Might this spread?

[kc2asb]

NYS sells driver's license and registration information, so saying they are protecting that info is false.
They collect over $63 million in fees annually for this "service".

Never heard anything about this. Who are they selling it to? The irony here is that NYS requires you to use your d/l information as an " identity security measure" when e-filing an individual income tax return.

 

[mc48]

"DMV makes driver license and vehicle registration information available for a fee using three methods: contract sales, pay-per-search, and over-the-counter."

This is why you may receive insurance quotes in the mail and they know what vehicles you own and your address.

 

[kb5udf]

§ 90.553 Encryption.​

(a) Encryption is permitted on all but the two nationwide Interoperability calling channels. Radios employing encryption must have a readily accessible switch or other readily accessible control that permits the radio user to disable encryption.

Emphasis mine. I wonder how many radios around here are non-compliant with his provision. (e.g. my municipality recently stood up a trunked system where every talk group appears full time encrypted, including utilities).

 

[mmckenna]

§ 90.553 Encryption.​

(a) Encryption is permitted on all but the two nationwide Interoperability calling channels. Radios employing encryption must have a readily accessible switch or other readily accessible control that permits the radio user to disable encryption.

Emphasis mine. I wonder how many radios around here are non-compliant with his provision. (e.g. my municipality recently stood up a trunked system where every talk group appears full time encrypted, including utilities).

90.521 through 90.559 only apply to the 763-775 and 793-805 MHz bands

 

[mmckenna]

(a) Encryption is permitted on all but the two nationwide Interoperability calling channels. ​

And I think with this line, they are referring to the existing 700MHz interoperability channels listed in the DHS NIFOG guide.
If you look at the NIFOG guide, this section of the rules is quoted at the bottom of the page for the 700MHz Interop channels:

AES Encryption permitted on all but the two nationwide interoperability calling channels. Must have accessible switch or other readily accessible control that permits the radio user to disable encryption. 47 CFR §90.553​

 

[MTS2000des]

So when an agency goes to FirstNet MC PTT...then what? Tell AT&T to somehow disable RAN encryption on LTE? Dream on.

 

[kb5udf]

If I understand MMckenna correctly, then I agree with his posts. I’m not saying that I really think the FCC intends to ban encryption on trunked systems that can’t be defeated by the subscriber, but a plain text reading of the above rules suggests they have done just that.

MTS2000des, I don’t do this for a living like you do, but is Firstnet Part 90?
In any event, I agree that those in control will not change.

Ok I’ll edit my post, my google says firstnet is part 90. Obviously in the real world that will change nothing, and I certainly to not expect that AT&T and its customers will devise a means to make disabling encryption on it “readily accessible.”

 

[mmckenna]

but a plain text reading of the above rules suggests they have done just that.

Possible, but remember, it's only in that specific frequency range and only under that part of the rules. They may be operating differently.

Obviously in the real world that will change nothing, and I certainly to not expect that AT&T and its customers will devise a means to make disabling encryption on it “readily accessible.”

FirstNet uses LTE and thats encrypted, so trying to decrypt the voice packets on there, which are usually encrypted on their own by systems like BeON. So two layers of encryption to undo, plus picking the voice packets out of all that data, plus being on the correct sector of the cell site, probably not going to happen.

 

[N4DES]

And I think with this line, they are referring to the existing 700MHz interoperability channels listed in the DHS NIFOG guide.
If you look at the NIFOG guide, this section of the rules is quoted at the bottom of the page for the 700MHz Interop channels:

AES Encryption permitted on all but the two nationwide interoperability calling channels. Must have accessible switch or other readily accessible control that permits the radio user to disable encryption. 47 CFR §90.553​

That would be correct, this is only for the 700 MHz mutual-aid conventional frequencies. On the 7 TAC's encryption is allowed by the end users and the unwritten rule is the Federal Shared IO keys are to be utilized there, such as SLN 3, 4, and 6.

 

[Golay]

Let's be honest. Media will be hearing dog bites and fender benders. I'm thinking about anything else will be "inadvertently" not programmed into whatever they are listening on.

 

[kc2asb]

Let's be honest. Media will be hearing dog bites and fender benders. I'm thinking about anything else will be "inadvertently" not programmed into whatever they are listening on.

Obviously there is a bit of sarcasm here, but is it even possible (or practical) to heavily redact a delayed feed? It seems that this would have to be an ongoing process across numerous feeds (one for each zone).

Having listened to the Chicago delayed feeds on Broadcastify, it appears that all calls are coming through. There is no easy way of knowing for sure, of course.

 

[potala1369]

Correct, and it still has to be signed by the Governor. The NYPD is opposed to the Bill. It is certainly progress, but I am not clear as to how it could be an avenue to opening up access to the public.

But as said above, baby steps.

I wonder how Commissioner Frank Regan stands on this issue?

 

[kc2asb]

I wonder how Commissioner Frank Regan stands on this issue?

Good question. Only a guess, but I would put him among those opposed to the Bill.

 

[merlin]

Somehow, Chicago and Baltimore figured it out and gave access to the public on delayed feeds. Seems NYC could do it also.

Probably how NYC will turn out.