Northern Colo Encryption
- Thread starter jimmnn
- Start date
- Status
How recently? I listened yesterday without problems, but I will monitor throughout this afternoon too.
I did an interview today with a Fort Collins reporter regarding this. Evidently the police chief is considering turning on full time encryption for all law enforcement communications. Fire department indicated they have no reason to encrypt.
Lindsay, Did the reporter indicate this was related to the availability of there dept audio on-line? When I spoke to some of the departments brass they seemed to indicate this was a major factor in the chiefs decision.
Thanks Jim<
BOWLERPBA
Member
I do know that when our department bought new radios last spring (XTS2500) ADP privacy was added to them at a real whopping $7.45 per radio. Every once in a while dispatch will have to remind a patrol unit that the are "encrypted".
Mark
Mark
I wonder if this includes CSU PD and the SO. Encrypting CSU would put in a huge dent in the quality of listening up here. Not to mention getting everyone encrypted sounds like a pretty major undertaking. If I understand right, this is not as simple as throwing a switch. Also, since PFA often hops on the CSU channel 7, they'd need to be on board too if this was the case.
Last edited:
I think the reporter will lay out the specifics of the chief's thoughts in his article. I believe it will be published on Sunday.
GlacierClipper
Member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2002
- Messages
- 871
- Reaction score
- 3
Thanks for the information.
I've heard puzzling exchanges where the mobile unit was encrypted while dispatch was not. They carried on several exchanges as if dispatch didn't have any difficulty.
But I think that was Larimer County.
Well, when this happens I'll just have to listen more closely to PFA dispatch for where the traffic accidents are.
Will get stuck in more non-injury traffic jams though :-(
rickak
Member
LCSO deputies can turn on encryption on the TAC channels. Most of them have it on these days...
Rick
I heard Loveland PD 1 encrypt for a little bit this afternoon. Anyone else hear this? Tonight their back to normal.
Kevin_N
Member
Great, another agency over reacting. Ironic thing with Ft. Collins is they dispatch so much on the computers anyway.
Some channels encrypted - good for officer safety when needed.
Full time on dispatch channels - corruption and something to hide.
Some channels encrypted - good for officer safety when needed.
Full time on dispatch channels - corruption and something to hide.
Well you can always monitor the airport frequencies. Im sure they are up to something...
Kevin_N
Member
I say vote out the people who appoint the advocates for secret police. How can you be for transparency and want to encrypt everything? Makes no sense. Also a lot of what ifs in his theory. How does he know that it isn't actually safer for people to know what's going on? I would argue that it is.
There may be plenty of people who avoid scenes of action because they knew about it. The police only see the dumb ones who show up. And those people will still be dumb no matter what. And if something really big happens you should want the public to know about it right away for their own good. Boulder has always realized that especially with the bad fires they get in that county.
There are agencies who use encryption responsibility, like Park County and Grand County. They both only switch to their encrypted Tac channels when there is a real danger for the public or officers or when they need to keep things private. Like the name of someone who commited suicide.
I think the public agrees with that use as well as surveillance or swat, but wholesale encryption is just bad policy. Funny how some agencies realize that, like Boulder and some are hell bent on being the secret police even when they have so many other ways to communicate these days like the article says.
There may be plenty of people who avoid scenes of action because they knew about it. The police only see the dumb ones who show up. And those people will still be dumb no matter what. And if something really big happens you should want the public to know about it right away for their own good. Boulder has always realized that especially with the bad fires they get in that county.
There are agencies who use encryption responsibility, like Park County and Grand County. They both only switch to their encrypted Tac channels when there is a real danger for the public or officers or when they need to keep things private. Like the name of someone who commited suicide.
I think the public agrees with that use as well as surveillance or swat, but wholesale encryption is just bad policy. Funny how some agencies realize that, like Boulder and some are hell bent on being the secret police even when they have so many other ways to communicate these days like the article says.
scanlist
Scanning since the 70's to today.
The best approach would be to make a serious effort to stop this from full implementation.
Ranting here to vent is a typical reaction to news of this type however it does not resolve the potential situation.
Not surprising an idiot with a smartphone would be used as the excuse.
The question is how did they find out this guy was cranking up the phone app?
The example used for an incident in 1999 was when they were analog UHF before they moved to their NCCA digital system.
With some diligence on the part of the agency they would know of the tactical group/channel ban in place at radioreference/broadcastify. Most agencies will move situations off the main to a tactical group/channel in situations like this.
The suggestion of "voting out" the politicos in the city may be a bit harsh. How about attempting to educate them about what all this means first. If they actually listen and come up with an acceptable compromise then great. If not then send them to the political unemployment line.
Good luck to you guys in Fort Collins.
Ranting here to vent is a typical reaction to news of this type however it does not resolve the potential situation.
Not surprising an idiot with a smartphone would be used as the excuse.
The question is how did they find out this guy was cranking up the phone app?
The example used for an incident in 1999 was when they were analog UHF before they moved to their NCCA digital system.
With some diligence on the part of the agency they would know of the tactical group/channel ban in place at radioreference/broadcastify. Most agencies will move situations off the main to a tactical group/channel in situations like this.
The suggestion of "voting out" the politicos in the city may be a bit harsh. How about attempting to educate them about what all this means first. If they actually listen and come up with an acceptable compromise then great. If not then send them to the political unemployment line.
Good luck to you guys in Fort Collins.
wuzafuzz
Member
Since I am a Fort Collins resident, I will be contacting my city council critter.
As a former cop I find Chief Hutto's arguments utterly unconvincing. Transmitting Social Security Numbers? I NEVER had to do that over the air, and I never heard anyone else doing that either. It is ironic that a department so fond of photo radar installations is suddenly a "privacy advocate."
The EMS folks have much stricter privacy laws than law enforcement. Yet they are doing just fine with transmissions in the clear. They know what to say over the air and what to handle through other means.
As for the transmission of sensitive information to multiple units in the field, there are plenty of other ways to accomplish that. Even when officers are out of their cars, most of them are carrying smart phones or even pagers.
Regarding criminals foiling the police via use of scanners or smart phones with monitoring tools, that is also a less than compelling argument. Their best example was a FAILED ATTEMPT. Other than that, they don't know. They admitted they don't know. Plus, it's already illegal to use scanners in the commission of a crime.
Chief Hutto's asserts that people listening to scanners might suffer from an irresistible urge to interfere with the police. He used the gas station robbery as an example. "All sort of people were showing up at the robbery area." Well, no kidding. It's a gas station in a high traffic area. People go there. Short of specific examples demonstrating someone listened to police traffic and interfered as a result, I remain unconvinced.
I almost never listen to the cops with my scanner. However, if I notice police activity in my area I like to tune in so I know what to avoid. Is it time to lock the doors? Is it time to call the kids into the house? Should I flee a haz-mat area? The list goes on. I prefer not to wait for bureaucracy to get around to wiping my rear for me.
In all my years as a cop and in other law enforcement jobs I never felt a need for encryption. Even participating in drug stings and surveillance activities, it wasn't a big deal. There were plenty of ways to obscure what we were up to. Having said that, I don't begrudge the use of encryption for critical incidents or narcotics. For routine patrol procedures? Not necessary.
Officer safety? I've heard that before. I've said it too. The problem arises when officer safety becomes the crutch for anything you cannot otherwise justify. Oppose the measure and you are against officer safety and are therefor evil. I wore a uniform for years without encryption, most of that in a VHF conventional environment. It doesn't get any easier to monitor than that. Although I talked to a few people who heard my exploits, no trouble ever became of it. I simply don't buy the suggestion that criminal monitoring is so pervasive we must lock down everything.
Chief Hutto had no specific examples of problems caused by monitoring. Yet he is prepared to block public access to routine police procedures. Furthermore, he is willing to do so at some undetermined expense when Fort Collins has had well publicized financial problems in recent years.
In the absence of a compelling business case I'm left with the impression they simply want encryption because they are cops darn it. The department famous for corrupt participation in the wrongful conviction of Timothy Masters needs more secrecy. We'll tell you what you need to know. Trust us.
As a former cop I find Chief Hutto's arguments utterly unconvincing. Transmitting Social Security Numbers? I NEVER had to do that over the air, and I never heard anyone else doing that either. It is ironic that a department so fond of photo radar installations is suddenly a "privacy advocate."
The EMS folks have much stricter privacy laws than law enforcement. Yet they are doing just fine with transmissions in the clear. They know what to say over the air and what to handle through other means.
As for the transmission of sensitive information to multiple units in the field, there are plenty of other ways to accomplish that. Even when officers are out of their cars, most of them are carrying smart phones or even pagers.
Regarding criminals foiling the police via use of scanners or smart phones with monitoring tools, that is also a less than compelling argument. Their best example was a FAILED ATTEMPT. Other than that, they don't know. They admitted they don't know. Plus, it's already illegal to use scanners in the commission of a crime.
Chief Hutto's asserts that people listening to scanners might suffer from an irresistible urge to interfere with the police. He used the gas station robbery as an example. "All sort of people were showing up at the robbery area." Well, no kidding. It's a gas station in a high traffic area. People go there. Short of specific examples demonstrating someone listened to police traffic and interfered as a result, I remain unconvinced.
I almost never listen to the cops with my scanner. However, if I notice police activity in my area I like to tune in so I know what to avoid. Is it time to lock the doors? Is it time to call the kids into the house? Should I flee a haz-mat area? The list goes on. I prefer not to wait for bureaucracy to get around to wiping my rear for me.
In all my years as a cop and in other law enforcement jobs I never felt a need for encryption. Even participating in drug stings and surveillance activities, it wasn't a big deal. There were plenty of ways to obscure what we were up to. Having said that, I don't begrudge the use of encryption for critical incidents or narcotics. For routine patrol procedures? Not necessary.
Officer safety? I've heard that before. I've said it too. The problem arises when officer safety becomes the crutch for anything you cannot otherwise justify. Oppose the measure and you are against officer safety and are therefor evil. I wore a uniform for years without encryption, most of that in a VHF conventional environment. It doesn't get any easier to monitor than that. Although I talked to a few people who heard my exploits, no trouble ever became of it. I simply don't buy the suggestion that criminal monitoring is so pervasive we must lock down everything.
Chief Hutto had no specific examples of problems caused by monitoring. Yet he is prepared to block public access to routine police procedures. Furthermore, he is willing to do so at some undetermined expense when Fort Collins has had well publicized financial problems in recent years.
In the absence of a compelling business case I'm left with the impression they simply want encryption because they are cops darn it. The department famous for corrupt participation in the wrongful conviction of Timothy Masters needs more secrecy. We'll tell you what you need to know. Trust us.
- Status
