Listen while you can

[brownlab]

I just cannot see the MPD going totally encrypted after the Council of Governments has work so hard to make it so everyone can "kind of" communicate with each other. Sure I can understand any number of special opperation channels becoming encrypted but each dispatch channel for the seven districts? I just don't think so (however have been wrong before).

 

[gprimr1]

I wonder if there will be any lawsuits. One could make an arguement that since the police are paid by tax payers we have a right to listen to their non tactical frequencies.

Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk

 

[rdale]

No, there will (can) not be lawsuits. And no, the public does not have a right to hear.

 

[SurgePGH]

I wonder if there will be any lawsuits. One could make an arguement that since the police are paid by tax payers we have a right to listen to their non tactical frequencies.

Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA..... Yeah, right. Nobody has a RIGHT to listen when it is a matter of public safety. Non tactical frequencies, listen to those all that you want and they can encrypt everything alse. Sensitive information COULD come up at any given time and they might want to keep it private. Nobody said that ALL of the PD freqs were going to be encrypted... As long as they have a couple of non-encrypted channels than that takes care of the inter-operabilty. Inter-Op doesnt mean that all of their channels have to be clear. Some people here seem to forget that getting to listen to public safety freqs is a priveledge that most of us get to enjoy and it is NOT a right.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[SurgePGH]

No, there will (can) not be lawsuits. And no, the public does not have a right to hear.

Anyone can sue anybody for anything... Not saying the suit will get anywhere but you do have the right to bring about a lawsuit for anything you feel.

 

[JoeyC]

The probability that Joey C's statement is true is maybe 5%. My proof - 40 years listening to scanners. If agencys cannot coordinate their plain ole simple analog conventional FM radio systems, there is no way that encrypted / clear channels will be coordinated. Check thru some of the local scanning lists - you will commonly see reports of horribly uncoordinated operations. How many chiefs do we have in the USA? 30,000 fire chiefs plus 10,000 police chiefs plus 15,000 EMS chiefs - is that the numbers?

Your statement does not bring any credibility to the opinion that interoperability is lost in an encrypted environment. Just as there will be interoperability with an all analog system with all parties on the same page, there continues to be interoperability with mixtures of encryption who are on the same page.

If you are going to make comparisons, you need to compare apples to apples or oranges to oranges not apples to oranges or two different issues.

 

[rdale]

Anyone can sue anybody for anything... Not saying the suit will get anywhere but you do have the right to bring about a lawsuit for anything you feel.

I'm not sure you can sue the government in this situation. It's simply not allowed.

 

[leonzo]

False. Common ground on an unencrypted channel is what is used successfully when there are a mixture of encryption and clear talk. When field units are trained appropriately there is no loss of interoperability.




Not sure what you are trying to prove with these statements as bad cops will come with or without an encrypted radio.

If you are suggesting the encryption is hiding this type of activity from the public because they can no longer listen, you have accused every member in the department using such radios of participating in illegal activity by condoning the actions. You really aren't making such an outrageous statement are you?

My points are if the radio is unencrypted or if it is the way it is today then its not encrypted. Different agencies can monitor and talk to each other and anyone with a scanner can listen. So I am not sure what you are talking about.

Next-my point in pointing out the two cases involving the officers is if the present Chief is concerned about citizens listening to her officers on phone applications-shouldn't she also worry or in my opinion worry more about corrupt oficers using the resources of the department to commit crimes? Or what is your reason that encryption is such a good/great idea?

 

[JoeyC]

My points are if the radio is unencrypted or if it is the way it is today then its not encrypted. Different agencies can monitor and talk to each other and anyone with a scanner can listen. So I am not sure what you are talking about.

Just responding to your statement earlier that said: "I say that encrypted eliminates interoperabilty." I wouldn't think that people listening with scanners are part of the interoperability plan. If they know what to do when dealing with outside agencies, there is no problem.

Next-my point in pointing out the two cases involving the officers is if the present Chief is concerned about citizens listening to her officers on phone applications-shouldn't she also worry or in my opinion worry more about corrupt oficers using the resources of the department to commit crimes? Or what is your reason that encryption is such a good/great idea?

The chiefs concerns about phone apps and misconduct amongst the staff are two separate issues that would need two separate plans to deal with. Encrypting your radios may deal with the listening by apps problem but does nothing to prevent officers from making poor decisions.

I do not necessarily think encryption is a good/great idea, however its not my department to run. If I, as the man in charge of a department felt that after weighing all the issues - terrorism, officer safety, eavesdropping via cell apps, liability issues, interop with adjacent agencies, cost, etc. that an encrypted radio system met our departments needs, then yes, I may consider the option.

As much as I would not like my departments going encrypted because I am a hard core hobbyist, I also feel this is not my decision to make. I am not responsible for the department and I don't have to answer to critics about how I handle issues with the department. This is the 21st century. Times have changed. There are not the same challenges in this 21st century as there were when I got into this hobby in the 1970s.

 

[Dewey]

...
Next-my point in pointing out the two cases involving the officers is if the present Chief is concerned about citizens listening to her officers on phone applications-shouldn't she also worry or in my opinion worry more about corrupt oficers using the resources of the department to commit crimes? Or what is your reason that encryption is such a good/great idea?

She does NOT control the phone apps, but she DOES control the radio system. Also remember that not all officers have all channels, so the encryption purposly blocks selected rank and file as well.

Dewey

 

[ericcarlson]

For what it's worth, I heard from a reliable source in February that MPD full encryption was planned but I can't personally confirm it. It was reported to me that Citywide 1, MA and MAF would be the only unencrypted talkgroups.

 

[Robinsmark]

Correctamundo!

I'm not sure you can sue the government in this situation. It's simply not allowed.

Correct: Its' called Tort Claims Immunity. Suits against public entities is v-e-r-y difficult to litigate. And even if you win damages are limited by statute, then there are attorneys fees, court fees. Its a waste of time.

 

[zerg901]

From a state document that is online -

Encryption is prohibited on mutual aid channels because it largely eliminates interoperability and causes other users to cease monitoring the affected channels. It also requires a large degree of cooperation between agencies that suggests a normal operational channel should be used for the communications.

 

[c5corvette]

From a state document that is online -

Encryption is prohibited on mutual aid channels because it largely eliminates interoperability and causes other users to cease monitoring the affected channels. It also requires a large degree of cooperation between agencies that suggests a normal operational channel should be used for the communications.

Zerg, I think your document refers to nationwide interop channels, and no one is going to encrypt those!

A local agency can encrypt any and all channels (talkgroups) on their own system if they want to, regardless of what they are used for.

It was reported to me that Citywide 1, MA and MAF would be the only unencrypted talkgroups.

Eric, this would make a lot of sense.

 

[n5ims]

The Obama Administration has deported more undocumented foreigners than any other administration and DC has it share.

Share some statistics on this claim! By the way this is not a political forum..............................

DHS | Enforce and Administer our Immigration Laws

•In fiscal year 2010, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) set a record for overall removals of illegal aliens, with more than 392,000 removals nationwide.
◦Half of those removed—more than 195,000—were convicted criminals.
◦These statistics represent increases of more than 23,000 removals overall and 81,000 criminal removals compared to fiscal year 2008
◦This is an increase in removal of criminal aliens of more than 70 percent from the previous administration.

There are the requested stats. Can we now get back to the original topic?

 

[listen13579]

Will news media be allowed to get access to the dispatch channels?

 

[JoeyC]

Will news media be allowed to get access to the dispatch channels?

You would have to ask MPD about that. Nobody in here has any definitive answers on this and any comment is pure speculation at this point.

 

[Dewey]

Will news media be allowed to get access to the dispatch channels?

When it comes to getting "access" to encrypted channels, you basically have to be issued a radio by the encrypting entity, hence, Joey's comment about that question being directed to the MPD. That's the whole point in today's encryption. Not only will a scanner not be able to decode it, but even if you have the exact same radio, you will still need the encryption key to enable encode/decode.

Dewey

 

[zerg901]

Quote:
Originally Posted by zerg901 View Post
From a state document that is online -

Encryption is prohibited on mutual aid channels because it largely eliminates interoperability and causes other users to cease monitoring the affected channels. It also requires a large degree of cooperation between agencies that suggests a normal operational channel should be used for the communications.

Zerg, I think your document refers to nationwide interop channels, and no one is going to encrypt those!


------------------------

My reply -

Actually - the comments were about local / statewide mutual aid channels. This particular state has an extensive system of approx 20 statewide mutual aid channels - that are in addition to the interops freqs. All VHF higband BTW.

Peter Sz

 

[DRabbit]

As I'm not at all knowledgeable enough to argue about this topic at all, I will just say that it makes me very very sad to think that my beloved hobby might go away because of encryption. At present, the officers in my area use Nextel and Cells to communicate sensitive data and next to nothing I hear would really compromise much. The desire to go fully encrypted seems quite paranoid... at least to me.

I'm not in DC... and I'll listen as long as I can... I hope I still get a few years out of it!