No more encryption in calif as of Jan 1 2024

[belvdr]

I purchased a couple of Harris XL-200's and single key AES256 was a 1¢ cost line item. Encryption key management software was about $1500, if I recall correctly.

Wasteful government spending! lol

That's all good info to know, since many of us are not on the inside.

 

[mmckenna]

Wasteful government spending! lol

That's all good info to know, since many of us are not on the inside.

Well, I should clarify, since I didn't do a good job above. DES 64 bit encryption is free (well, 1¢) on those radios. That's the Harris Encryption Lite.
Motorola does the same thing with ADP, or at least they used to, not sure if they do any more.
Many others come with some lower level of encryption included.

CLETS/CaDOJ requires AES256 encryption for CLETS info, and that's not quite as cheap. For the XL-200's I ordered, $500 gets you AES256.

People will say that's too much money for a small agency. It may be, but when you look at the number of radios a small agency has, and what they pay in salaries, benefits and equipment upkeep, $500 when buying new radios, often with grant funding, is just a drop in the bucket. It's not a real blocker for any agency.

 

[mmckenna]

Unfortunately, there is a lot of bad info shared on this site about how much encryption is costing, and why it is going to be an issue for agencies.
Same thing goes with the "companies are using it to get rich" thing.

Seems like if bad info gets repeated enough on this site that it suddenly becomes gospel truth.
Actual costs of adding encryption to radios isn't as much as many would like you to think. Most radios purchased for public safety use in the last 10-15 years already have some level included. Since the average lifespan of a public safety hand held radio runs around 7 years, they'll all get it through attrition, eventually.

 

[belvdr]

Unfortunately, there is a lot of bad info shared on this site about how much encryption is costing, and why it is going to be an issue for agencies.
Same thing goes with the "companies are using it to get rich" thing.

Seems like if bad info gets repeated enough on this site that it suddenly becomes gospel truth.
Actual costs of adding encryption to radios isn't as much as many would like you to think. Most radios purchased for public safety use in the last 10-15 years already have some level included. Since the average lifespan of a public safety hand held radio runs around 7 years, they'll all get it through attrition, eventually.

For the record, my comment was a joke aimed at the 1 cent incremental cost.

 

[mmckenna]

For the record, my comment was a joke aimed at the 1 cent incremental cost.

I got the joke. I was going to offer to pay for 1¢ encryption for any agency in the state.

 

[Peter_SD911]

In the case of (Netcom-SC-911) in Santa Cruz county...
The Joint Powers Agreement covers about 20 agencies (law/fire and ems) in 2 counties(Santa Cruz and San Benito Co's) and there are more than 50 dispatchers/techs and freelancers who are all going to have to get "trained".
CLETS will want to make sure these folks are "certified" in PII updated procedures right??? Proof of compliance will be a certification of some sort. Besides CLETS is just a master list of people with warrants that are non-bookable and non-extridateable. CLETS has become useless in many aspects.

Who will be paying for that re-training?

Yes...Netcom has a few staff trainers, but the dispatch center is understaffed and the trainers are concentrating on new hires and getting them trained. Training cost money when you have to pay overtime (at union rates) and you need to train 50+ people or more.

I suppose not much "training" is involved if the entire system is on E, since nothing will change at the dispatcher level. But you still need to interface with the non-JPA agencies like Scotts Valley Police and since they use that "County Red" channel then they must also agree and be consulted.

However...
If the Netcom dispatchers are part of a collective bargaining unit (IE: a UNION!) then we must expect the Union to ask to be compensated in the union contract. Unions don't do anything for free...and the Norcal labor unions will nickle and dime the taxpayers to death if they so much have to push a purple button anywhere in the dispatch console.

So while all these smaller and much poorer counties grapple with this "mandate" and it's 2024 "deadline" I expect this to happen....

The agencies that can't or won't meet the deadline will request waivers (1-3 years) to find a way (and funds) to comply.

Nobody will be cutting anyone off from CLETS for non-compliance because that would end up in court .

Ask for a waiver, (it will be granted) and kick the can down the road...make it somebody else problem.

It has been stated that all SC County needs to do is "The programming"...but it was also admitted that the some of the equipment was already 20 years old. Not sure how many radio vendors still make stuff backwards compatible in programming after 20 years. Is that older equipment even supported my the vendors anymore?

Much more money will have to be spent to make this all work, and to satisfy the mandate.

Request the waiver...buy more time.

 

[mmckenna]

In the case of (Netcom-SC-911) in Santa Cruz county...
…..

Where the heck do you keep coming up with all this stuff?

The requirements to protect CLETS info have been there since CLETS started. There is no additional training required. The requirement to protect the data has been part of dispatcher, tech and supervisor training all along. Hell, I've been having to go through training on this stuff since I started working with it, and I have to redo it every year or two.

You are just grabbing at thin air at this point.

 

[marcotor]

Where the heck do you keep coming up with all this stuff?

Cherrypick then twist the facts a bit, wash with a good amount of anger and resentment. Add a large amount of "I know better than you, even if you do this every day". Repeat.

 

[Peter_SD911]

Where the heck do you keep coming up with all this stuff?

The requirements to protect CLETS info have been there since CLETS started. There is no additional training required. The requirement to protect the data has been part of dispatcher, tech and supervisor training all along. Hell, I've been having to go through training on this stuff since I started working with it, and I have to redo it every year or two.

You are just grabbing at thin air at this point.

Oh OK...
So training is completely free...there are no collective bargaining issues...and there is no option to request a waiver?

You really think they will yank CLETS for "non-compliance" ?
Agencies all up and down California will NOT meet the 2024 deadline, and they will request waivers to delay compliance.

Is this statement incorrect?
I'm open to being educated on this if you would like to go into details.

Sorry if I have questions you may not fully understand. I accept the fact that some folks here are unaware of the procurement process and how it's related to the collective bargaining units involved.

SC County counsel says there is a waiver process. That same counsel is on the SC-911 Netcom board of directors.
I am reviewing the online board meetings going back 3 years to get myself more educated...but you may always opine if you wish.

School me....
...and Scan Sexy!

 

[mmckenna]

Oh OK...
So training is completely free...there are no collective bargaining issues...and there is no option to request a waiver?

It is obvious to most of us here that you have little understanding of how all this works. Not sure where you are getting your info, obviously off the internet, but you are not putting it together in a way that suggests you know what you are talking about. I guess if you say it enough, someone will think it is all true. I feel sorry for those people.

Training is part of the job. It can take 6 months to a year to train and qualify a dispatcher. That's standard across the country, not any specific county, state or region. The washout rate is very high, above 50% last I heard, I think it's closer to 75%. I know last time we were hiring dispatchers, it took years to fill all the vacancies. Our dispatch center manager had to fill in shifts for a long time.
For dispatchers, there is nothing they do different if a channel is encrypted or not. It's a button on the screen. Protecting CJI/PII has been part of the job for decades, the CaDOJ and the FBI all require frequent training, and always have. It's not any surprise cost that has suddenly popped up, it's always been there.


Not sure what you think unions and collective bargaining have to do with encryption. Seems like you are grasping at things again, yet missing the mark by a long ways. I can't even begin to fathom how you are connecting these two together. Like other have said, it looks very much you are just attempting to stir up a lot of feelings in people that don't have any sort of background in this stuff, and then use it to further whatever it is you are trying to accomplish. But, again, I can't figure out what that would be. You are all over the place, grasping at random things, trying to make it sound like you know what you are talking about.

You really think they will yank CLETS for "non-compliance" ?

I doubt it.

Snark away!

POST, CALEA, accreditation, CaDOJ, FBI, I guess all things you are not aware of.

Do I think CaDOJ is going to start disconnecting CLETS connections? No, not any time soon. Government doesn't work that way.
There are professionals involved, and those professionals are different from hobbyists, they don't throw temper tantrums when things don't go the way they want. They work things out like professionals. Thankfully, I work with professionals...

 

[Peter_SD911]

I don't fawn over dispatchers and radio techs like many here do. But you have placed yourself as 'someone in the know" of a system that I have a vested interest in.

I have questions, just like any taxpayer would.

How come you were unaware of the ability to request the waiver?

So are you a dispatcher , a system tech or are you in an administrative role?
Why do you seem agitated and triggered by simple observations of the system and administrative process?

Kindly...
If you don't know the answer to a question, then just say you don't know.
I'm in Santa Cruz and Santa Clara Counties 3 day per week...every week.
I suppose I could just drive over to the facility at De la Viega and ask the admin assistant myself.
I might be fun to see the place since my last visit to netcom was when they opened in 1996, they had little shrimp things as snacks...but no open bar.

Thanks for the update on the system, it's been helpful to me. I really enjoy the SC system and I would hate to lose it.
When you get the money and approval to fully program and deploy E, then I'm sure you will let me know. There is still a very long road before we start hearing the bloopiee-bleeps of E.

I will gladly let you rub it in my face and go "na,na,na-Toldja so!"
I'm a big boy, I can handle it.
But if you don't know the answer to a question, then just pass.

Until then...
Expect a bunch of counties and agencies to request waivers.
(you already knew that)

Only 19,000 more post...and I win the mini-bike???

 

[mmckenna]

How come you were unaware of the ability to request the waiver?

The "waiver" was a document that needed to be sent in back in December of 2020 stating why an agency couldn't meet the deadline.
I wrote ours for our agency, our chief signed it.

It doesn't mean we don't have to work towards meeting the requirements of the agreement that was signed when we requested CLETS access. We still have to do that. It only means we let DOJ know that we were unable to meet the requirement, but were working on a solution.

If you are thinking that there is some sort of waiver that means an agency gets to ignore the requirement, I think you are mistaken.

And, since I think there is still some confusion on your part: The requirement does not mandate encryption.
The requirement is to meet the agreement that was signed by the agency when they requested CLETS access.
That agreement is to not share CLETS data with those that do not have a legitimate need to have access to it. That includes scanner/feed listeners, ham radio operators, media, etc. Again, each and every agency that has CLETS access signed a document agreeing to this. It's not a new requirement, it has always been there. Agencies just ignored it. CaDOJ just reminded all these agencies that it was a requirement that they all agreed to.

There are ways to meet the requirement that do not require an agency encrypting all their radio traffic. Here's a few ways that some agencies have used:
-Don't share PII/CJI over unencrypted radio channels.
-Use a cell phone
-Use an LTE data connection
-Use a separate encrypted records channel.
-Don't use CLETS data.

But, those are not options that work in every case. The radio is still the preferred means of communication, especially when things are moving fast and the information is needed quickly. Short answer: Officers want the ease of encrypted channels. Dispatchers want it so their traffic can be handled without shifting back and forth between channels. Agencies want it so if someone screws up and forgets to change communications paths, they are covered.

And then there's the agencies that have had enough of stupid people hacking their radio systems, Cheap Chinese Radio users popping up on channels, etc. That sort of nonsense is pushing a lot of agencies to look at how to keep the low IQ individuals from accessing radio systems they don't have permission to be on. This is actually something I've heard many agencies talk about. It -is- an issue.

But, waiver to ignore the agreement that these agencies signed? No.

Only 19,000 more post...and I win the mini-bike???

Nope, just master encryption key to every radio system on the planet.

 

[Peter_SD911]

Finally!
Thank you!

I think we can all agree there are many moving parts to all this. When you have JPA's County and city govs and multiple counties involved there are NO easy solutions or answers.

SC county wanted to encrypt way back in 1995 when the JPA was formed, but there was little political will to do so.

Sheriff Noren and Tracy both wanted to close the system, and rightly so since SC county has always been a crime sh#t show. In the perfect world SC would have been the first in the state based on the crime issues...but the peace people and the mountain folks would not buy into it.

It still comes down to money to program those radios.

Thanks again for sharing you insight with me. You have educated me on some things I had outdated or incorrect.

One last question...
Why is there no output tone/pl on Sheriffs Blue and Fire Red?

 

[mmckenna]

One last question...
Why is there no output tone/pl on Sheriffs Blue and Fire Red?

Before my time, probably goes back well before PL tones were commonly used on the outputs.

 

[MUTNAV]

Well, I should clarify, since I didn't do a good job above. DES 64 bit encryption is free (well, 1¢) on those radios. That's the Harris Encryption Lite.
Motorola does the same thing with ADP, or at least they used to, not sure if they do any more.
Many others come with some lower level of encryption included.

CLETS/CaDOJ requires AES256 encryption for CLETS info, and that's not quite as cheap. For the XL-200's I ordered, $500 gets you AES256.

People will say that's too much money for a small agency. It may be, but when you look at the number of radios a small agency has, and what they pay in salaries, benefits and equipment upkeep, $500 when buying new radios, often with grant funding, is just a drop in the bucket. It's not a real blocker for any agency.

As a side note from a mostly disinterested follower of the thread, and to augment and agree to your point, It's important to realize that stuff is cheap, people are expensive.

Thanks
Joel

 

[es93546]

Where the heck do you keep coming up with all this stuff?

The requirements to protect CLETS info have been there since CLETS started. There is no additional training required. The requirement to protect the data has been part of dispatcher, tech and supervisor training all along. Hell, I've been having to go through training on this stuff since I started working with it, and I have to redo it every year or two.

You are just grabbing at thin air at this point.

I can't remember exactly what year it was, but as Forest Protection Officer (FPO) I had to take a training for having access to state PII data and then take a renewal every year or every other year. I was a field going, non commissioned, non armed officer with a more limited range of duties than a commissioned officer. I know this training began sometime after 1988 when I transferred into the U.S. Forest Service's Region 5 (most of California). There was no word at the time about needing to have this information conveyed over an encrypted radio frequency. Dispatchers had more extensive training of course. They were the ones that actually operated a CLETS terminal. There was even more training required for a dispatcher who gave the yearly training for the non commissioned officers. Our comm center dispatchers didn't have this additional training so they had to bring in a dispatcher from Grass Valley, where the Tahoe NF and CDF are co-located. Commissioned officers had more extensive training as they had access to wants and warrants information that we didn't have. FPO's only had access to all incident report data from out own agency's forms. FPO's had full access to vehicle license and driver license info.

 

[es93546]

I can't remember exactly what year it was, but as Forest Protection Officer (FPO) I had to take a training for having access to state PII data and then take a renewal every year or every other year. I was a field going, non commissioned, non armed officer with a more limited range of duties than a commissioned officer. I know this training began sometime after 1988 when I transferred into the U.S. Forest Service's Region 5 (most of California). There was no word at the time about needing to have this information conveyed over an encrypted radio frequency. Dispatchers had more extensive training of course. They were the ones that actually operated a CLETS terminal. There was even more training required for a dispatcher who gave the yearly training for the non commissioned officers. Our comm center dispatchers didn't have this additional training so they had to bring in a dispatcher from Grass Valley, where the Tahoe NF and CDF are co-located. Commissioned officers had more extensive training as they had access to wants and warrants information that we didn't have. FPO's only had access to all incident report data from out own agency's forms. FPO's had full access to vehicle license and driver license info.

I should add that the reason we had to get this training and its refreshers was a case where a TV/Movie actress was either killed or was stalked by someone who somehow, without any affiliation with law enforcement, was able to run the actresses' car license plate to figure out where she lived. It was a widely reported incident at the time. The training followed shortly. This would be about 30 years ago.

 

[mmckenna]

I should add that the reason we had to get this training and its refreshers was a case where a TV/Movie actress was either killed or was stalked by someone who somehow, without any affiliation with law enforcement, was able to run the actresses' car license plate to figure out where she lived. It was a widely reported incident at the time. The training followed shortly. This would be about 30 years ago.

That sounds familiar.

The CLETS/CJI/PII stuff is serious and they are cracking down on it. And it's not just a California thing, the FBI has the same requirements. I suspect this will slowly spread across the country. Too many agencies are too loose with the info.

Back in the 80's, the technology wasn't quite there to sufficiently encrypt radio traffic. As it progressed, it became easier.
The requirements are pretty clear. The data must be secure at all times, when stored, when displayed, when transmitted between locations.

 

[xilix]

I should add that the reason we had to get this training and its refreshers was a case where a TV/Movie actress was either killed or was stalked by someone who somehow, without any affiliation with law enforcement, was able to run the actresses' car license plate to figure out where she lived. It was a widely reported incident at the time. The training followed shortly. This would be about 30 years ago.

You're probably thinking of Rebecca Schaeffer's murder in 1989. Crazed fan shows up on her doorstep and shoots her point blank with a .357. The reports on this indicate the suspect used a private investigator to track her down. Like it or not, DMV records are not as secure as most people think.

 

[es93546]

You're probably thinking of Rebecca Schaeffer's murder in 1989. Crazed fan shows up on her doorstep and shoots her point blank with a .357. The reports on this indicate the suspect used a private investigator to track her down. Like it or not, DMV records are not as secure as most people think.

That sounds vaguely familiar and the timing is about right. I think the training started in late 1989 or early 1990. The first year they didn't wait until the annual law enforcement refresher, they just took all the year round Forest Protection Officers into a room for several hours so that we could continue to have access to running plates and driver licenses. We had a year round field season on the Inyo National Forest due to the large numbers of winter recreationists.