Once a radio system goes encrypted.....

[Astro25]

Well, a nice thing is that some of the older legacy systems that were/are encrypted, may soon not be, or at least parts of the conversation won't be.

With radios like System Sabers, or Sabers (think 3 letter agencies), radios that weren't or don't do IKR for the Secure Keys, eventually when 1 person in an operation doesn't have Securenet to turn on, the rest can't either. I see it happening more and more often over here.

But then again, that's usually a prelude to a bigger, better system....

 

[SCPD]

On our state wide 800MHz EDACS based TASGRN the police used to be secure and unscannable in urban areas. About 4 years ago they switched to non secure talkgroups for all day to day comms but they are just now looking at going back to them.

Paul

 

[mmtstc]

Encryption of Tactical Channels

Here is my understanding of encryption on tactical channels and it simply comes from my understanding of communications in my little frozen part of the world.

The system i am basing my statements on is the ARMER 800 MHz Digital P25 Trunked radio system that is being phased to cover all of MN with current coverage of the Minneapolis St. Paul Metro area with subsystems in St. Cloud and Rochester.

In the county i live in, LEO's all carry an encryption capable radio, and they use the feature when they are in situation where the need for encryption is anticipated, but it is not used during the course of routine day to day LEC operations. Another feature of the system here in Minnesota, is that some channels cannot allow encryption. Example - The primary LEC TG is encryption capable along with many of the agencies other TG's, but the LEC records and Backup TG will not allow encryption, so if an officer has encryption enabled, but transmits on the Backup channel, their transmission will be unencrypted.

In the county i work in, we get our radios from the county radio shop. It is my understanding that every radio used by a county agency is an identical XTS 5000. Every Deputy and Paramedic carries the same radio so that when we have a radio in the shop, it is not an issue finding a compatible spare portable or mobile. PD and Fire communications are all on the system, but they furnish their own radios with some agencies, more so fire, choosing the XTS2500 for cost reasons. Even though our [EMS] radios are encryption capable, we do not use encryption. The primary reason being interoperability.

The system here in MN has 6 sets of tactical interoperability Talk Groups, each with 4 TG's and a couple have RF links to VHF frequencies for users not on the system yet.
A-Tacs (All Users)
P-Tacs (All Public Safety users)
E-Tacs (EMS Users and situations)
L-Tacs (Law Enforcement Users and situations)
F-Tacs (Fire Users and situations)
S-Tacs (Statewide Tactical Talkgroups)

These are standard TG's that all applicable users have in their radio scheme. Minneapolis Fire has the same F-Tacs that Rochester Fire has in their radios. None of these are encrypted to support Interoperability. A prime example of the usage of this was in the case of the 35W bridge collapse where all LEO traffic went to P-Tac 1, all Fire traffic went to P-Tac 2 and all EMS traffic went to E-Tac 1. This allowed everyone to be able to talk to each other no matter which of the at least 50 unique agencies responded to the event. With Encryption alot of the vital communications would not have been possible in what was a very successful response to that event.

I dont know of any agencies in MN that are encrypted 100% of the time, in fact, from my conversations with other MN users, Rochester is the biggest user of encryption and i think they probably only use it about 5% of the time. Is encryption a good tool? Absolutely. Is it a hassle for scanner users? Probably, but oh well, not really their problem.

 

[zz0468]

I of course meant sending it over the net decrypted, I just meant, since it's an offical/authorized radio of the system, the encrpytion was never technically illegal hacked or anything.

I guess the legality of that would be determined by the individual agency who's radio was used to provide the net feed. If it's an authorized radio providing an authorized feed, no problem except for one - it would blow the whole point of encrypting that system. If it was an unauthorized internet feed, I imagine that would open up a whole pandora's box of legal issues. It wouldn't be hard to show in a court case how the intent of, say, the Electronic Privacy Act of 1986 was violated in this example, even if the encrypted transmissions were not "hacked".

 

[hogtowner]

Why Encrypt when you can make listening illegal?

I live in Alachua County, Florida. ALL radios are run through the local government owned utilities company. Additionally, they are digital MOT and just to add insult to injury, the commision passed a law. It is illegal to listen to the scanner regarding Law Enforcement, Fire or EMS!
Even the media and neighborhood watch groups were denied to listen in! After months of protest, one has to have a legitimate reason, per the amended law, to listen to the scanner transmissions. Newspaper, radio and T.V reporters are the authorized entities. And base stations only.

As stated, terrorists and criminals will just listen in regardless of the laws. But what a blow to trust or having a checks and balance system ensuring that those to whom we entrust our safety and well-being are doing that lawfully? Or, rooting out one or two bad apples who may be cossing the line. No one is there to confront them about it but their compatriots. Even the citizen's watch group is not allowed to listen in. They get their information from those they are meant to monitor.

 

[wwhitby]

First off, I have no problem with using encryption for sensative conversations. There have even been times in the past when I was performing search and rescue missions with the Civil Air patrol that I wish I had access to encryption. However, i'm not in favor of 100% full-time encryption, since I get most of my information regarding severe weather affecting my community by listening to my local police and fire departments, and the county SO.

A good story about this is the EF-3 tornado that hit my hometown of Prattville, Alabama, in February. That Sunday, we had been experiencing severe weather off and on during the day. The weather alert sirens had been going off constantly, however because of the system we have, a possible tornado on the ground in the extreme west of the county (30 minute drive away) will set the sirens off for the entire county, including Prattville which is at the extreme east of the county.

Before the tornado hit, sirens were going off. In all honestly, I tended to dismiss them since, as I said, they had been going off all day for storms at the other end of the county. The local TV news station, which was broadcasting constantly, had no reports of tornados, nor did Skywarn. The first report came in of a tornado on the ground in the south end of the city by the city dump. A police officer was sent to check out that report. A couple of minutes later, reports came in of a tornado striking an apartment complex, as well as many homes in a subdivision. Based upon the reports of damage being radioed to the police and fire departments, I realized that it wasn't heading for us, but was heading straight toward my parents. I called my Dad, and told him to take cover. He later said that although the sirens were going off, he hadn't heard anything on the news about a tornado. The tornado ended up passing about 400 yard away from their house!

About 10-15 minutes after the tornado had passed through, the news media finally reported a tornado on the ground. By that time, I didn't know what Skywarn had reported, since I was listening exclusively to the PD/FD/SO. BTW, i'm not knocking Skywarn, since I participate in it from time-to-time, but information about weather affecting my community comes more quickly from my local PD, FD and SO.

So, there is a definate purpose to listening to unencrypted public safety communications. Fortunately, my local public safety agencies don't encrypt their routine communications!

Warren