Northern Colo Encryption

[Spud]

The new Police chief is from Austin. Perhaps he developed his views in that different environment where some of the issues that he mentions actually existed. He has not been here long enough to have a thorough, in depth understanding of this community and the differences between Fort Collins and Austin.

The FCPD is one of the best in the nation and has a significant level of trust and respect locally. That relationship with the public enables them to do their job well and the officers are intelligent enough to know when to switch to encryption if needed.

The loss of trust that will come with going to "secret squirrel" mode with all communications will cost the FC PD far more than anything that they will gain from that activity.

They need to look at the bigger picture and make decisions based on logic and common sense. Decisions made from emotional points, like paranoia, do not normally resolve the real problems and usually just create more issues.

The Spud

 

[wuzafuzz]

I read one of the sidebars and notice they say they system has no additional cost, because they are already sporting $1.7 million worth of APX 6000 radios. Slightly off topic, but NICE radios on our dime. Of course one of the best features of that radio is it's dual band capabilities. Who else are they talking to that requires every cop in town to have dual band?

 

[nathancarlson]

This Chief was hired in December of last year? He must know a lot to decide to keep his Officers safer by blocking out all the other agencies that are up there to assist them like the State Patrol, CSU Police, Parks and Wildlife, ect. I remember when the Larimer Sheriffs Office used all the agencies they could a few months ago when they were searching buses they had escorted to the fairgrounds. It all went well until they moved to a "Secure" channel and blocked out the CSP and other agencies there to help them. I am pretty upset to hear that instead of reminding their Officers how to use the radios properly and transmit secure traffic on secure channels that they have in place already, they think its better to block everybody from hearing them, including other Officers from other agencies they often call for backup.

 

[jimmnn]

What the new chief from Texas fails to mention is the numerous times scanner listeners and now modern days scanner listeners using there iPhone or Blackberry type device have helped the police, it far out numbers the problems created. Additionally the Radio Reference polices are already in-place as a feed provider you shall not feed tactical, swat or sensitive talk groups. Chief why if your so concerned not just have your officers move there “sensitive traffic “ to a non-fed or encrypted talk group or send the data via MDT, like most other larger and more responsible departments do across the state every day and keep the normal dispatch channels open for your citizens who pay for your position and many others by the way in the clear.

Jim<

 

[wuzafuzz]

Letter written, signed, and dropped in the mail.
______________________________________

I was troubled by an article published in the November 4th, 2012 issue of the Fort Collins Coloradoan, on the topic of encrypting police communications.

URL to article:
http://www.coloradoan.com/article/20121103/NEWS01/311040023/

As a former police officer in Southern California, I am sensitive to concerns of officer safety. However, a problem arises when officer safety is used as a crutch for initiatives that cannot be otherwise justified. In the aforementioned article Chief Hutto failed to express a compelling need to shutter all police communications from the public eye. In fact the strongest justification was a failed attempt by criminals to avoid capture by monitoring police radios&#8230;in 1999.

In my experience it was simple to prevent confidential information from broadcast over police radios. The Coloradoan article even quotes an Emergency Medical Services spokesperson who states they have no need of encryption, yet they are governed by strict privacy laws such as HIPAA and HITECH. They deal in confidential medical information all day, every day. They manage to protect information as needed.

I do not oppose the use of encryption for critical activities such as SWAT call-outs or surveillance. It makes sense in those cases. Police can use a secured channel or mode just for truly sensitive information, switching back to clear mode when that need passes.

Routine law enforcement functions do not share a sufficient need for secrecy to justify a complete black-out from public monitoring. In fact, there are positive outcomes to such monitoring. One example is the commuter traffic reports many of us rely on; they would not be possible without scanners in the news rooms. Other benefits are many. I believe the number of citizen tips thanks to monitoring outweighs the number of problems caused. I received such reports when I was a police officer, and truly appreciated them.

As most of us know, law enforcement is often viewed with considerable suspicion. At various times that distrust is alternately deserved and undeserved. Hiding all communications without need only serves to foster suspicion and broaden the gap between public safety and the community they serve. Insisting they will tell us what we need to know does nothing to allay the concerns of a doubtful public, or a defense attorney on the hunt. Public safety does not have, and cannot afford, the resources to keep interested parties informed via other means. The highly fragmented social mediascape doesn&#8217;t cut it.

In this case I do not feel that police management is properly balancing public safety needs with the openness that Fort Collins residents deserve. Further, I believe the plan runs counter to concepts of community policing, and the very accountability described in the Fort Collins Police Services&#8217; mission statement.

I ask that you consider encouraging Fort Collins Police Services to keep routine communications open, and limit encryption to the most sensitive of operations.

 

[seberry]

I read one of the sidebars and notice they say they system has no additional cost, because they are already sporting $1.7 million worth of APX 6000 radios. Slightly off topic, but NICE radios on our dime. Of course one of the best features of that radio is it's dual band capabilities. Who else are they talking to that requires every cop in town to have dual band?

I'm glad someone mentioned this. Top of the line stuff right there. I haven't seen any in the wild but wonder what those APXs can accomplish that a 5K can't in our 800-only environment? Other than their precious encryption?

edit: the 6k doesn't do dual band.

 

[wuzafuzz]

edit: the 6k doesn't do dual band.

I was mistaking it for the APX7000, which I want in the worst way. Too much $$ for my wallet though.

 

[avery_k]

I'm preaching to the choir here but thought I'd chime in anyway.

I'm a fairly recent transplant to Fort Collins, moved here from Oregon 3+ years ago. One of the things that attracted my family & I to move here was the openness and friendliness of the residents. Chief Hutto's stance on the matter was formed somewhere else than Fort Collins, and runs against all that. The first thing I thought of when I read the news article was, "what have they got to hide"? One of the first comments on the article was applauding Hutto's efforts to get all comms encrypted. Trying to educate people like this is like teaching a pig to sing. Wastes your time, annoys the pig. The best way to show you disagree with public officials & their policies is to vote them out and fire them. That doesn't guarantee the next guy will be any better but we can always hope. Heck, even the city of Boulder got this one right with respect to encryption. I have no problem with law enforcement using an encrypted channel for SWAT operations, surveillance, and the like but routine traffic should be done in the open. Earlier this year we had two car clouts in our neighborhood which is very quiet and about the last place you'd expect it to happen. For that reason I like to listen to my scanner if there's something happening nearby, not to rubberneck but to keep an eye out and phone in a tip if I see anything. With encryption, this won't happen, and I'd be more inclined to not help, and let the officer know that if I'd heard about it on my scanner I would have been looking, but since it's encrypted I didn't know anything was going on. Also, you can be sure that anything tweeted "officially" will be thoroughly scrubbed for public consumption. Not all scanner enthusiasts are ambulance chasers.

 

[Kevin_N]

Letter writing is a great idea. If its polite anyway. Someone here might know the story, but I think it worked for Phoenix a few years back. They were thinking about full time E. and the scanner community successfully ran a campaign against it.

They came up with a comprise and they don't use it on the main channels.

 

[seberry]

I encourage everyone to write a concise letter outlining your thoughts to cityleaders@fcgov.com. This is the email address for every city councilperson.

 

[LMR_Dude]

I offer an opposing view point.

The radio system is not there for you, it's for the FCPD. Simply becuase in the past the FCPD did have either the technical ability or will to make their signal unusable to the enthusiaist does not mean they cant, at any time in the future, do so.

You folks have made a choice to make a hobby of monitoring Public Safety traffic and must of been aware that at some time that access may be denied.

The only valid use of monitoring Public Saftey I've seen mentioned in these posts was traffic delay reporting. If Chief Hutto is interested in supporting this he could allow local press to purchase a radio and have it programmed to do so.

 

[scanlist]

I see a maximum trolling attempt in progress.

"Sit down and shut up" is no longer acceptable to a number of people when it comes to the government.

Seriously press only access? Trust in media is at an all time low in this country.

 

[xts3000r]

The apx6000 is so when the system go Phase 2 tdma they will not have to buy new radios.now that's if it gos p25 x 2 tdma

 

[seberry]

I offer an opposing view point.

The radio system is not there for you, it's for the FCPD. Simply becuase in the past the FCPD did have either the technical ability or will to make their signal unusable to the enthusiaist does not mean they cant, at any time in the future, do so.

My view is that if it ain't broke, don't fix it. I want to see numbers for how frequently LEO efforts in Fort Collins are subverted by someone using a police scanner. They already use their computers for some sensitive calls. The idea that it isn't there for us is only half correct. It is for their use but to serve US (the public). Of course, this is a radio enthusiasts forum so I understand that there are many who share your view outside of our little bubble

 

[stevecubfan]

another article is in todays denver post page 4 A

 

[jimmnn]

another article is in todays denver post page 4 A

Basically a repeat of the Coloradoan story.

Fort Collins police consider blocking radio traffic to public - The Denver Post

Jim<

 

[stevecubfan]

thanks jim