Lowndes County, GA – Full Encryption: Why?

[DanRollman]

Boston Police transitioned to full time encryption this month. Their press release suggests an attempt at a happy median on the issues described above. Their official rebroadcasting page on RapidSOS isn't terrible.

I appreciate that Boston PD's approach seems to be free of hyperbole, strawmen, slippery slopes, emotion, tough-guy contests and needless belittling of other's perspectives, while seeking to balance the protection of their law enforcement interests with the fact that many Americans are uniquely interested in how their local governments operate. Many bureaucrats, politicians, hobbyists, industry professionals, and concerned citizen types seem to be simultaneously full of all of this and yet unable to see it in themselves, so these discussions invariably devolve.

 

[MTS2000des]

basically thats comparing apples to oranges, at least be honest that you dont like being called out.
this shameful attitude is prevelant in most spheres of the public safety business, and woe to anyone who attacks the good old boys club.
How many System Admins actually know and will disemenate accurate information on how COMMSEC is actually supposed to work

Not apples to oranges. Broadcast spectrum is intended for public consumption. Where everyone got that part 90 radio traffic is the same and people have a "right" to consume it is just a delusional reality one chooses to remain in. Like it or not, encryption is here. The reasons are many but it isn't 1990 and "Joe Scanner" is not nor ever has been the problem. The fact that in prior times, the open nature of LMR still did not change the fact that one wasn't supposed to divulge what they heard or disseminate it. Since that all went down the toilet since the "age of the infulencer" and social media where everyone has to post everytime they flatulate, comsec has become a front and center valid concern. Any incident can become a critical one. In case you missed it, we just had one here in Atlanta.

What many don't understand is those involved in care and feeding such systems have a responsibility to provide a safe, secure and robust system for the preservation of life and safety, not to provide infoatinment to the public. Spend a day at a trial or an OSHA/NIOSH hearing and get a little perspective. Or sometime on a call with homeland security. The threats are real and those who's job it is to mitigate them don't take kindly to cheap shots from hobbyists who are pissed off because they can't tune in on the police. Sorry but that is reality in 2025.

 

[kc2asb]

I wish people we be as pissed off about the NAB pushing BROADCAST TV ENCRYPTION of PUBLICLY INTENDED ATSC 3.0. Where are all you "you're hiding something" folks? The same media demanding access to public safety radio wants to HIDE THEIR BROADCASTS and MAKE YOU PAY to watch FREE TO AIR TV? Oh the irony.

In this case, the NAB is not hiding anything. Their greed is on full display. If there was anything worth watching on TV, perhaps more people would be angry.

 

[MTS2000des]

In this case, the NAB is not hiding anything. There greed is on full display.

I called them on it at APCO. Never heard back. But they agreed with my feelings, but again, no one cares about feelings. As you said all about the money. Problem I have is a broadcast license is supposed to be to serve the public interest first, with profits second.

 

[mmckenna]

MTS2000des writes:
Again...words falling on deaf ears.

Sad but true and if I understand you correctly you are saying public servants engaged in the aforementioned E don’t care/won’t listen to the served public. A valid criticism of, IMHO a shameful attitude.

Not a "shameful" attitude.

The issue is that most hobbyists don't have the knowledge to understand why encryption gets used. And worse, some actively don't -want- to understand. It's just easier for them to complain.

"Served public"? That's what these agencies do. They are tasked with serving and protecting the public.
What they are NOT tasked with is providing an entertainment source for a group of hobbyists.
If media wants access, there are ways to do that, either through specifically issued radios, or by FOIA requests. And FOIA requests are the way to do it. That's the tool, use it or not.

Contrary to popular misinformation, there is no "right" to monitor anything nor any legal obligation to keep radio comms in the clear.

Straw man. Who said monitoring of RF comms, per se’ was a right? But that logic cuts both ways. Who gave the right to these agencies to conceal their activities, even routine ones from the served public, by using the big E. Simply because a practice is not forbidden does not constitute a right to engage in that practice.

FBI/DOJ has specific requirements on handling information, and there are -zero- waivers for hobbyists. These agencies are following the requirements of the FBI/DOJ, and encryption is the correct tool to do that.

 

[kc2asb]

If media wants access, there are ways to do that, either through specifically issued radios, or by FOIA requests. And FOIA requests are the way to do it. That's the tool, use it or not.

IMHO, the press cannot do their jobs properly relying solely on FOIA requests. The information has to be as real-time as possible. The only way they can keep people informed in a timely fashion is via access through a department-issued radio or delayed feed. Not every department that fully encrypts provides such access. In some cases, it takes legislation, as in the case of the New York bill. (which is still sitting on the governor's desk)

Boston PD did it the right way.

 

[kb5udf]

So you think you can monitor body cameras in real time? Why not intercept all gov emails, gov security cameras, et al? Only a fool would argue that all "government" communications needs to be accessible by EVERYONE in REAL TIME. But for some reason, when it comes to radio traffic, there is a vocal minority of folks who flaunt the "well you must be hiding something" because encryption is used for comsec and to protect the integrity of communications on the network.

By that logic, all body cameras need to be open to 24/7/365 public streaming, all security cameras owned by a government entity need the same open access, and of course, we should never encrypt IP networks carrying government emails or data because anyone and everyone should have unfettered access, right? Try again. Game over.

That’s enough straw men arguments to make a village.

 

[kb5udf]

I find you apparent assumption that a desire for agencies to remain transparent is a desire solely for entertainment purposes, quite inaccurate. Clearly there continue to be plenty of agencies that operate in a fairly open RF manner and do so with the high standards of professionalism.

Not a "shameful" attitude.

The issue is that most hobbyists don't have the knowledge to understand why encryption gets used. And worse, some actively don't -want- to understand. It's just easier for them to complain.

"Served public"? That's what these agencies do. They are tasked with serving and protecting the public.
What they are NOT tasked with is providing an entertainment source for a group of hobbyists.
If media wants access, there are ways to do that, either through specifically issued radios, or by FOIA requests. And FOIA requests are the way to do it. That's the tool, use it or not.




FBI/DOJ has specific requirements on handling information, and there are -zero- waivers for hobbyists. These agencies are following the requirements of the FBI/DOJ, and encryption is the correct tool to do that.

 

[mmckenna]

IMHO, the press cannot do their jobs properly relying solely on FOIA requests. The information has to be as real-time as possible. The only way they can keep people informed in a timely fashion is via access through a department-issued radio or delayed feed. Not every department that fully encrypts provides such access. In some cases, it takes legislation, as in the case of the New York bill. (which is still sitting on the governor's desk)

Boston PD did it the right way.

Yes, agency issued radio that is kept under control of the agency is the way to do this. That way Over The Air Rekeying can be done as needed.

Problem with the internet feed thing is that it in no way what so ever meets the FBI/DOJ requirements for protection of PII/CJI. Even with feed delays.
Eventually that's going to need to be reckoned with.

Internet feeds with redacted PII/CJI is an option, but the redaction has to be 100% accurate with zero room for errors.

 

[mmckenna]

I find you apparent assumption that a desire for agencies to remain transparent is a desire solely for entertainment purposes, quite inaccurate. Clearly there continue to be plenty of agencies that operate in a fairly open RF manner and do so with the high standards of professionalism.

Professionalism isn't the issue.

It's the FBI/DOJ requirements that CJI/PII be protected at all times and in all places. There is zero waivers for that rule. The fact that agencies have been getting away with it doesn't remove the requirement. Eventually they will be forced to comply. It's not optional.

 

[kc2asb]

Yes, agency issued radio that is kept under control of the agency is the way to do this. That way Over The Air Rekeying can be done as needed.

Problem with the internet feed thing is that it in no way what so ever meets the FBI/DOJ requirements for protection of PII/CJI. Even with feed delays.
Eventually that's going to need to be reckoned with.

Internet feeds with redacted PII/CJI is an option, but the redaction has to be 100% accurate with zero room for errors.

Redacted feeds sound too labor intensive to be practical. It would require more monitoring, but perhaps larger departments like Boston are using secondary channels to comply with the DOJ requirements.

 

[WX4JCW]

Redacted feeds sound too labor intensive to be practical. It would require more monitoring, but perhaps larger departments like Boston are using secondary channels to comply with the DOJ requirements.

anyone from Boston who officially want to chime in

 

[WX4JCW]

I find you apparent assumption that a desire for agencies to remain transparent is a desire solely for entertainment purposes, quite inaccurate. Clearly there continue to be plenty of agencies that operate in a fairly open RF manner and do so with the high standards of professionalism.

Politics have a lot to do with it, a lot to do with it, there is a 100% good old boy mentality, its a control of information.


one of the most famous examples from my time in the business was when Orlando Police and Orange County SO went E, Val Demmings (yes that Val Demmings who was the chief at the time) met with the media and members of the public and basically said there was no way to stop it, media would not get access, she promised the PIO would post incidents, that happened for a little while and disappeared, the reason was supposed to safety but realistically the main reason was violent crime was increasing as the city and county experienced exponential growth and there was a lot of concern that the governments did not have total control over the information being presented, and as such would hurt the #1 industry Tourism, I mean who wants to visit the mouse if they are scared of being robbed.


There needs to be COMMSEC and OPSEC, but to just laugh at peoples concerns is pretty unprofessional, and is probably why we see more and more of the "auditors" out there, and i really dislike their methods.

to me this seems more like an effort to just marginalize the opposition and hope it goes away

 

[CrowsSDR]

Call me ignorant, but...

What is with all the poop emojis??

 

[ThreatLevelMidnight]

GSP and the state are on 100 percent natively encrypted LTE...so what are they supposed to do: broadcast Troop C on 92.9 the Game? Get real people.

"We Interrupt this Braves broadcast to bring you a 10-80 in progress! - Here comes the GSP mustang for the PIT... IN THE WALL! GSP 1 - CROOK 0!"

Gotta admit that would be pretty cool

 

[kc2asb]

Call me ignorant, but...

What is with all the poop emojis??

A non-verbal way to express one's opinion of a post.

 

[mmckenna]

Call me ignorant, but...

What is with all the poop emojis??

It's reserved for those posts where it's obvious the poster just does. not. get. it.
There are those with a strong desire to completely ignore the information posted by those that are working in the industry and have actual first hand knowledge of the rules/laws involved here.
There seems to be the attitude that if they throw a hissy fit about this, that somehow all the requirement will disappear and they'll get their unrestricted access returned.

Many of us have tried to patiently explain the DOJ/FBI requirements that we -MUST- meet, but they just don't want to hear it.

 

[mmckenna]

Redacted feeds sound too labor intensive to be practical. It would require more monitoring, but perhaps larger departments like Boston are using secondary channels to comply with the DOJ requirements.

Exactly. Some agencies do it, and the dispatchers can hit a button and stop the feed. But that's not 100% reliable. Dispatchers have enough to do without catering to the needs of the scanner hobbyists.

And anyone that thinks all the evil stuff done by a law enforcement agency is going to be heard over a scanner just isn't paying attention. The stuff you should be worried about is the action in the parking lot behind the doughnut shop, over the cell phone, or after hours. Radio traffic is almost always recorded, and there are a LOT of people out there listening. The stuff that people claim to be concerned about isn't going to be broadcast over the radio.

The idea that a scanner listener is going to be the one to discover wrongdoing is a bit comical to us. Something heard over the scanner by a hobbyists is not going to pass the sniff test. There's no chain of custody to the overheard radio traffic. And more often than not, the listener isn't hearing the whole story.

Facts are that FBI/DOJ has strict requirements in place that are required to be met. Eventually this will be applied across all agencies. There are absolutely -ZERO- waivers for "some guy with a scanner wants to hear what's going on".

And I get it, most of us in the industry started off as hobbyists. I understand the frustration. But the reality is there is no right to have access to this sort of information.

 

[kb5udf]

Professionalism isn't the issue.

It's the FBI/DOJ requirements that CJI/PII be protected at all times and in all places. There is zero waivers for that rule. The fact that agencies have been getting away with it doesn't remove the requirement. Eventually they will be forced to comply. It's not optional.

I used the term professionalism in that it implies reasonable regulatory compliance.

 

[mmckenna]

What would be amazingly refreshing would be if someone said:

"I'm not fully understanding why xyz agency has gone encrypted. Can someone help me understand it?" And then said individual listened to those that work in the industry and are knowledgeable on the topic.

Instead of the anger, demands, vitriol that this topic always generates, I'd like to think that most hobbyists would want to understand the challenges facing public safety radio systems. This is often an awesome opportunity to learn more about this field.

But we hardly ever hear that.