Minnesota ARMER encryption

[KC9SP]

Unlawful Radio Silence
How Minnesota Law Enforcement Agencies Are Violating State Statute By Nullifying Amateur Radio Operators' Legislatively-Granted Rights

 

[mciupa]

Deleted my comment as I am out of the area.

 

[stmills]

Interesting argument- but the 1987 amendment that allowed Licensed Amateur Radio Operators to install equipment capable of monitoring police frequencies was about aligning the law with Federal licensing and the fact that requiring a state license for federally licensed radio operators was state overreach. In the 80’s amateur radio equipment switched from crystal controlled to synthesized and was now capable of receiving police frequencies out of the box which made it a violation of state law to engage in a federally licensed activity without first obtaining a state license.

 

[ofd8001]

I think the operative phrase is "shall equip any motor vehicle with any radio equipment or combination of equipment, capable of receiving any radio signal. . . "

All the law says is that FCC license Amateur Radio Operators can put radio equipment in their motor vehicles that is capable of receiving the radio signal. It doesn't say the signal has to be intelligible.

But with any law, you are certainly free to challenge any privileges or rights you believe you have, in a court of law. That said, if there was a case to be made, the media folks would have already made it.

Then there's also the potential for the law enforcement folks to ask the legislature to repeal this law, thus throwing out the baby with the bath water.

 

[KC9SP]

I think the operative phrase is "shall equip any motor vehicle with any radio equipment or combination of equipment, capable of receiving any radio signal. . . "

All the law says is that FCC license Amateur Radio Operators can put radio equipment in their motor vehicles that is capable of receiving the radio signal. It doesn't say the signal has to be intelligible.

But with any law, you are certainly free to challenge any privileges or rights you believe you have, in a court of law. That said, if there was a case to be made, the media folks would have already made it.

Then there's also the potential for the law enforcement folks to ask the legislature to repeal this law, thus throwing out the baby with the bath water.

Your last statement is exactly why I think it remains unchallenged - and I can personally "see both sides" of the coin - it makes an interesting discussion, and research consideration - and while I'm not a lawyer, the concept of creating a privilege without substance and administrative over-reach both seem concerning, to me. Thanks for the feed-back - I don't disagree that there are likely reasons it hasn't been more prominently defended - and I appreciate your thoughts.

 

[kc2asb]

All the law says is that FCC license Amateur Radio Operators can put radio equipment in their motor vehicles that is capable of receiving the radio signal. It doesn't say the signal has to be intelligible.

This is it right here. The right to install the equipment/receive the signal is not being infringed. There is no right to receive encrypted communications from public or private entities.

 

[AK9R]

The use of police communication equipment is regulated and no person shall equip any motor vehicle with the equipment described. An exception is made for holders of amateur radio licenses. And, this isn't a right. This is an exception being made to a prohibition.

The huge point here is that the statute only talks about equipping a motor vehicle with radio equipment that can listen to or decode police communications. The statute says nothing about actually being able to listen to or decode police communications.

There's one sure way for the OP to test his theory. Hire a lawyer and file suit in a court of law against a police chief, county sheriff, or state patrol chief. Claim in your suit that your "rights are being violated due to the use of encrypted radio transmissions". Keep pushing the issue up the judicial ladder to the Minnesota Supreme Court. Be prepared for lots of frustration. Be prepared to spend lots of money. Be prepared to lose.

But, keep us informed of your progress.

 

[ofd8001]

Laws like this and it’s similar to kentucky are ancient. Trunking systems really messed it up.

 

[KC9SP]

This is it right here. The right to install the equipment/receive the signal is not being infringed. There is no right to receive encrypted communications from public or private entities.

Read a bit more carefully? If I give you "the right" to go to shop at an empty grocery store, what have I actually given you? Even if I offer to cover the expenses, you're still empty handed.
America is a government "of the people, by the people, for the people" - which implies that we are imbued with an oversight/supervisory role in the matter.
Have you any experience in supervisory roles? Every time I have, I have been ultimately responsible for the work I've delegated. I watch my staff perform for the purpose of evaluating their performance and weighing how THEIR part of the process is functioning within MY larger objectives. Every business I've ever been a part of has has a similar delegation model.
Like I observed in the document - look at the way the George Floyd narrative changed when publicly available information contradicted the plot line? You want agencies with demonstrated histories of altering the narrative to protect their agencies from investigation to be the source of your information to determine the need for investigation? Great plan.

 

[kc2asb]

Read a bit more carefully? If I give you "the right" to go to shop at an empty grocery store, what have I actually given you? Even if I offer to cover the expenses, you're still empty handed.

Fair point, and I get exactly what you are driving at. However, we were able to monitor public safety comms for decades because the technology for encryption was either not yet developed or expensive. The cost has come down making it almost a no-brainer for agencies to encrypt, especially in light of DOJ regs regarding the protection of personally identifiable information. (PII)

America is a government "of the people, by the people, for the people" - which implies that we are imbued with an oversight/supervisory role in the matter.
Have you any experience in supervisory roles? Every time I have, I have been ultimately responsible for the work I've delegated. I watch my staff perform for the purpose of evaluating their performance and weighing how THEIR part of the process is functioning within MY larger objectives. Every business I've ever been a part of has has a similar delegation model.

Yes, I have had some supervisory experience. However, we do not have a role supervising law enforcement, though they are supposed to accountable to the people they serve.

Like I observed in the document - look at the way the George Floyd narrative changed when publicly available information contradicted the plot line? You want agencies with demonstrated histories of altering the narrative to protect their agencies from investigation to be the source of your information to determine the need for investigation? Great plan.

I agree with the need for transparency, especially for the press. There have been numerous cases where the need was clearly demonstrated. As long as PII can be kept 100% secure, I see no need to encrypt routine dispatch traffic. Many departments that have encrypted, such as Boston, have provided delayed feeds for the public/press.

 

[wogggieee]

Many departments that have encrypted, such as Boston, have provided delayed feeds for the public/press.

This doesn't really solve the problem with encryption as is keeps the control of flow in the hands of the people with whom we're trying to monitor.