The only difference in this article compared to the original is the first paragraph. I don't believe the press release even mentioned encryption or any other article. So what's The Star trying to conjure up?
Ontario to replace Public Safety Radio Network
- Thread starter vabiro
- Start date
- Status
The original press release points out that information is currently sent over the air unencrypted.
It makes the suggestion that encryption will protect our privacy and safeguard police operations.
The Star article mentions encryption under Mr. Ford's pic.
It makes the suggestion that encryption will protect our privacy and safeguard police operations.
The Star article mentions encryption under Mr. Ford's pic.
If Ontario want's any transparency they will at least go the way Toronto did with P25, police only encryption.
Not trying to stir up the encryption debate, it's understandable why police would want encryption. But at the same time there is the public right to know what goes on, on our streets and in our county.
A work around would be to keep police general patrol dispatchers in the clear (ITC) and mobiles encrypted. This way calls go out in the clear but the mobiles encrypted so police can freely communicate.
All CPIC and defective use could be 100% encrypted. This way the police get the privacy they need and the public (press) retain the ability to know of major incidents that go on in real time.
Not trying to stir up the encryption debate, it's understandable why police would want encryption. But at the same time there is the public right to know what goes on, on our streets and in our county.
A work around would be to keep police general patrol dispatchers in the clear (ITC) and mobiles encrypted. This way calls go out in the clear but the mobiles encrypted so police can freely communicate.
All CPIC and defective use could be 100% encrypted. This way the police get the privacy they need and the public (press) retain the ability to know of major incidents that go on in real time.
I also noticed that too. Some papers that published the this story were phrased differently then the others. I've always found the star to be pretty right wing anyway 
Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk
There are tons of workarounds , use mdts & enc only on sensitive data & leave main dispatch open ,provide a delayed feed online that will not work with mobile devices , use proper radio procedure & you wont violate any privacy laws , & Im sure there is a ton more ways to compromise that people could come up with ,..but they are not interested in hearing any of that, or any reasoning on the advantages of having more people aware of whats going on & what to look for , they have bought into the paranoia , despite the fact that as far as I know it is statistically extremely rare that criminals are taking the time of learning to use ,program & purchase fairly expensive radios ,..they have an agenda & a way of thinking about themselves & about everyone else ,.& that's what they are going to do ,.I wouldn't put it out of the realm of possibility that it would create a greater black market demand of sorts & those that really want to get a radio to monitor the system , will find the connections to do so , no matter how many tell you it is impossible , Im betting its being done in places already ,.. But I am pretty sure they are not concerned one bit about transparency , having more eyes that know what to look for , or any other benefit of having the public aware of general dispatch public safety calls , they do not view you as being as responsible or trustworthy as them & so they are not interested in a workaround
My bad. Thanks for the clarification. But still....
bigcam406
Member
I had to laugh at the last quote about daily service outages. how about making sure those portable batteries are fully charged on a daily basis to prevent "bonking" out?
Which Star article. The OP was an Ontario Government press release. Is there an article on The Star's website?
As has been pointed out, this was written by a bunch of government communications hacks that have little understanding of what they are writing about. However, they are going to focus on what has the greatest potential for spin
mciupa said:
This was a Government of Ontario Press Release. There is no copyright protection, and I am sure that they would be happy that the text of their release would be distributed beyond the media that subscribe to their mailing list.
Jay911 said:
I would put money on this being the way they architect the system. As the geography and spectrum demand, they will use the best wavelength. I can't see them using 700MHz in Northern Ontario, or 142 MHz in Toronto. The propagation would be for s...t.
I also hope that they will adopt the same policy for the media as Calgary has: Contractual relationship with media that allows them to lease or buy radios through the police service. The current situation in Southern Ontario is difficult with fire encrypted in York and almost all of Durham.
If they go to encrypted fire and EMS throughout the provence it would create an enormous 'black hole' for information throughout the provence.
Jay911 said:
How does this affect access to the centralised dispatch for OPP and MOH, or InterOP links with local services? The impression I get is that these links have multiple purposes, providing interconnect between sites, console links to the regions, and interconnect to local first responders.
I'm not sure how a new RF network would change the limitations of the out of band connections like microwave or IP. The only way to overcome the vulnerability would to have a 3-way system that uses satellite, microwave, and terrestrial lines. The problem is that in something like a tornado all bets are off: everything goes away with the wind.
rangerrick1994 said:
The idea that this is unexpected is a bit silly. I have see more than a couple of speculative posts on this forum in the past few years about this. Having said that, a press release does not an outcome make.
rangerrick1994 said:
As a great big geek, I would have enjoyed working on this when I was in the LMR business. It is big, complicated, consequential, and incorporates the latest and greatest technology.
The problem is, as a Journalist, I have watched some institutional hypocrisy: when a government organisation is involved they are all about protecting information, using health privacy (et al) legislation to justify encrypting radio traffic. On one hand they want to protect an individual's privacy, until it becomes inconvenient, and then they demand open access to all communications.
The problem is, nobody is calling them on this, despite being unable being able to point to an example of where the news media have abused access over the past 60+ years.
In other words, they are employing a solution to a problem that doesn't exist, and spending taxpayers money to do it.
Now I may have actually breached the TOS...
We were referring to this:
https://www.thestar.com/news/queens...o-network-for-police-fire-and-paramedics.html
Published the same day as the press release you posted.
You have not breached TOS, rather gave some thoughtful, interesting opinions which are always welcome.
Care to elaborate?
slicerwizard
Member
Why feed the troll?
DaveH
Member
Nothing like a topic such as this to bring all the encryption weenies out of the woodwork. Nice try.
Dave
Jammin_Jay
Member
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2004
- Messages
- 718
I am curious how they are going to create a universal interop channel like OPC 142.770 or OFM 154.070, both being analog right now.
Different Police agencies use different digital modes DMR and P25, NXDN.
There must be a standard to interoperate communications between opp And local police, as well as different fire depts.
How are they going to communicate in an encryption mode when talking to another Dept that has no encryption or a different operating system , open digital no encryption. So I can see some talkgroups not being encrypted
Different Police agencies use different digital modes DMR and P25, NXDN.
There must be a standard to interoperate communications between opp And local police, as well as different fire depts.
How are they going to communicate in an encryption mode when talking to another Dept that has no encryption or a different operating system , open digital no encryption. So I can see some talkgroups not being encrypted
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2001
- Messages
- 97
It's relatively straight forward - and it will likely be the same as they do today.
Currently they put a FleetNet radio in place at each of the partner agencies, interfaced with their local radio system. This radio can then be patched into the partner agency operational channel/talkgroup. With this design both sides can run with their own air interface (P25, analogue, DMR, NXDN, etc) and respectively their own encryption (ADP, DES, AES, etc). The connection between the system happens at an E&M level, so the technology on either side doesn't matter.
It's difficult to predict the future, but they may also decide to provide an ISSI interface at the system level between other P25 systems. And you never know, some agencies may decide to directly join the new PSRN directly as well. Lots of potential options.
Cheers,
SD.
kayn1n32008
ØÆSØ Say it, say 'ENCRYPTION'
There are MANY ways to interoperate.
- Common encrypted interop talkgroups
- Common unencrypted interop talkgroups
- Common analogue simplex frequencies
- Common encrypted simplex frequencies
- Common unencrypted digital simplex frequencies
- ISSI bridges between systems with encrypted interop talkgroups
- ISSI bridges between systems with unencrypted interop talkgroups
Console patches between different digital formats.
Take a look at the phase 2 system in the lower mainland in BC. EVERYTHING is encrypted, including interop talk groups, including interop between fire/ems/police.
The only unencrypted talkgroups are the radio tech talkgroups.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Best advice is wait and see what happens. There are some skilled people involved in the proposed setup and configurations. Sadly there are a few who dont know a microphone from an antenna.
Time and paying attention to new signals will tell all.
Time and paying attention to new signals will tell all.
Kayn has a good point. Greater Vancouver and the surrounding area is 99.99% is Encrypted. Quebec is also very heavily encrypted. The maritimes, Alberta, and the rest of the country is a mixed batch. I guess it all depends on the province and thier needs.
Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk
- Status
Similar threads
