lights a house. It is suspected when Fire / Rescue and others arrive. You do not want to publicise over the radio, specifics and ect, to prevent the arsonist from finding out info, knowing what he did and did not do. Encryption.

Law Enforcement at a certain location ( high crime area / area of interest ) on patrol, schedules, surveillance , criminal investigation..ect...I agree with encryption.

US Government locations..I agree with 100% encryption.

Radios, as well as radio backbone systems are constantly being upgraded. I would expect, in the next 15 years or so, the biggest part of " In the clear " tranmissions will become a thing of the past - most especially in rural areas where cell phones do not reach entirely.

Agencys moved from low band VHF , to VHF - High . Then it was outdated..and we soon seen UHF. Then 800 mhz.......Now we have the 700 mhz spectrum to move around in. Change in communications happens frequently...and Communications companys are in competition to upgrade / improve and invent future radio systems for customers. Land mobile radio is ever increasing in size and technology. Regretfully, I believe that It is a fact of life, that technology will someday..possibly make radio scanners obsolete.

FF-Medic !!!

 

[zz0468]

So how many people are on the SWAT team including supervisors? This mandates the entire system needs to use encryption?

If that's what the department feels they need, yes. Unfortunately for you, they're the ones who get to make the decision.

You going to have to come up with something better than that if you just want Joe scanner user not to listen in.

I DID do better than that when I said that law enforcement has the perception that it will enhance their safety and effectiveness.

Really, that's all they need. Personally, I don't have a stake in whether or not people listen in. I don't care one way or the other. I'm just trying to explain why it's happening, and what you can't do about it.

Sounds like a sales pitch and not much to do with public safety.

It's hardly a sales pitch. It's merely a statement to the effect that a bunch of scanner listeners are not necessarily privy to the information that causes a department to go to an encrypted system.

I say everyone who votes for their elected officials who control spending on such a system in their local election and pays taxes for.

Wrong. Guess again.

 

[zz0468]

I just think what a lot of people wonder is... Why do some departments now have the attitude that they can't live without it...

Cost and availability would be a factor.

I really have not seen anything that would indicate there is a huge problem with scanners helping criminals...

But that's not what they're trying to protect against. 9/11 changed they way many law enforcement agencies view the world. Between that and drug cartels and other organized crime, it's a different world.

...But if a municipality encrypts something that really has no logical reason for being encrypted, and the actual unspoken reason is that they just simply don't like people listening to them... I don't think that's a good enough reason and I would not accept that.

You're making a mistake if you think that everything that's logical to a local government is going to be logical to you. Current day thinking is that EVERYTHING government does is subject to misappropriation by the same criminal elements mentioned above. Even to the point of hiring companies to securely shred and destroy every day waste paper from all the office waste baskets. The view is, NOTHING can be left to chance for a terrorist or criminal to gather intelligence.

When it becomes THAT pervasive, radio encryption is just around the corner. And believe me, it's getting that way. I KNOW. I've had to empty my wastepaper basket into the shredder bin.

I don't think it's a terrible thing for the public to be able to have an idea what is going on with their city/county/state on some basic level.

Absolutely. That's what the Grand Jury is for. If you have any specific concerns of wrong-doing by your local government, be sure to alert them, and the press.

 

[APTN]

Encryption

In " Some " places, cell phones do not cover an entire area.

Its no conspiracy, or cover up. Sometimes agencys need to transmit info that the public does not need to hear.... to prevent misunderstanding, conjecture and rumors getting started, or a large crowd forming at the area / location / scene, and the media " speculating " on the air , before thousands..if not ; millions of people.

Example, an arsonist lights a house. It is suspected when Fire / Rescue and others arrive. You do not want to publicise over the radio, specifics and ect, to prevent the arsonist from finding out info, knowing what he did and did not do. Encryption.

Law Enforcement at a certain location ( high crime area / area of interest ) on patrol, schedules, surveillance , criminal investigation..ect...I agree with encryption.

US Government locations..I agree with 100% encryption.

FF-Medic !!!

That's fine. Those agencies can get the system designer to allocate encrypted talkgroups, which can be used as-needed. But why encrypt all communications ? There's a cost issue, and the issue of blocking out neighbors. An agency's neighbors may be listening should mutual-aid be necessary.

 

[JoeyC]

But why encrypt all communications ? There's a cost issue, and the issue of blocking out neighbors.

Heres one reason for encrypting everything.

You are a cop on duty. You are doing your job as expected yet you notice that on nearly every call there is a man nearby with camera rolling. After noticing this guy to be following you about your duties you question him as to his motives. You learn that he is a stringer, a freelance videographer looking to make a few bucks. OK. No laws broken, the cop gives the guy a reminder to keep his distance and not interfere and the two part.

Later in the day the stringer is on the scene filming from a distance what appears to be some type of disturbance between a number of parties. Two cops arrive and the situation escalates. Eventually a struggle occurs and then a Tazer is utilized while trying to detain an aggressive party. Many onlookers have now arrived including many of the suspects family. Family members cheer on the suspect and begin yelling at and threatening the officers doing their job. More cops are summoned to the scene as there are now numerous disorderly parties interfering with the detention of the original aggressor. More officers arrive and several others are eventually placed in handcuffs, some resisting. Tensions are high, and the tape is rolling.

Eventually the situation comes to an end. The original aggressor is taken into custody and removed from the scene in the back of a black and white. One of the family members is charged with interfering and the rest are released. The stringer leaves the scene with 20 minutes of good footage. He gives his contact at the local TV station a call and the two meet. The film is edited and a story for the 5 o'clock is born. 6 seconds of "police brutality" are used as a teaser at 4:55 announcing the upcoming news program. The opening story: Family members say excessive force used by police during domestic dispute shows 15 seconds of video as the suspect is tazed and family members are detained at the height of the dispute. The community is outraged! After a followup story, the police chief is put in a position to later make a comment on behalf of his department. The tazed suspect with the help of family, enraged citizens, Copwatch and an overzealous lawyer decide to sue the city and the department over the event. Months of investigation and legal work is conducted. Investigators for the city are unable to obtain the unedited version of the videotape as it apparently was conveniently lost. The story remains alive in the eyes and ears of the community for 18 months when the city finally settles out of court for an undisclosed sum of money.
Risk management folks decide that because the investigators determined that the continued presence of the scanner equipped stringer contributed to the escalation of this routine police event into a news story and subsequently a lawsuit, the city would invest into the radio system and include encryption options to all channels, eliminating the probability that the stringer would be seen at the scene of police related events.

I made this story up, but if you don't think similar situations have occurred you better think again.

 

[N_Jay]

And I thought it was because they were tired of getting calls from old Mrs. Smith that go about like this;

-911 what is your emergency

I heard Metro 18 get sent to 1234 east Pine, and he went down Market, but it would have been faster for him to go down Main, but you know Jimmy, he doesn't listen to anyone. He has been that way since I taught him in the second grade. Just thought you should know.

-OK, we will check into that, Thank you

OK, sweetie, you have a nice day

-I'll try Mame.

 

[DPD1]

Heres one reason for encrypting everything.

You are a cop on duty. You are doing your job as expected yet you notice that on nearly every call there is a man nearby with camera rolling. After noticing this guy to be following you about your duties you question him as to his motives. You learn that he is a stringer, a freelance videographer looking to make a few bucks. OK. No laws broken, the cop gives the guy a reminder to keep his distance and not interfere and the two part.

Later in the day the stringer is on the scene filming from a distance what appears to be some type of disturbance between a number of parties. Two cops arrive and the situation escalates. Eventually a struggle occurs and then a Tazer is utilized while trying to detain an aggressive party. Many onlookers have now arrived including many of the suspects family. Family members cheer on the suspect and begin yelling at and threatening the officers doing their job. More cops are summoned to the scene as there are now numerous disorderly parties interfering with the detention of the original aggressor. More officers arrive and several others are eventually placed in handcuffs, some resisting. Tensions are high, and the tape is rolling.

Eventually the situation comes to an end. The original aggressor is taken into custody and removed from the scene in the back of a black and white. One of the family members is charged with interfering and the rest are released. The stringer leaves the scene with 20 minutes of good footage. He gives his contact at the local TV station a call and the two meet. The film is edited and a story for the 5 o'clock is born. 6 seconds of "police brutality" are used as a teaser at 4:55 announcing the upcoming news program. The opening story: Family members say excessive force used by police during domestic dispute shows 15 seconds of video as the suspect is tazed and family members are detained at the height of the dispute. The community is outraged! After a followup story, the police chief is put in a position to later make a comment on behalf of his department. The tazed suspect with the help of family, enraged citizens, Copwatch and an overzealous lawyer decide to sue the city and the department over the event. Months of investigation and legal work is conducted. Investigators for the city are unable to obtain the unedited version of the videotape as it apparently was conveniently lost. The story remains alive in the eyes and ears of the community for 18 months when the city finally settles out of court for an undisclosed sum of money.
Risk management folks decide that because the investigators determined that the continued presence of the scanner equipped stringer contributed to the escalation of this routine police event into a news story and subsequently a lawsuit, the city would invest into the radio system and include encryption options to all channels, eliminating the probability that the stringer would be seen at the scene of police related events.

I made this story up, but if you don't think similar situations have occurred you better think again.

I have no doubt that happens, and I'm sure it's very frustrating. And for years I have screamed that radio monitoring should be used in a responsible manor. However... I think having what amounts to a blanket ban on emergency services monitoring (because that's really what encryption is), is basically punishing thousands of people, for the actions of a minority group. Maybe 10-15 years ago, I think that argument would totally be true. Back then, the news people would have been the primary way things were publicized. But now, more than half the people walking up and down the street have cameras built into their phones. I believe the footage taken of the transit PD incident in SF was done with a cell phone? So the reality is... No matter what, this is going to be something that PD is now going to be dealing with, scanners or not. Because you can bet that in any area... especially the low income ones... If there is an incident like you describe, you know darn well that there's going to be video footage of it from every angle and people lining up to sign up for a lawsuit. Also, with a video, at least you can show what really happened. That's better than people just making stuff up, which the news people also have no problem doing. I saw them interview little kids near the scene of a PD involved shooting the other day, and they put footage of these little kids telling the reporter that the cop walked right up to the person and shot them in the back of the head. Obviously ridiculous, but that didn't stop them from using it. In that scenario, a freelance guy who showed up to the scene could have actually CLEARED the cop. So it's not always all bad. Plus, what is the alternative? With no radios, then there is no news coverage at all, except for a report given after the fact? I don't know if that's acceptable either. It would just be nice if some sort of compromise could be met.

 

[JoeyC]

And I thought it was because they were tired of getting calls from old Mrs. Smith that go about like this;

-911 what is your emergency

I heard Metro 18 get sent to 1234 east Pine, and he went down Market, but it would have been faster for him to go down Main, but you know Jimmy, he doesn't listen to anyone. He has been that way since I taught him in the second grade. Just thought you should know.

-OK, we will check into that, Thank you

OK, sweetie, you have a nice day

-I'll try Mame.

Actually Mrs Smith made this call also:

911: 911 whats your emergency?

Mrs Smith: Hello, this is Mrs smith, Elsie Smith, over here at 123 Elm Street. And, just about 5 minutes ago that noisy alarm across the street at that eyesore of a warehouse, you know the one, where they tore down the Tasty Freeze last year that had been there since 1947, when I first moved into this house. Oh, well, anyway, that derned alarm went off 5 minutes ago and I'm sitting here listening to the scanner and watching reruns of General Hospital on SOAPnet and I've noticed that you haven't dispatched a patrol car yet to that alarm. Is anybody gonna come and shut that derned thing off?

911: Yes ma'am I show that burglar alarm, and I'll send a car out as soon as I have one available.

Mrs Smith: What do you mean when you have one available? Somebody breaking in to somebodys property and you can't find a police car to come out here?

911: Did you see someone break into the warehouse?

Mrs Smith: Well, no.

911: Have you seen anyone around the building or any suspicious activity?

Mrs Smith: Well, no, I haven't seen a thing!

911: So you haven't seen anybody or anything around the building? Just hear the alarm ringing is that correct?

Mrs Smith: Yes, the alarm is ringing. Its so derned loud I'm surprised you can't hear it over the phone. So is anybody comin?

911: Ma'am, all my officers are handing higher priority calls at the moment, and I will send someone out as soon as possible.

Mrs Smith: Well I just heard you dispatch a call over at 12th and Broadway. Thats where Jasper and Myrtle Cuthcart live, they always fightin. Ain't nothing new or urgent bout that call.

911: The call at 12th and Broadway is a domestic disturbance, we have to handle those before we respond on ringing alarms ma'am.

Mrs Smith: Well, what about 233 Charlie. I just heard him doin a traffic stop down on the boulevard. Why they always pulling people over on the boulevard? And why can't HE respond to this alarm? Can you tell me that??

911: Ma'am, I have no idea why the officer chose to do a traffic stop on that vehicle, but I am sure he had a good reason. We'll have someone out as soon as possible to investigate that alarm alrighty?

Mrs Smith: Well I sure hope so, Its not like you have a shortage of cops out there. I haven't heard 224 Alpha or 225 Alpha say a thing on the radio in over 30 minutes. Maybe you should do a welfare check call on them, dontcha think?

911: Ma'am, I am aware of the status of those officers.

Mrs Smith: I sure hope so. Hurry up now.

911: We will, Thank you.