No more encryption in calif as of Jan 1 2024

[mmckenna]

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.

Federal stuff is outside the jurisdiction of the CaDOJ. That requirement would need to come down from the FBI/Federal DOJ. For what it's worth, they have similar wording to the State of California, just not enforcing it yet. YET.

As for CHP...
There's a lot going on there.

Low band can be digitized. Low band can be encrypted. Kenwood sells a digital low band radio, and CHP is already using a version of it in their vehicles. They are just running it in analog mode right now. No, I'm not saying they are going digital, I'm just saying they have the capability. They have played with it, and it works well, just no plans to move to that.

CHP is also playing around with the CRIS system. That'll give them trunked system access in parts of the state, P25 with encryption.

They also have mobile terminals that can be used for handling this sort of info.
And cell phones.
But they seem to be content using low band analog and breaking up the transmissions, or leaving out names or other specific info. Not ideal, but it's what they are doing right now.

 

[marcotor]

Low Band can't be digitized or encrypted

Since when? DES works (albeit muffled) in Analog, and P25 AES works just wonderfully

 

[kmartin]

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.

in 2024 don't be disappointed when the same pds are using encryption on dispatched calls

 

[Giddyuptd]

I believe kenwood was working on a digital end for the nx line with multi deck so digital is or will be possible on lowband. I only know cause NM game and fish have took interest in the Kenwood NX multi deck mobiles.

 

[KG7PBS]

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.

Sorry you’re wrong lo-band can have P-25 and Encryption capable. The U.S Military uses it all the time.

 

[iowajm780]

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.

Huh?. Low band can be digitalized, encrypted, sliced and diced, etc.. Not sure where you got that impression that LB could not be digital or digital and encrypted.

 

[mmckenna]

I believe kenwood was working on a digital end for the nx line with multi deck so digital is or will be possible on lowband. I only know cause NM game and fish have took interest in the Kenwood NX multi deck mobiles.

NX-5600H, it's been out for a few years. Right now, it only does analog and NXDN. EFJohnson is selling their version of it and CHP has been installing them as part of their 4 RF deck system with one control head.
Add the KWD-AE30K and you have FIPS-140-2 grade AES256 encryption.

Comtronix has been building low band repeaters out of them for a while now, and was testing them with CHP as a possible replacement for the old Midland repeaters they are running. I talked to the owner of Comtronix at IWCE this year and he said CHP had been trying out NXDN on low band and it worked well. Again, no plans to go there, but it has been done and all the products already exist.

There's not technical limitation on adding P25 to the NX-5600H or the Comtronix LBR-110 (essentially two NX-5600H's back to back). It's just a case of activating the feature.

This was what they had on display at IWCE. Notice the logo, specifically NOT CHP, but you get the idea.

Account Suspended

 

[Peter_SD911]

Some of these smaller Ca VHF-Hi counties like Santa Cruz are not to willing to spend the funds to "upgrade" to the DOJ "mandate".
Santa Cruz could really care less what the DOJ say's. If you know anything about Santa Cruz county it's they don't ask for DHS grants, they hate the feds, and they won't comply because there is NO enforcement aspect of this "mandate".

Santa Cruz county is also a radio nightmare with all the hills and deep canyons, and cliff side beaches with no coverage. It's taken the SC county radio techs 30 years to perfect the system they have now. It's a pretty solid system for the huge limitations it faces.

Now Santa Cruz will comply on one condition...
Someone else has to pay for it. Not the county or people of Santa Cruz..
Kick in some DHS or state DOJ grant money and maybe the fine peace actives of SC will welcome it.

How many other small and rural counties in Ca can just ignore the mandate when there is no enforcement element?

Most smaller counties don't have the funds for this...and they won't bother much with the mandate.

How would you enforce this anyway?

 

[mmckenna]

Some of these smaller Ca VHF-Hi counties like Santa Cruz are not to willing to spend the funds to "upgrade" to the DOJ "mandate".
Santa Cruz could really care less what the DOJ say's. If you know anything about Santa Cruz county it's they don't ask for DHS grants, they hate the feds, and they won't comply because there is NO enforcement aspect of this "mandate".

I'm sure it can seem that way to someone on the outside looking in. But, you're pretty far off the mark.

For the last 10 years or so, it's been difficult to buy non-P25 public safety grade radios. Every vehicle, hand pack, repeater that I've seen in the county is already P25 capable. Radio consoles were recently updated, so the encryption capability is not the issue.

The county shop is ready to go. All the repeaters/receivers are P25 capable right now. Backhaul is mostly addressed. They have the KVL's and the radios are ready. Plans for handling encryption keys are in place. I've been talking with them making sure our plans will jive with theirs.

As for enforcing the mandate, CaDOJ made it clear that failure to comply can result in CLETS access getting pulled. No, they haven't done that yet that I'm aware of. But there is a tool to enforce it. DOJ is doing the right thing by giving agencies time to comply. It's not an easy process and it takes time. But Santa Cruz County is well ahead of most others.

Santa Cruz county is also a radio nightmare with all the hills and deep canyons, and cliff side beaches with no coverage. It's taken the SC county radio techs 30 years to perfect the system they have now. It's a pretty solid system for the huge limitations it faces.

I think it's something like 21 radio sites for the county. When you consider the tax base/number of taxpayers, it shows what a huge job it was to accomplish that with short funding. It's been a tough job and they've done well.

Now Santa Cruz will comply on one condition...
Someone else has to pay for it. Not the county or people of Santa Cruz..
Kick in some DHS or state DOJ grant money and maybe the fine peace actives of SC will welcome it.

Not quite.
The hang up is the county's decision on wether or not they are going to do a trunked system or stick with conventional. That's still in process, but converting to trunking would be a large burden on the small tax base. Switching to P25 conventional with encryption could happen pretty quickly if they are given the go-ahead.

How many other small and rural counties in Ca can just ignore the mandate when there is no enforcement element?

Most smaller counties don't have the funds for this...and they won't bother much with the mandate.

How would you enforce this anyway?

I don't think any law enforcement agencies WANT to ignore it. Most are well aware of the need for encryption. Funding is a challenge, but as equipment is replaced through attrition, P25/encryption capable equipment will be installed. Might take a while, and the CaDOJ is aware of this. That's why they are not pushing hard on it. Most large counties/agencies are already on P25 systems with encryption capability. The more rural counties will come along in time.

And remember, encryption is NOT required. The requirement is to not handle PII over clear radio channels. There are ways around that that don't require equipment upgrades. Some agencies are already doing that and you may not see them switch to encrypted radio channels for quite a while. Doesn't mean they are not in compliance with the CaDOJ mandate.

 

[wx9svr]

The State of Somewhere....🤔 Doesn't that share a border with The State of Confusion?

 

[WX4JCW]

Stream with delay will make some individuals happy, anyways at least there is some pushback, like anything it takes time and effort, chip away a little bit at a time and make the agencies life difficult when they pull this, the pay your salary argument is worn out like used underwear,

 

[Stealthguy05]

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.

Palo Alto IS in compliance. If you were listening, you may have noticed DL numbers are no longer transmitted alongside a name. Additionally, DOB is broken up from the last/first name. "Last, First,Gender, Break for DOB" *unkey* "1/2/34"

As silly as it seems, this is in compliance. It's the way San Mateo County is in compliance as well. I believe this was why the chief was not really for going back to the unencrypted primary as it's plain and simple to see how much info can still be gathered.

Palo Alto was the only agency in the county that never reprogrammed their "1" for encryption all along. The entire time their "dispatch" was encrypted they'd been on "2". Because of this, reprogramming was not needed. Just a simple channel knob switch to the left back to the main channel.

The same can't be said for other Santa Clara County agencies which did a full reprogramming.

Menlo Park FPD has already started the process join SVRCS. Yes, encrypted talkgroups is part of that agreement. I don't think you'll see anyone else changing back to clear anytime soon. Then again, we were all wrong about Palo Alto coming back from the dark so nothing is impossible.

Alas, time will tell.

 

[tsalmrsystemtech]

Well that leaves Orange County. HAHA. Wonder how that county will fly with the way this bill is written. All radios in the county are encrypted PD and FIRE but they stream all of FIRE audio on Broadcastify. No logic there. Hmm.

But people will say the logic is that its delayed by 30 seconds. Okay, its delayed but lets encrypt all of the radios and then broadcast everything to the rest of this earth. Awesome.....

 

[mmckenna]

Well that leaves Orange County. HAHA. Wonder how that county will fly with the way this bill is written.

Doesn't matter. The bill was shot down like it should have been.

All radios in the county are encrypted PD and FIRE but they stream all of FIRE audio on Broadcastify. No logic there. Hmm.

But people will say the logic is that its delayed by 30 seconds. Okay, its delayed but lets encrypt all of the radios and then broadcast everything to the rest of this earth. Awesome.....

The logic is that the streaming can be easily controlled by the agency. Doesn't require officers/dispatchers switching to/from encrypted channels. Shut off the feed and problem solved.
It's actually a pretty good solution for agencies that want to control what gets shared and what doesn't.

 

[Pete_uk]

How would this apply to hybrid or eventually full cellular based systems?

 

[mmckenna]

How would this apply to hybrid or eventually full cellular based systems?

Well, the cellular/LTE stuff is already encrypted. But the voice traffic between LTE and the radio system still would pass through the P25 core and could be sent to the recorders as it is now. Agencies are required to record 911 and appropriate radio traffic, so that will continue to happen, cellular or not.

 

[rooivalk]

Some of these smaller Ca VHF-Hi counties like Santa Cruz are not to willing to spend the funds to "upgrade" to the DOJ "mandate".
Santa Cruz could really care less what the DOJ say's. If you know anything about Santa Cruz county it's they don't ask for DHS grants, they hate the feds, and they won't comply because there is NO enforcement aspect of this "mandate".

Santa Cruz county is also a radio nightmare with all the hills and deep canyons, and cliff side beaches with no coverage. It's taken the SC county radio techs 30 years to perfect the system they have now. It's a pretty solid system for the huge limitations it faces.

Now Santa Cruz will comply on one condition...
Someone else has to pay for it. Not the county or people of Santa Cruz..
Kick in some DHS or state DOJ grant money and maybe the fine peace actives of SC will welcome it.

How many other small and rural counties in Ca can just ignore the mandate when there is no enforcement element?

Most smaller counties don't have the funds for this...and they won't bother much with the mandate.

How would you enforce this anyway?

California would cut the county off from all CLETS related information. Essentially, CLETS controls all criminal related information, i.e. warrants, DMV info, etc., not just for radio related info. And this is accomplished via a type of subscription service that counties pay for, depending on the level of information needed. If a county doesnt comply, CLETS will not allow any criminal related info to be disseminated to the county, essentially, freezing out the county from all criminal information.

 

[d119]

California would cut the county off from all CLETS related information. Essentially, CLETS controls all criminal related information, i.e. warrants, DMV info, etc., not just for radio related info. And this is accomplished via a type of subscription service that counties pay for, depending on the level of information needed. If a county doesnt comply, CLETS will not allow any criminal related info to be disseminated to the county, essentially, freezing out the county from all criminal information.

Well, CJIS and NCIC data at least. There's still locals.

This bill is dead, it'll never make it though. Too many variables.

 

[Peter_SD911]

California would cut the county off from all CLETS related information. Essentially, CLETS controls all criminal related information, i.e. warrants, DMV info, etc., not just for radio related info. And this is accomplished via a type of subscription service that counties pay for, depending on the level of information needed. If a county doesnt comply, CLETS will not allow any criminal related info to be disseminated to the county, essentially, freezing out the county from all criminal information.

The state wouldn't dare do that...
Santa Cruz county is a political stronghold that NO state agency likes to mess with.

Santa Cruz county kicked out and eliminated a state DOJ funded drug task force a few years ago. It's a progressive bastion where the locals will NOT cooperate with the feds or the state DOJ.

Santa Cruz city and county do NOT cooperate with the feds at any level. DHS, ICE, FBI, DEA all get the cold shoulder when they arrive in SC. No mutual aid...no assistance with cover...NADA.

You roll a stack of FBI cars thru town for a 6am raid, you can forget any assistance from the locals.

I have no doubt the county can encrypt...but getting the actual funding approved is going to be a chore, once the funds request hit the board of supervisors agenda.

And just like Free Radio Santa Cruz, which has been a pirate FM station in town since 1995...nobody will do anything...for the fear of upsetting the locals.

 

[Peter_SD911]

The Port of San Diego Harbor and Airport police have "unencrypted" except for PII as of this week.
The agency is part of the San Diego County RCS./..which has been moving toward full LE encryption since the 2019 rebuild.

Thank you to the port of San Diego!!!