No more encryption in calif as of Jan 1 2024

[ansul1001]

SB 1000, as amended, Becker. Law enforcement agencies: radio communications.Existing law establishes the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (CLETS) to make specified criminal justice databases, including individual criminal histories, wanted and missing persons, and stolen firearms, vehicles, and property, available to participating law enforcement agencies. Existing law prohibits unauthorized access to CLETS and the unlawful use of CLETS information by authorized users.Existing law authorizes the Attorney General to adopt policies, procedures, and practices related to the use of CLETS. These rules require a participating agency to restrict access to CLETS and define “access” as the ability to see or hear any information obtained from CLETS.This bill would require a law enforcement agency, including the California Highway Patrol, municipal police departments, county sheriff’s departments, specified local law enforcement agencies, and specified university and college police departments, to to, by no later than January 1, 2024, ensure public access to the radio communications of that agency, as specified. This bill would also require those law enforcement agencies to ensure that any criminal justice information or personally identifiable information obtained through CLETS is not broadcast in a manner that is accessible to the public, as specified.The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

 

[techman210]

April fools day again?

 

[Echo4Thirty]

Dont get too excited. Here are the exemptions and my anticipated thoughts from the agencies:

(B) Online streaming of radio communications accessible through the agency’s internet website.
-E4T: "We will stream it with a 3 week delay on our website, but still be ENC over the air"

(C) Upon request and for a reasonable fee, providing access to encrypted communications to any interested person.
- E4T: To me this reads "we can still encrypt, you just need to request it and pay us to do it and it will be a month to send you the recordings on 8-track tape"

(3) This subdivision does not apply to either of the following:
(A) Any encrypted radio channel used exclusively for the exchange or dissemination of confidential information pursuant to subdivision (b).
- E4T: "ALL of our channels distribute legally protected PII, thus ALL of our channels qualify for encryption"

(B) Any encrypted radio channel that is used for tactical operations, undercover operations, or other communications that would unreasonably jeopardize public safety or the safety of officers if made public.
-E4T: "ALL of our communications could cause harm to our officers if made public, therefore we will still encrypt"

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
-E4T: "We have no money because California is broke, so we will postpone this"

NOTE: Bolded items are from the actual text of SB-1000

So under the exemptions to section 3, they can claim PII on their dispatch and keep it ENC, and tacticals auto qualify so they can be ENC. If you want the audio, pay up for EACH time you request it. Gee sounds like EXACTLY like the way it is now.

 

[mmckenna]

No more encryption in calif as of Jan 1 2024

No, you're not understanding it.

1. It's not a law yet, but it's getting close.
2. It does not prohibit encryption.

If it goes into law, what it will require is radio traffic be made available to the general public.
Encryption can still be used.

Options to the agency:

Stop using encryption, but that still means that CLETS data has to be protected. That means that agencies will just handle that over data terminals, cell phones, or other encrypted channels.

Have dispatch channel unencrypted and a secondary records channel that is encrypted that would be used for handling CJI/PII.

Keep using encryption, but stream redacted audio to the web.

Keep using encryption, but if public wants access to the audio, they can file a request with the agency to get copies of the audio with PII/CJI redacted. Agencies will be allowed to recover costs of providing these records, just like any other Freedom of Information Act.

We're watching this closely, but it's not really changing our roll out of encryption.

 

[waterbwuk]

Keep using encryption, but if public wants access to the audio, they can file a request with the agency to get copies of the audio with PII/CJI redacted. Agencies will be allowed to recover costs of providing these records, just like any other Freedom of Information Act.

I would imagine most would keep using this option and charge an astronomical price for the records?

 

[mmckenna]

I would imagine most would keep using this option and charge an astronomical price for the records?

"Astronomical" prices depends on who you are asking.

Our PSAP provides similar services now. They recharge at established rates based on actual cost recovery. We're not permitted to turn a profit on this stuff.

I think most hobbyists/general public, are under the impression that all government employees are working for minimum wage with no benefits, and all the technology involved comes to us free of charge.

 

[waterbwuk]

We're not permitted to turn a profit on this stuff.

I didn't know this, never messed with nor cared about FOIA stuff, I just assumed an agency could set whatever price they wanted for stuff like that. Thanks for the information!

 

[KevinC]

"Astronomical" prices depends on who you are asking.

Our PSAP provides similar services now. They recharge at established rates based on actual cost recovery. We're not permitted to turn a profit on this stuff.

I think most hobbyists/general public, are under the impression that all government employees are working for minimum wage with no benefits, and all the technology involved comes to us free of charge.

Don't forget "I pay your salary!".

 

[mmckenna]

I didn't know this, never messed with nor cared about FOIA stuff, I just assumed an agency could set whatever price they wanted for stuff like that. Thanks for the information!

You wouldn't believe the stuff I have to go through if my cost recovery charges exceed actual cost by more than about $1000. I spend a lot of time in meetings with our financial analysts over this sort of stuff. It's one of the few parts of the job I dislike.

 

[mmckenna]

Don't forget "I pay your salary!".

My personal favorite. However, I think they missed a few payments along the way….

 

[Cameron314]

California: encryption required but not allowed. Ok got it.

 

[chrismol1]

I would imagine most would keep using this option and charge an astronomical price for the records?

The access is available but depends how bad you want information. People often think of Freedom of information law as some sort of free government or subsidized records request

I follow police bodycam YouTubers who occasionally post their invoices. It's very surprising to people who expect some $19.99 style pricing. Someone who is an agent of the gov office, typically a records clerk or similar has to sit there and review, based on length of incident and/or multiple bodycams, review and redact PII, and use editing programs etc, you can start to imagine the costs aren't exactly reasonable to most people before understanding how the process works

Of course a simplified incident report from a public information officer usually gives a general idea but if someone wants the play by play, its becomes "pay by play"

With digital audio recorders. I'm guessing that would be easier than listening to dead air waiting for a redaction like video but still someone has to process you're request, locate and obtain the requested information, then sit and review and redact before finally publishing the final product to the requester. When requesters desire the info get that invoice, most people don't want to bother anymore unless its a significant incident

 

[mmckenna]

California: encryption required but not allowed. Ok got it.

No. Encryption is NOT required and it IS allowed.

 

[Cameron314]

No. Encryption is NOT required and it IS allowed.

Or whatever.

 

[Ghost117]

No, you're not understanding it.

1. It's not a law yet, but it's getting close.
2. It does not prohibit encryption.

If it goes into law, what it will require is radio traffic be made available to the general public.
Encryption can still be used.

Options to the agency:

Stop using encryption, but that still means that CLETS data has to be protected. That means that agencies will just handle that over data terminals, cell phones, or other encrypted channels.

Have dispatch channel unencrypted and a secondary records channel that is encrypted that would be used for handling CJI/PII.

Keep using encryption, but stream redacted audio to the web.

Keep using encryption, but if public wants access to the audio, they can file a request with the agency to get copies of the audio with PII/CJI redacted. Agencies will be allowed to recover costs of providing these records, just like any other Freedom of Information Act.

We're watching this closely, but it's not really changing our roll out of encryption.

I don't know why you are so hung up on CLETS data and PII being broadcasted unencrypted. My local communications center does this on the daily. Santa Cruz Regional 911. They are all analog, and constantly run DL numbers/name and DOB over the air for everyone to hear and it's never been a problem.

 

[APX8000]

Last time someone said that to me I asked for a raise. Actually made the assclown crack a smile.

 

[mmckenna]

I don't know why you are so hung up on CLETS data and PII being broadcasted unencrypted. My local communications center does this on the daily. Santa Cruz Regional 911. They are all analog, and constantly run DL numbers/name and DOB over the air for everyone to hear

The CLETS thing has to do with CaDOJ, it's not me being 'hung up'. CaDOJ came out in 2020 and reminded agencies that when they signed agreements to connect to the CLETS network, they agreed to protect that information in all forms and at all times.

https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/info_bulletins/20-09-cjis.pdf

This isn't something new, agencies agreed to this when they signed up. Most just ignored it because "everyone else was doing it" (always a good justification….).

Agencies had to submit a plan to DOJ by the end of 2020 on how they were going to meet the requirement. I had to fill out ours and submit it.
The plan didn't mean we had to go to encryption immediately, it meant that we had to have a plan to protect PII. Not doing so risked getting our connection to the CLETS database pulled. After all, we'd signed an agreement years ago saying we understood the requirements and would comply.

As for the agencies in Santa Cruz County, yes, they are all VHF analog as of right now, but the equipment is in place to go to P25. Repeaters and remote receivers were upgraded quite a while back. Mobiles and portables have been in place for quite a while. Essentially they are waiting on a decision to go to P25 trunked countywide, or to use P25 conventional. When that decision is made (it's all about budgets), they'll begin the process of switching to P25. I've spent quite a bit of time talking with no only the local agencies, but also the county radio shop. Plan is for everything controlled/operated by the county to go 100% encrypted.
It's only a matter of time. The hardware is all in place, just waiting on budgets and the decision on trunking vs. conventional.

and it's never been a problem.

That's not the issue.

 

[ems55]

Don't forget "I pay your salary!".

How many times have we heard that !!!!!

 

[Ghost117]

The CLETS thing has to do with CaDOJ, it's not me being 'hung up'. CaDOJ came out in 2020 and reminded agencies that when they signed agreements to connect to the CLETS network, they agreed to protect that information in all forms and at all times.

https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/info_bulletins/20-09-cjis.pdf

This isn't something new, agencies agreed to this when they signed up. Most just ignored it because "everyone else was doing it" (always a good justification….).

Agencies had to submit a plan to DOJ by the end of 2020 on how they were going to meet the requirement. I had to fill out ours and submit it.
The plan didn't mean we had to go to encryption immediately, it meant that we had to have a plan to protect PII. Not doing so risked getting our connection to the CLETS database pulled. After all, we'd signed an agreement years ago saying we understood the requirements and would comply.

As for the agencies in Santa Cruz County, yes, they are all VHF analog as of right now, but the equipment is in place to go to P25. Repeaters and remote receivers were upgraded quite a while back. Mobiles and portables have been in place for quite a while. Essentially they are waiting on a decision to go to P25 trunked countywide, or to use P25 conventional. When that decision is made (it's all about budgets), they'll begin the process of switching to P25. I've spent quite a bit of time talking with no only the local agencies, but also the county radio shop. Plan is for everything controlled/operated by the county to go 100% encrypted.
It's only a matter of time. The hardware is all in place, just waiting on budgets and the decision on trunking vs. conventional.



That's not the issue.

Very interesting, thanks for the clarification on that. As a side note, I was listening to Palo Alto PD last night and they were broadcasting PII on the newly unencrypted channel. Seems like they are no longer complying with that agreement with CLETS.

 

[swylie]

How does that apply to Federal Agencies who are not encrypted and would have to provide a secondary frequency for that information. Would the state reimburse the Federal Government. Also how would CHP handle that? Low Band can't be digitized or encrypted and their data terminals don't work in all areas.