Lowndes County, GA – Full Encryption: Why?

[mmckenna]

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

Regulatory compliance is exactly what they are doing. This isn't rocket surgery. The requirements laid out by the FBI/DOJ have been on the books for a long time. It's taking years for agencies to catch up with these requirements. None of this is secret stuff, it's out there on the DOJ website if anyone cares to look.

 

[DeoVindice]

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

The situation you described is a mindset problem, not an encryption problem. There are enough ways to keep the public informed that to not do so is a choice. Florida in general and Orlando in particular is unfortunately full of that mindset. Boston has the right attitude but, as already stated, it's not a solution to the PII problem.

You are not wrong here, of course. Add streaming and AI transcription bots to the social media dispatchers.

LTE is the future. The hobby, at least as far as monitoring public safety, is on borrowed time.

Agreed. Two counties in my region have a very cavalier attitude towards transmitting PII in the clear. I won't be surprised if they eventually get bitten by DOJ and forced to strap AES.

I wish there was half as much effort put into arguing on behalf of protecting personal information as there is into arguing against encryption. Names, addresses, license plates, phone numbers, driver's license numbers, none of that should be going out in the clear.

 

[MTS2000des]

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.

Because having such a rational discussion doesn't fit the narrative that all governments are corrupt, and only want to hide their radio traffic from scanner enthusiasts, and those types aren't interested in actual learning from those actually employed in the business. Their perspective of being able to listen to everything and anything is the only one that matters. One could have an SME from APCO, IACP, IAFF, DOJ, HOMESEC, FCC et all testify and they still would walk away spewing their anti-gov banter.

 

[kc2asb]

I wish there was half as much effort put into arguing on behalf of protecting personal information as there is into arguing against encryption. Names, addresses, license plates, phone numbers, driver's license numbers, none of that should be going out in the clear.

I agree, protecting PII should be of the highest priority and its admirable that an effort is being made to do so now. Perhaps this argument is not as impassioned due to the fact that our personal data has been online for many years and seems to be ripe for the picking by any motivated hacker. People have become numb to news of data breaches at this point.

Because having such a rational discussion doesn't fit the narrative that all governments are corrupt, and only want to hide their radio traffic from scanner enthusiasts, and those types aren't interested in actual learning from those actually employed in the business. Their perspective of being able to listen to everything and anything is the only one that matters. One could have an SME from APCO, IACP, IAFF, DOJ, HOMESEC, FCC et all testify and they still would walk away spewing their anti-gov banter.

I think we can all agree that trust is earned. A mid-sized city in my county was experiencing an uptick in shootings and other violent crime. For years, the crime stats had been posted on their official website. All of a sudden, one day, they were inexplicably taken down. Perhaps the local government felt that this information might scare away potential investors and new residents.

However, removing the crime stats could not hide the tale being told over the air, as the local press continued to report the true story based on police radio traffic. So, why should the public place their trust in a government that would resort to such measures? This is one example, but it's certainly not an isolated case.

I think this is what most here have in mind when arguing for the importance of transparency, not catching a LEO on the take, etc. A hobbyist with a scanner is no Frank Serpico!

Lastly, in all of the seemingly endless threads on this topic, I do not recall seeing anyone argue that we should be "able to listen to everything and anything". The debate seems to be focused on keeping dispatch channels in the clear.

 

[MTS2000des]

Lastly, in all of the seemingly endless threads on this topic, I do not recall seeing anyone argue that we should be "able to listen to everything and anything". The debate seems to be focused on keeping dispatch channels in the clear.

The issue here is that any incident can become a security sensitive one in seconds. The typical scanner listener expects a PSAP/ECC to tell all units to switch to a strapped encrypted channel/talk group. This is great from the perspective of someone who has never worked in a PSAP and dispatched in their life, let alone getting potentially hundreds of subscribers to change their radios in the middle of a developing, fluid incident. It's just not practical in the real world. COMSEC should not be a secondary thought.

Dispatch talk groups are the most ones people want. I think delayed feeds and online CAD like Miami Dade Fire's CAD feed would fit most people's desire to be informed without hours long delay. The problem with keeping all dispatch traffic wide open is just that: the bad actors can be on it too as they have been since the "Summer of Love" proved how venerable some of our radio systems can be, when it comes to information being in the wrong hands at the wrong time.

 

[mmckenna]

I do not recall seeing anyone argue that we should be "able to listen to everything and anything".

Hang around here a bit more, and you'll see it.

 

[kc2asb]

Dispatch talk groups are the most ones people want. I think delayed feeds and online CAD like Miami Dade Fire's CAD feed would fit most people's desire to be informed without hours long delay. The problem with keeping all dispatch traffic wide open is just that: the bad actors can be on it too as they have been since the "Summer of Love" proved how venerable some of our radio systems can be, when it comes to information being in the wrong hands at the wrong time.

I agree, delayed feeds are the best answer, as long as compliance with the DOJ requirements is maintained. The delay results in the information being stale enough not to be useful to bad actors, but fresh enough to be of use to the public.

 

[kb5udf]

Regulatory compliance is exactly what they are doing. This isn't rocket surgery. The requirements laid out by the FBI/DOJ have been on the books for a long time. It's taking years for agencies to catch up with these requirements. None of this is secret stuff, it's out there on the DOJ website if anyone cares to look.

I may do so and comment back. But while realizing nobody on this forum is the arbiter of such matters, I wish I got “years to catch up” with requirements.

 

[mmckenna]

I may do so and comment back.

Here, I'll get you started:

CJIS Security Policy 2022 v5.9.1 | Federal Bureau of Investigation

Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Security Policy Version 5.9.1 10/01/2022

www.fbi.gov

Make sure you read the entire thing, not just search on "radio" and only read those sections.

Those of us that work on these sort of systems are required to re-certify on this annually, or we can't do our jobs. Failure of an agency to properly protect CJI can result in accreditation getting pulled and access to the CJI databases getting yoinked. They take this stuff very seriously, and they don't play around. There's been some grace given as agencies update radio systems, but the end of this info getting tossed around over the air (or internet) is near.

But while realizing nobody on this forum is the arbiter of such matters, I wish I got “years to catch up” with requirements.

Yes, I agree. Some states are better at this than others. But as agencies migrate to digital, and encryption becomes easier, it's spreading. And it's going to spread faster and faster.

 

[kc2asb]

Those of us that work on these sort of systems are required to re-certify on this annually, or we can't do our jobs. Failure of an agency to properly protect CJI can result in accreditation getting pulled and access to the CJI databases getting yoinked. They take this stuff very seriously, and they don't play around. There's been some grace given as agencies update radio systems, but the end of this info getting tossed around over the air (or internet) is near.

So, as of now, there are no hard deadlines for compliance? It seems that for smaller departments without a lot of funding, meeting the requirements could present quite an obstacle.

Yes, I agree. Some states are better at this than others. But as agencies migrate to digital, and encryption becomes easier, it's spreading. And it's going to spread faster and faster.

If the posts on this forum are any kind of indicator, it seems every week or so there is news of another agency going encrypted. I personally have seen how quickly it happened in my area and it has definitely accelerated in the last 4-5 years.

 

[PurityControl2]

These threads always draw out the AES obsessed weirdos. Some of the old geezers on this forum really love encryption simply because it upsets people. Miserable weirdos feeding off of negativity haha

 

[mmckenna]

So, as of now, there are no hard deadlines for compliance? It seems that for smaller departments without a lot of funding, meeting the requirements could present quite an obstacle.

The requirement for compliance is there right now on the federal level. That says that any of the CJI that passes through the federal systems must meet these requirements. That's not just federal CJI databases, it's also all the interstate information since that passes through the federal systems.

It's been allowed to slide since they know a lot of agencies have old radio systems. As systems get upgraded, agencies are supposed to comply. Some states, like California, are starting to enforce it.

Remember that there is -NO- requirement to use encryption. The only requirement is that CJI/PII -MUST- be protected at all times and in all forms. There are some agencies that have chosen to handle this traffic in different ways. But that doesn't apply well to all agencies, and each agency has to decide what works best for their application.

The agency I work for hasn't gone fully encrypted yet, so full PII/CJI isn't shared over the air. But that's not a perfect solution, as sometimes the officer needs that protected data. That usually gets handled over the cell phone or via the computer in the car.
That is not a perfect solution either. Officers can't stop what they are doing to use the cell phone or start typing on the computer. Encryption gives them the tools to do their job quickly and efficiently.

This stuff is complex and understanding it takes time. The "encryption bad!" isn't the easy answer to a complex situation.

If the posts on this forum are any kind of indicator, it seems every week or so there is news of another agency going encrypted. I personally have seen how quickly it happened in my area and it has definitely accelerated in the last 4-5 years.

Right, that's why we see more and more agencies going encrypted. It all takes time to happen.

 

[Dustin1967]

This is such horse manure. All encrypted traffic is recorded and subject to open records. Cry me a river.

If the radio traffic is recorded ,and all one has to do is file an open records request to obtain said recordings, then why encrypt at all?
Regards,
DC

 

[kc2asb]

If the radio traffic is recorded ,and all one has to do is file an open records request to obtain said recordings, then why encrypt at all?
Regards,
DC

I would think because any PII/CJI could be redacted from the recording before it is released.

 

[mmckenna]

If the radio traffic is recorded ,and all one has to do is file an open records request to obtain said recordings, then why encrypt at all?
Regards,
DC

Because when you request the recordings, one of the jobs of the agency is to redact all the PII/CJI. Our dispatch center manager does that with the recordings when they are requested.

 

[ke4crc]

Once upon a time, before satellite TV, the FCC had a rule that any radios approved by the FCC to receive radio broadcasts could AND were not permitted to scramble their transmissions.
law enforcement TV, radio, Etc. Then came satellite TV, where anyone with a 12-foot dish could pick up all kinds of TV for free—100s of channels. Then, the satellite TV companies figured out a way to make extra money, and they petitioned the FCC to let them encrypt their broadcasts, and so the age of encryption was born. They charge for commercial airtime and charge the public to watch their broadcast.
With public safety, they will say it's for officer safety, BULL. If you look at the real crime data, the court records very few, maybe 1 in 1 million, if that many have used a scanner or cell phone to commit a crime.
It's all about hiding. Look at Washington, DC A couple of years ago, the metro fire department got a hazmat call to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. One of the FF's said the hazmat substance was cocaine over an open channel. So now any calls to the WH are over an encrypted channel. Please explain how that's for officer or even FF safety .

 

[ke4crc]

Also for the sarcastic remark about body cameras explain to me how anyone including LEO's can watch body cams live . body cameras don't broadcast anything ever.

 

[mmckenna]

Once upon a time, before satellite TV…..

You really need to do some more research before making statements like this. It doesn't help your case when even the most basic web search will poke holes in the statements.

And you need to remember that some of us have been doing this for a long time, and we absolutely know when someone is blowing smoke.

Maybe take some time to read up a bit more on the subject and give it another try. I'm totally good with productive conversation, but I'm not going to waste my time when the arguments are fundamentally flawed.

 

[MTS2000des]

Also for the sarcastic remark about body cameras explain to me how anyone including LEO's can watch body cams live . body cameras don't broadcast anything ever.

Shows how little experience you have with body cameras. Axon, MSI, LensLock, all have LTE option to do live view and uploads. Typical comment from someone who knows NOTHING about how stuff actually works because you never had experience managing them (I have for the past 5 years).

Go call Sheriff Judd and buy him a cup of coffee then tell him he better DARE NOT encrypt Polk county's radio traffic or you'll vote him out of office.

 

[MTS2000des]

You really need to do some more research before making statements like this. It doesn't help your case when even the most basic web search will poke holes in the statements.

And you need to remember that some of us have been doing this for a long time, and we absolutely know when someone is blowing smoke.

Maybe take some time to read up a bit more on the subject and give it another try. I'm totally good with productive conversation, but I'm not going to waste my time when the arguments are fundamentally flawed.

No no no...hobbyists KNOW EVERYTHING because they saw it on Live PD on Reelz so they KNOW it's true. Nothing life Waffle House messiahs to come on to a forum and keyboard warrior like Simone Biles wins Olympic medals. SMH.