Orlando, FL Police to Encrypt all police talkgroups

[kikito]

Yea...that's what MDT's are for...in those places that have them. Nextel's, cellphones, etc...think about what you're saying. That's an extra step for the dispatcher, for the cop and another piece of equipment that can break. As a backup..fine, as the primary device...NO WAY!

READ my reply and what I was replying to, AGAIN. That's exactly what I meant, some of the stuff as a backup i.e. cellphone. Some of the stuff like MDT to free up personel at dispatch from the 'mundane' quick records check and to dispatch some of the addresses for discreet alarms, etc.

No matter what...a cop's PRIME method of immediate communication is the radio, not an MDT, not a cellphone, not a call box on a phone pole, not anything...except the 2 way radio.

I agree and that's what I said and meant. But with the money they're spending in encryption last I checked, was in upwards of $800 per radio initially. When you start factoring in the extra maintenance in general and TCO, spending about the same in MDT's doesn't sound too bad. Especially if it helps free up some personnel at dispatch.

But whatever, most pro-encryption people in here don't want to hear anything about useful alternatives. It's becoming a personal issue by now and they're out to show us little 'ol scanner heads..... :roll:

 

[RADIOGUY2002]

I have encryption, but find it only nesscary when critical information is given. Typical general conversation for me is never encrypted, I really do not see the point. While it is not state of the art (voice inversion) it works well for me. If I want to block out the casual listner who is I know is glooked to his scanner I'll use to set an example. Their is a difference between listening and getting in the way, that is one huge part of the prolbem. All my portables feature enrycption, however the repeater itself does not. Why is the question right. Inter-agency is critical, enrcyption is an option. I personally think the option should be their, however to encrypted entire system is relativily dumb idea. And yes, I work in public saftey and sit on the fence. I see positives and neagtives for both sides.

My pd has shared access with me on my repeater, I did it as an extended benefit on both parties interest. However, the fd choose to ignore the option and decided to play stupid. The offer was their, but the assitant chief was to intelligent to listen to some kid. So thats the option he took. A example of ignorance over intelligence, no one said he had to acknowlegde me or my radio traffic, the repeater was offered as a emergency backup should the need arise.

My thought process
-Well built design-good coverage / system that works first
conventional (working voice channel repeated if need be), then trunked (if demmand is their), then encryption. Always have a fail back system should encryption fail or trunked systemsould fail. (options) Limited options-bad things start to happen. To many options ignornace takes placed, becomes toys.


Think practical first !!!

 

[donc13]

The Phoenix PRWN trunked system used to run all chase channels encrypted. And no, the media was not permitted to listen. As far as I know, the media is also not permitted to monitor Orange County Sheriff's in California either. Both are far larger than "3 man outfits".

The encryption capabilities of our system have also been abused. Shortly after the chase channels opened up, a 998 (officer involved shooting) went out. All was well until the media started showing up, then it was moved to C-14 which is an encrypted channel. I've also been on scenes where the local PD here refused to give any info and threatened all media on scene with arrest if they didn't leave the area just because some of us chose not to comply with a request to move to an area where none of the scene was visible (translation: they wanted to thump on a bad guy and we were there with cameras - they didn't like that). If you think the media and the cops get along like good buddies out here, think again.

-AZ

I was a cop in Denver for 26 years, and some of my best friends were media types, such as cameramen from the local TV stations. It was a whole lot easier to get a friend to help than to get an enemy to help. I had a 63 car pileup on a raised portion of the interstate and had a local TV guy walk from one end ot the other before I started having the cars pulled off the freeway. Having that tape made the cleanup and eventual reporting 1,000% eaiser! But back on point...yea, at the end of a chase....sometimes emotions do get a bit carried away. That's life. So I can understand not wanting chases on unencrypted channels...although I see the other side also...let the citizens know what's coming at them so they can get the flock out of the way. Of course, how many people driving around likely to get in the way of a chase are watching TV?

My basic point is...I've never heard of any large dept. that didn't have a way for local media to get live coverage of standard dispatch channels. Either by a drop from the radio room or via allowing them to buy radios which the PD would program with the proper "public" dispatch channels. The whole idea behind encryption isn't to keep secrets from the public, but to keep the bad guys off balance.

 

[donc13]

READ my reply and what I was replying to, AGAIN. That's exactly what I meant, some of the stuff as a backup i.e. cellphone. Some of the stuff like MDT to free up personel at dispatch from the 'mundane' quick records check and to dispatch some of the addresses for discreet alarms, etc.

You would never, under any circumstances, unless the main radio system when out, use anything except a voice or MDT transmission to dispatch vehicles. The use of a cell phone, Nextel, pager or whatever for dispatch is fraught with error and is NOT recorded and leaves the department open for all kinds of liability. I know of no department that would ever consider doing that. Again...I don't know about every dept. in this country, so some may do it...but if they do...my believe is they're stupid and are leaving themselves wide open for civil suits.

 

[bpckty1]

Why do I have this feeling that a mouse had input to this decision?

;^>

 

[policefreak]

You know, with the exception of the sensitive talkgroups, I wonder if encryption can compromise public safety. If there is a major accident or hazardous conditions (such as ice and snow) on a highway and people listening in to their scanners hear about it, they will likely avoid the highway, which will cut down on congestion working against the personnel responding. And lets face it, those first few minutes are critical, before it comes over TV and radio.
If there was a serious situation, such as a chemical leak in a residentual area, those able to listen to their scanners would be in the know, and one step ahead of the game (so to speak) if an evacuation were to ensue.
Suppose I was a father, and my children were playing outside and there was a suspicious person or criminal activity in my neighborhood, I would like to know about it. Especially being that where we live here in South Jersey, we are in (and no disrespect to the media because you ARE doing a hell of a job, but this is a terrible reality) a 98.7% donut hole of media coverage.
On a more personal note, I have learned a lot of useful things by listening to the scanner, such as accident-prone areas to avoid whenever possible. I'm in college studying Communications. I've been listening to my county's public safety for over a year. As a result I am interested in working for the county's dispatch. If I wasn't able to listen in, I am sure I wouldn't be considering this at all.
I see the other side of the issue too, but I believe (and this is just my humble opinion) that the risks of encryption outweigh the benefits.
I also wonder if someone has any hard-fact findings on whether encryption on all public safety channels cuts down crime, or leads to more arrests.

 

[donc13]

You know, with the exception of the sensitive talkgroups, I wonder if encryption can compromise public safety. If there is a major accident or hazardous conditions (such as ice and snow) on a highway and people listening in to their scanners hear about it, they will likely avoid the highway, which will cut down on congestion working against the personnel responding. And lets face it, those first few minutes are critical, before it comes over TV and radio.
If there was a serious situation, such as a chemical leak in a residentual area, those able to listen to their scanners would be in the know, and one step ahead of the game (so to speak) if an evacuation were to ensue.
Suppose I was a father, and my children were playing outside and there was a suspicious person or criminal activity in my neighborhood, I would like to know about it. Especially being that where we live here in South Jersey, we are in (and no disrespect to the media because you ARE doing a hell of a job, but this is a terrible reality) a 98.7% donut hole of media coverage.
On a more personal note, I have learned a lot of useful things by listening to the scanner, such as accident-prone areas to avoid whenever possible. I'm in college studying Communications. I've been listening to my county's public safety for over a year. As a result I am interested in working for the county's dispatch. If I wasn't able to listen in, I am sure I wouldn't be considering this at all.
I see the other side of the issue too, but I believe (and this is just my humble opinion) that the risks of encryption outweigh the benefits.
I also wonder if someone has any hard-fact findings on whether encryption on all public safety channels cuts down crime, or leads to more arrests.

There aren't enough people with scanners in their vehicles to make any difference. The media get the information (via a drop or their in house scanners) and broadcast it almost immediately ... remember..they want to be able to say, "You heard it here first!..."

I don't know what percentage of folks listen to scanners or public safety radio, but very strongly suspect it's about 5% of the population or less. So no, having encrypted channels won't jeopardize public safety.

 

[kikito]

I don't know what percentage of folks listen to scanners or public safety radio, but very strongly suspect it's about 5% of the population or less. So no, having encrypted channels won't jeopardize public safety.

I think the percentage is way lower than 5%.

When you do the calculations based on the approximate current U.S. population of 300 million, 5% would be about 15 million. I seriously doubt there's fifteen million people listening out there to their local agencies.

I would estimate the percentage to be less than 1%, which is still about 3 million people.

 

[kikito]

You would never, under any circumstances, unless the main radio system when out, use anything except a voice or MDT transmission to dispatch vehicles. The use of a cell phone, Nextel, pager or whatever for dispatch is fraught with error and is NOT recorded and leaves the department open for all kinds of liability. I know of no department that would ever consider doing that. Again...I don't know about every dept. in this country, so some may do it...but if they do...my believe is they're stupid and are leaving themselves wide open for civil suits.

Yeah, that all depends on each agency and what they have for resources. I know our system can even merge cellphones into the trunked system along with any disparate radios or frequency band or technology, so I'm sure they might have something in place to keep track of it all.

 

[DaveNF2G]

I don't know what percentage of folks listen to scanners or public safety radio, but very strongly suspect it's about 5% of the population or less. So no, having encrypted channels won't jeopardize public safety.

So there are 3 to 5 million expendable people out there whose personal safety has nothing to do with "public safety" - is that what you're telling us?

Something that puts anyone at risk jeopardizes public safety!

Note that I'm not saying that this is what the debate is or should be about. The real questions have been asked in this thread - does public safety radio encryption endanger anyone? Secondarily, is it effective at doing whatever it is intended to do?

 

[kikito]

Secondarily, is it effective at doing whatever it is intended to do?

I think the main thing encryption is effective at doing is keeping the media and citizens from monitoring them. And from that is where most of the pros and cons arguments derive from, every time this subject is discussed. I don't see encryption preventing crime or increasing officer safety in any significant numbers, if at all.

Plus, in these times of needed and mandated "interoperability", I would say it most likely hinders or in the least, adds an extra layer of complexity, expense and possible failure to communications at such times of need i.e. possible loss/malfunction of encryption keys, etc. And yes, that still happens nowadays even with the latest and greatest technology. Remember there's one thing that even the most advanced technology will probably never solve or compensate for: human imperfection.

 

[grem467]

It does serve to help keep people from programming their trunked radios without permission on the system, especially since talkgroups can be programmed to reject radios without the proper key. So from an officer safety standpoint, keeping people from heckling cops on their bootleg radios could definately qualify. It also improves over all system security.

 

[ragtime88]

A more plausible candidate for encryption is the Drivers Privacy Protection Act (DPPA) which is 18 USC (Chapter 123) 2721, "Prohibition on release and use of certain personal information from state motor vehicle records." Scanner listeners often hear driver record details being voiced that are specifically protected by this law.

 

[DaveNF2G]

It does serve to help keep people from programming their trunked radios without permission on the system, especially since talkgroups can be programmed to reject radios without the proper key. So from an officer safety standpoint, keeping people from heckling cops on their bootleg radios could definately qualify. It also improves over all system security.

That has nothing to do with voice encryption.

 

[donc13]

I think the percentage is way lower than 5%.

When you do the calculations based on the approximate current U.S. population of 300 million, 5% would be about 15 million. I seriously doubt there's fifteen million people listening out there to their local agencies.

I would estimate the percentage to be less than 1%, which is still about 3 million people.

That was my original guess, less than 1%, but I did a quickie search and found it was closer to 5%. But in any event, those 3 or 15 or however many people are dispersed throughout the country, only a teeny, tiny fraction would be in a position at any point in time to hear an emergency occur via a scanner and be able to react to it sooner than had they just been listening to a normal local radio station. That's why I said, encryption does not jeopardize public safety.

 

[grem467]

That has nothing to do with voice encryption.

sure it does, in a properly programmed system, a non-enc radio or one without the proper key will get rejected from TXing on said talkgroup.

"SEC TX REQ"

 

[Dave520]

With out a system key, the radio will not even work! The system will not recognize it, not even for just receiving. And if by chance ( a big if) you can get it programmed on the system. All the system administrator has to do is block your radio id from the sytem and you now have a very expensive paper weight.

 

[DaveNF2G]

sure it does, in a properly programmed system, a non-enc radio or one without the proper key will get rejected from TXing on said talkgroup.

"SEC TX REQ"

So what? What does that have to do with being able to listen to voice traffic with a scanner? The system key is required whether the system is encrypted or not - to transmit. It has nothing to do with receiving on a scanner.

Voice encryption has absolutely no bearing on whether or not someone can figure out the system key. The key is not sent by voice, so encryption and system keys for the purpose of the original topic in this thread are irrelevant to each other.

 

[grem467]

It does serve to help keep people from programming their trunked radios without permission on the system, especially since talkgroups can be programmed to reject radios without the proper key. So from an officer safety standpoint, keeping people from heckling cops on their bootleg radios could definately qualify. It also improves over all system security.

are you even bothering to read whats being said? There is an idiot on these forums that was asking for someone to program his trunked radio on a system in GA, saying he even had the system key (which isnt hard at all to get BTW hense motorolas new advanced system key).. so that being said now hes ready to go proggy up his nice shiney new trunked radio, key up on the TG and cause issues.... now on a properly programmed system, running ENC, he does the same thing and now there is no point in even programming it up... besides being discouraged by the fact of not being able to listen anyway. But if some moron wanted to still jam the talkgroup, with the ENC there can be additional security measures to make sure the system will reject his radio in the first place, without having to have a system manager sit there and brick it.

sure there are other reasons for the ENC, but it sure keeps idiots from showing up on trunked systems with their bootlegged radios.... and bet your butt its a selling point for "system security" by the sales guys.

Does it suck for scanner listeners when things go ENC? sure it does... will whining about it make anyone not use it or proprietery formats? highly unlikely... Face it, not all departments feel that others have the right to listen in, anymore than they feel you could drive their cop cars, or plug your computers into their lan jacks at the substations, and sales guys are more than happy to capitalize on it.

How come there isnt similar uproar over the new kenwood digital, or MotoTRBO... granted there is animosity over Opensky, but it just amazes me how someone turns on ENC, and people react like the boogy man just came and threw their scanner in the river. Its not the end of the world, and im sure 90% of the citizens could care less if Podunk PD is running encryption, or even know that the radios podunk PD uses are not "cell phones" or "CBs" lol

 

[kikito]

....but it sure keeps idiots from showing up on trunked systems with their bootlegged radios....

I will have to agree 100% with that. I definitely don't want anybody not authorized to be interfering with the operation of any system, especially Public Safety.

How come there isnt similar uproar over the new kenwood digital, or MotoTRBO... granted there is animosity over Opensky

Because MOTOTRBO and NEXEDGE/NXDN seems to be geared towards business users primarily and even if it's not, at this point there's no significant Public Safety numbers using it yet....