Manchester ct pd full encryption??

[bobmich52]

Ahh the old mpd days is right

Cars were assigned & dispatched by district 1,2,3 etc, not like they r today

u had 2 be in Manchester 2 hear both PD/ FD Becuz of the signal, it now bombs in 5/5 @ my homestead

in a certain electronics retailer, a little black box was sold to decrypt “enc” when ENC wasn’t as advanced as it is now

I miss my old 10 channel rock bound regency with the big red lights

Thanks 4 the memories of the old scanning days folks

 

[bobmich52]

Lets keep this on topic people & You know who I'm talking about

This is NOT a rant about encryption

Straight up & to the point, I was just sent something from the breaking news FB group in my area about Manchester PD encryption

Since I don't face chat or Snap book, Thanks Coach Belichick, The article was sent to me & I found it a most interesting read

Folks give it a read, I found it interesting/ A bit disturbing about What The Town & PD are trying 2 doing to this group

No spoilers, Ur gonna have 2 find/ read it urself !!

Would welcome responsible comments on this

 

[nhfdcadet]

bottom line is, it's up to the police department to decide whether or not they encrypt their communications. Scanning the radio is a convenience, not a necessity, and not a given right.

 

[bobmich52]

Well understood & I do agree they reserve the right to

What I object to is the way the town & mpd went after the breaking news group, these guys are legitimate,good, accurate & timely, Manchester PD has bigger fish to fry( if u have seen the news recently) than threaten a legitimate news group with legal action

bottom line is, it's up to the police department to decide whether or not they encrypt their communications. Scanning the radio is a convenience, not a necessity, and not a given right.

 

[n1chu]

bottom line is, it's up to the police department to decide whether or not they encrypt their communications. Scanning the radio is a convenience, not a necessity, and not a given right.

I agree with your take on scanning being NOT a necessity or a given right. But while it may sound like splitting hairs, it’s not up to the police to decide on whether to encrypt per se… it’s up to the people. It wouldn’t be the first time a police dept decided on an attempt to encrypt, only to be overturned by the voting public. (Some municipal police depts have deliberately chosen a comms system that use a mode that scanners are unlikely to ever be able to receive, removing the encryption question completely. I believe the State of Pa. chose to use a statewide trunked system that was not “scanner friendly” and used that reason, in part, as a selling point. (They did build out that system but trashed it because it didn’t satisfy their needs, I think it was trashed mainly for unacceptable coverage, not necessarily because everything on that type of system couldn’t use scanners, although it may have played a small part in their decision to trash, and went with a P25 system. The new P25 system allows for encryption but on an individual basis, various agencies could now decide if encryption was to be used, and if so, how. The PD’s & FD’s can now choose instead of it being forced upon them simply because the system wouldn’t allow it wholly.)

 

[nhfdcadet]

I agree with your take on scanning being NOT a necessity or a given right. But while it may sound like splitting hairs, it’s not up to the police to decide on whether to encrypt per se… it’s up to the people. It wouldn’t be the first time a police dept decided on an attempt to encrypt, only to be overturned by the voting public. (Some municipal police depts have deliberately chosen a comms system that use a mode that scanners are unlikely to ever be able to receive, removing the encryption question completely. I believe the State of Pa. chose to use a statewide trunked system that was not “scanner friendly” and used that reason, in part, as a selling point. (They did build out that system but trashed it because it didn’t satisfy their needs, I think it was trashed mainly for unacceptable coverage, not necessarily because everything on that type of system couldn’t use scanners, although it may have played a small part in their decision to trash, and went with a P25 system. The new P25 system allows for encryption but on an individual basis, various agencies could now decide if encryption was to be used, and if so, how. The PD’s & FD’s can now choose instead of it being forced upon them simply because the system wouldn’t allow it wholly.)

ive never heard of an instance of a police department going unencrypted because the public voted on it. I am wholly in favor of more secure communications for all emergency services, but thats just my opinion, im sure others disagree

 

[bobmich52]

correct in a way

cert /crest & tactical calls yep keep um quite no prob

4 all other emergency services, I respectfully disagree

On unencrypting, The ones I'm aware of, They unencrypted because of officers concerns of poor coverage/ Audio reception & If there was a MCI it would be a mishmash of comms issues to coordinate regarding mutual aid response, I caught some of the talk on the newington fire on the statewide channels for example




CLMRN is still in its infancy IMHO, But has the potential 2 eliminate such issues, BUT CT Being CT, 169 fiefdoms, Need I say anymore

A good civil discussion here

NICE

 

[a417]

Now - not a Motorola radio to be found anywhere. Just found that kinda strange.

You know who their radio company is right?

 

[n1chu]

ive never heard of an instance of a police department going unencrypted because the public voted on it. I am wholly in favor of more secure communications for all emergency services, but thats just my opinion, im sure others disagree

It’s true. But unless the PD gets pushback early, it’s usually beating a dead horse. It isn’t that unheard of however.

I agree with you on making available the more secure comms. There is a place for encryption where sensitive or proprietary information is present. But there are compromises that some depts have agreed to which seem to satisfy. I do not agree it should have to be totally encrypted or totally in the clear. There are other avenues available. Open dispatch with a secondary encrypted channel, cell phones, MDT’s are just three.

 

[Archie]

Has anyone ever heard of an elected official being granted the monitoring of an encrypted system?

 

[n1chu]

Yes. The administrator or owner of an encrypted system can grant access to the encrypted comms. It’s not uncommon to allow for small towns to give their mayors/managers police radios to stay in touch, regardless of if the radios are encrypted or not.

 

[n1chu]

Yes. The administrator or owner of an encrypted system can grant access to the encrypted comms. It’s not uncommon to allow for small towns to give their mayors/managers police radios to stay in touch, regardless of if the radios are encrypted or not.

I should add, the practice of using a town’s radio system, be it police encrypt or in the clear, just to provide the ability to “reach out and touch” a town admin is passé with the introduction of the cell phone but you may find the practice still in use in the mid-west, where cell coverage might be sporadic.

 

[AF1UD]

From my experience both MPD Channel 1, Channel 2, and Channel 3 are partially encrypted.

If you know how P25 works and how Radio's work, there is nothing you can't find out. Encryption just makes it harder -- not impossible.

 

[nhfdcadet]

From my experience both MPD Channel 1, Channel 2, and Channel 3 are partially encrypted.

If you know how P25 works and how Radio's work, there is nothing you can't find out. Encryption just makes it harder -- not impossible.

yeah because why not commit a felony, right?

 

[n1chu]

From my experience both MPD Channel 1, Channel 2, and Channel 3 are partially encrypted.

If you know how P25 works and how Radio's work, there is nothing you can't find out. Encryption just makes it harder -- not impossible.

That may be true. I don’t know anyone who was able to hack into a system protected by current encryption offerings. But here’s the thing. I’ve read the FCC Communications Act of 1934, as amended, to present… just certain portions of it, the rules regarding encryption specifically. I’ve learned that even if one had the means to hack into an encrypted system, doing so is illegal and has stiff jail time and fines attached to it. As amended, the Act even states it’s illegal to listen to an encrypted transmission that has absolutely zero intelligible information to offer without the proper keys or codes or god knows what to unincrypt.

I think it is realistically impossible simply because to prove it isn’t requires an active demonstration of decryption. Try and find the person who can demonstrate that little feat! It’s not going to happen. I agree with the logic “If man built it, it can be backwards engineered”. But you won’t get any bets placed either way. Instead, we simply accept both as highly probable, with some caveats and move on… which by the way, is what I’m doing starting now. Great talk everybody. Factual and respectful.

 

[PD47JD]

Why is this dead horse continued to be beaten? By dead horse I make reference to both Manchester PD and LE encryption.
It is what it is.

 

[n1chu]

Why is this dead horse continued to be beaten? By dead horse I make reference to both Manchester PD and LE encryption.
It is what it is.

I had the same thought. That’s why I decided to move on as I eluded to…