Police departments across the state flooded DOJ with correspondence about police radio encryption

Status
Not open for further replies.

mmckenna

I ♥ Ø
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
23,881
Location
Roaming the Intermountain West
You say:

Trust me...there is nothing political about this.

And then you make it political again….

However, if California laws would ever be applied here, I could say with positive certainty that perpetrator protection would be zero. Quite frankly, that is where Cali has dropped the ball.

You are letting your political opinion blind you to everything I said.

Feel free to look up the FBI info I linked to. Then look up what your own state has. Sounds like you are not going to be happy with what you find.
 

Ravenfalls

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
405
Bendix King
Harris
Kenwood

These 3 include encryption for free on latest radio's - either one or all
ADP, DES & AES.

Motorola is still ala carte

If they go DMR, every DMR radio has encryption standard.
 

Nchpiboy

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jul 7, 2018
Messages
184
Location
Hayesville, NC
I love the US obsession with rights. Us Brits think it’s almost comical. Your sovereign citizens, and every person seemingly knowing the wording of the Declaration of Independence. Here, most people have never heard of the Magna Carta or King John. Most people don’t even know who was the last King, and now many have never heard of Hitler or Winston Curchill. We have strict data protection rules. A Criminal’s history is secret. The police cannot share it with the public. Reading out personal data on a radio link with unknown people listening is simply not allowed. Knowing where a police car is going with flashing lights is secret. The press and tv cannot get private knowledge of events. Vehicle details and passenger details are secret. Police radios are encrypted and all police wear ear pieces so the public cannot hear the speakers on the radios. If they stop a vehicle the driver is not aware they are fed info about them, like identifying features and history, why they’re talking to them. Thry get warnings of concealed weapons or a dislike of the police.

All the excuses for bring able to listen to the Police are feeble. People just want to listen for fun, or if not for fun/interest, then the ONLY reason is potentially criminal reasons. Nobody needs to listen. The US citizen seems hell bent on rights, and knows them word for word. Sadly, it’s viewed at a distance as some kind of national paranoia - just amazing. Sorry. When our police went encrypted the scanner users moaned for a week, shrugged and moved on.
Well that was a lengthy read. Glad I DON'T live where you are.
 

zerg901

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
3,725
Location
yup
I listened to police radio channels for many years. Identity theft never seemed to be a problem in the past.

If a patrol unit calls in a license plate, the dispatcher could report a "2015 F make S style 4 door sedan red registered at 456 M St in A town - no wants no warrants"

If a name and SS number are called in, the dispatcher can report "party's birthdate is 16th day in 1958 - no wants, no warrants"

If just a SS number is called in, dispatcher can reply with - "party is As by Sm (for Adam Smith), DOB is 16th day of 1958 (for July 16 1958) - criminal history is X Y Z"

If just a name is called in, the dispatcher will probably need to ask for approximate age, height, weight, eye color, hair color and race. Reply can be same as for SS number.

I am not seeing the identity theft problem here.
 

900mhz

Member
Joined
May 13, 2005
Messages
432
You say:



And then you make it political again….



You are letting your political opinion blind you to everything I said.

Feel free to look up the FBI info I linked to. Then look up what your own state has. Sounds like you are not going to be happy with what you find.
It is what is called transparency. Nothing political here. I don't trust the FBI, because it is the FBI that has become political, not me. People need to stand up and require that agencies need to be non political.
 

mmckenna

I ♥ Ø
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
23,881
Location
Roaming the Intermountain West
It is what is called transparency. Nothing political here. I don't trust the FBI, because it is the FBI that has become political, not me. People need to stand up and require that agencies need to be non political.

This requirement has been around a long time, well before <insert political party of choice here> was in control. This isn't something new that popped up recently.
 

mmckenna

I ♥ Ø
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
23,881
Location
Roaming the Intermountain West
I listened to police radio channels for many years. Identity theft never seemed to be a problem in the past.
….
I am not seeing the identity theft problem here.

Times have changed. We're in a very litigious society, and lawyers are out there looking to make a quick buck any way they can. It won't require proof that someones identity was stolen via radio, only that the agency was not following standard IT principals and not abiding by the FBI requirements that they agreed to.

Standard IT policy is to never ever leave any doors open to identity theft. Public safety radio is one of the last places to embrace this. Everywhere else in the chain, the data is protected. The agreements that the agencies signed promised that they would follow the FBI requirements. Only thing that is changed is that they are now being held to that agreement.

There are many ways to approach this requirement other than radio encryption, but they come with trade-offs. Not all law enforcement agencies want to accept the trade-offs to appease hobbyists. I'm currently in these meetings, and I can tell you that never once, not once ever, has anyone in those meetings said anything about making sure hobbyists can still monitor the radios. Cost is currently a big issue due to infrastructure replacement funding, but as equipment gets replaced or agencies migrate to regional radio system, encryption will happen, and cost will not be the limiting factor.

Each agency will embrace this in their own ways. Some agencies will keep primary dispatch in the clear and move this sort of traffic to a 'records channel'. Some agencies will just encrypt everything so there is not question about being on the right channel. In some areas, officers will use terminals or cell phones. Some dispatch centers will find work arounds.
But none of that changes/diminishes the FBI requirements.
 

KM4OBL

Authorized Personnel
Joined
Dec 6, 2016
Messages
112
Location
Palookaville, USA
I love the US obsession with rights. Us Brits think it’s almost comical. Your sovereign citizens, and every person seemingly knowing the wording of the Declaration of Independence. Here, most people have never heard of the Magna Carta or King John. Most people don’t even know who was the last King, and now many have never heard of Hitler or Winston Curchill. We have strict data protection rules. A Criminal’s history is secret. The police cannot share it with the public. Reading out personal data on a radio link with unknown people listening is simply not allowed. Knowing where a police car is going with flashing lights is secret. The press and tv cannot get private knowledge of events. Vehicle details and passenger details are secret. Police radios are encrypted and all police wear ear pieces so the public cannot hear the speakers on the radios. If they stop a vehicle the driver is not aware they are fed info about them, like identifying features and history, why they’re talking to them. Thry get warnings of concealed weapons or a dislike of the police.

All the excuses for bring able to listen to the Police are feeble. People just want to listen for fun, or if not for fun/interest, then the ONLY reason is potentially criminal reasons. Nobody needs to listen. The US citizen seems hell bent on rights, and knows them word for word. Sadly, it’s viewed at a distance as some kind of national paranoia - just amazing. Sorry. When our police went encrypted the scanner users moaned for a week, shrugged and moved on.

Interesting that you mention that, because I've recently read a thick book about the Seven Years War, among other history books touching on the "New World" colonies. It is clear to me from reading these books that you are not the first person in the UK to remark on this. The British administrators and military officers sent to the colonies to consolidate the control of the UK in the colonies and win the war were very much surprised, then ultimately annoyed, by the colonists obsession with individual rights to the extent that many of them eventually decided the trouble of dealing with the colonists and their understanding of their rights was not worth the effort and expense.

For example, the British governors and military commanders were appalled when the colonies' farmers refused to board British soldiers. The British assumed it would be viewed as an honor and duty to be borne with no compensation for the expense. But that wasn't the case. They grew tired with being reminded by the colonists of their rights, and that sense of individual rights was one of the main reasons why the war was so expensive for the British government that it put an enormous strain on the treasury.

Anyway, where I beg to differ with your comments is the conclusion that we in the US know our rights well, word for word. In fact, many of us think we know our laws and rights, but we are largely ignorant of them. For example, many US citizens, when quoted portions of the US Constitution, have no idea where it comes from and often say they are fiercely opposed to the sentiments and policies quoted from the document. One reason for this is that we have a lot of people using social media platforms and television to promote nonsense about our laws and rights, but accurate information is seldom found in popular media.
 
Last edited:

Nchpiboy

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jul 7, 2018
Messages
184
Location
Hayesville, NC
Anyway, where I beg to differ with your comments is the conclusion that we in the US know our rights well, word for word. In fact, many of us think we know our laws and rights, but we are largely ignorant of them. For example, many US citizens, when quoted portions of the US Constitution, have no idea where it comes from and often say they are fiercely opposed to the sentiments and policies quoted from the document. One reason for this is that we have a lot of people using social media platforms and television to promote nonsense about our laws and rights, but accurate information is seldom found in popular media.
(y)
 

RFI-EMI-GUY

Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2013
Messages
6,877
I love the US obsession with rights. Us Brits think it’s almost comical. Your sovereign citizens, and every person seemingly knowing the wording of the Declaration of Independence. Here, most people have never heard of the Magna Carta or King John. Most people don’t even know who was the last King, and now many have never heard of Hitler or Winston Curchill. We have strict data protection rules. A Criminal’s history is secret. The police cannot share it with the public. Reading out personal data on a radio link with unknown people listening is simply not allowed. Knowing where a police car is going with flashing lights is secret. The press and tv cannot get private knowledge of events. Vehicle details and passenger details are secret. Police radios are encrypted and all police wear ear pieces so the public cannot hear the speakers on the radios. If they stop a vehicle the driver is not aware they are fed info about them, like identifying features and history, why they’re talking to them. Thry get warnings of concealed weapons or a dislike of the police.

All the excuses for bring able to listen to the Police are feeble. People just want to listen for fun, or if not for fun/interest, then the ONLY reason is potentially criminal reasons. Nobody needs to listen. The US citizen seems hell bent on rights, and knows them word for word. Sadly, it’s viewed at a distance as some kind of national paranoia - just amazing. Sorry. When our police went encrypted the scanner users moaned for a week, shrugged and moved on.

I am not sure I could live in the UK with all the secrecy. It seems there are two distinct classes of citizens in the UK, those in the know and the rest. Do you ever wonder about what is going on beyond the fence at Menwith Hill? US intelligence agents spying on UK citizens, UK intelligence agents spying on US citizens. Why? Does it make you feel safer?
 

chrismol1

P25 TruCking!
Joined
Mar 15, 2008
Messages
1,181
We have strict data protection rules. A Criminal’s history is secret. The police cannot share it with the public. Reading out personal data on a radio link with unknown people listening is simply not allowed. Knowing where a police car is going with flashing lights is secret. The press and tv cannot get private knowledge of events. Vehicle details and passenger details are secret. Police radios are encrypted and all police wear ear pieces so the public cannot hear the speakers on the radios. If they stop a vehicle the driver is not aware they are fed info about them, like identifying features and history, why they’re talking to them. Thry get warnings of concealed weapons or a dislike of the police.

All the excuses for bring able to listen to the Police are feeble. People just want to listen for fun, or if not for fun/interest, then the ONLY reason is potentially criminal reasons. Nobody needs to listen. The US citizen seems hell bent on rights, and knows them word for word. Sadly, it’s viewed at a distance as some kind of national paranoia - just amazing. Sorry.

Really? I've heard there are no guns in England, even your bobby's dont carry guns. You mean knives? I hear you have plenty of those. Dislike of police? Is that a social credit system? Do they query the suspects facebook for anti cop post likings for a traffic stop? And does that determine the behavior of the police against the suspect that they couldn't figure out within seconds of talking to them?
 

paulears

Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2015
Messages
789
Location
Lowestoft - UK
I am not sure I could live in the UK with all the secrecy. It seems there are two distinct classes of citizens in the UK, those in the know and the rest. Do you ever wonder about what is going on beyond the fence at Menwith Hill? US intelligence agents spying on UK citizens, UK intelligence agents spying on US citizens. Why? Does it make you feel safer?
Yes, I’m aware of the place and gave driven by it many times. I think that despite our grumbles about the Government by and large, we trust them. We don’t concern ourselves with this kind of freedom of information. I was working in comms during the Cold War. My friends and even my wife did not know what I was doing. Now we talk about it. Here, if an official tells somebody something secret people keep quiet. It’s part of our culture. The need to know is not a right. We don’t get upset. Our scanner users were grumpy about losing the emergency services but that was it. No outcry. In fact I feel that it was absolutely the correct thing to do. It should be private. It should not be public. It DOES make me feel safer. Should terrorists know if the police are about to knock on the door. Should reporters be aware when things are going wrong? We find this comforting. We find your loose lips worrying. I feel safer here than I ever did on my US visits. You allow anyone to own weapons. You can’t stop criminals having guns in any country but in the US they’re considered fun! That’s a strange kind of comfort. We don’t have two classes of citizen. None of us know secrets. The authorities do secrets, the rest of us simply don’t need to know. We like that. It’s sensible.
 

paulears

Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2015
Messages
789
Location
Lowestoft - UK
I do get the US perspective I think, but I just report how outsiders perceive certain US preoccupations and attitudes. My father, biologically was a US airman, so I’ve always been interested in our similarities but big differences.
 

slicerwizard

Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2002
Messages
7,643
Location
Toronto, Ontario
paulears is proud to live in a country where super-injunctions are a thing. They're used by the government and the upper crust to muzzle the riff-raff (like the press and mere commoners). One such case was where Elton John got a court to prevent the (obviously not free) press from reporting on a spat he was having with his partner - or even reporting on the injunction.

It's the same place where if you have an encrypted file and can't remember the key, you can be jailed. Wouldn't much matter if it was planted on your PC, phone, whatever - the law says you cough up a working key or off to the crowbar hotel.

paulears is no different than Chinese citizens who defend their lack of free access to the Internet, along with all the other restrictions placed on them by leaders they didn't elect.

[tldr: everyone thinks their country/government is the best...]


[In English tort law, a super-injunction is a type of injunction that prevents publication of information that is in issue and also prevents the reporting of the fact that the injunction exists at all.[1] The term was coined by a Guardian journalist covering the Trafigura controversy. Due to their very nature media organisations are not able to report who has obtained a super-injunction without being in contempt of court. The term super-injunction has sometimes been used imprecisely in the media to refer to any anonymised privacy injunction preventing publication of private information. Critics of super-injunctions have argued that they stifle free speech, that they are ineffective as they can be breached using the Internet and social media and that the taking out of an injunction can have the unintended consequence of publicising the information more widely, a phenomenon known as the Streisand effect.]
 

paulears

Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2015
Messages
789
Location
Lowestoft - UK
Really? I've heard there are no guns in England, even your bobby's dont carry guns. You mean knives? I hear you have plenty of those. Dislike of police? Is that a social credit system? Do they query the suspects facebook for anti cop post likings for a traffic stop? And does that determine the behavior of the police against the suspect that they couldn't figure out within seconds of talking to them?
Ordinary citizens have no desire for weapons. Of any kind. 3” blades for work or hobbies are ok so a leatherman on your belt is fine. A steak knife found in your car side pocket during a traffic stop is not! Farmers can have shotguns or small callibre rifles if, and only if, they can demonstrate need to the police, who licence weapons. Criminals carry knives, ‘for protection’ they claim. Non criminals don’t. My son is a police officer. He does not want to do firearms training. He will at some point do the taser training, but he is not keen. Facebook is a huge help yo the police. The police love it. It hells them catch idiots. Oddly, the criminals, especially drug criminals are not that anti cop. Nobody here really is. There’s a yob culture. Drugs is our public dislike. Pretty much the class of citizen who do drugs, are also those who in general steel from shops and fo petty crime. Serious crime is rare. Gun crime, outside of drugs is rare and outside big cities, gun crime is rare too. We actually have armed response units. The nearest one to me is about 20 miles away. Respect for police is common in people of all classes above 40? Respect from younger kids comes from better families. In the dodgy areas, respect for police has gone. Officially we do not have a class system, but in reality we do. The old upper, middle and working classes are all police supportive. The new non-working class are not. This class are disliked by practically everyone. They don’t work, they live on state benefits and make up the class who are socially trouble. I have never touched a firearm in my life bar a day out in the country where they gave me one to shoot those clay disc things. I hated it. I see armed police in london or at airports and it is not nice.
 

paulears

Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2015
Messages
789
Location
Lowestoft - UK
paulears is proud to live in a country where super-injunctions are a thing.

It's the same place where if you have an encrypted file and can't remember the key, you can be jailed. Wouldn't much matter if it was planted on your PC, phone, whatever - the law says you cough up a working key or off to the crowbar hotel.
Yep, you got it. We don’t need to know some things. We have ‘public interest’ as a legal thing. If it’s not in the public interest, it’s gone, and we like this. However, I’ve never heard of the encrypted file thing? I have no idea what this means? I suspect it got a bit mangled in translation.

we know the government don’t tell us the truth. We do have a freedom of information Act. Sometimes it’s useful but most normal people are happy not knowing. It’s worked for at least 500 years, so can’t be all bad. Laws do evolve here, but most citizens don’t really want change. From what I read on this forum and the internet in general, I’d go with our system any day.
 

paulears

Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2015
Messages
789
Location
Lowestoft - UK
I thought I'd pass on a great example of British secretness. During the Cold War, loads of things were really secret. For instance, near me, the underground bunkers where UK intercept fighters were controlled from was in a little Norfolk village called Neatishead. The locals of course were very aware of it's presence - but the spinning radar heads - huge overground buildings and massive nodding banana shaped height finding radars were a real give-away. However - on the Ordnance Survey maps - the Government sponsored mapping agency, it was an empty field. An official secret. Indeed - in London in Tottenham Court Rd - near theatre land and the centre of popular London, there was, for all to see a huge 600ft tall+ structure called the Post Office Tower - featuring a nuclear burst resistant shape, and loads of microwave radio link antennas. In a famous secrets trial the ABC trial, where almost everything was secret, three journalists were being tried for giving away official secrets. One of them was the Post Office Tower - again, missing from maps. In the trial it was, I believe, referred to as 'site 23' - despite the fact that every Londoner could see it! Quite a few sites are still missing from Google earth and street view. I discovered one when my drone refused to take off - I was near a geofenced secure area, recorded as a military site. I could see a field with a few nice houses. If you have google earth - look up this map reference, then try street view. 52 degs 11'40.84"N 1 deg 19'26.49"E Just south of a town called Framlingham where Ed Shearan comes from. It's 2021 and somebody has the clout to have a house in a field geofenced from DJI drones and missing from Google earth. Nobody here is that interested.
 

AuggieActually

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Oct 19, 2019
Messages
52
Location
Southwest BFE, OH
I rarely see so many self owns in one thread. Bragging about giving up liberty in the pursuit of feeling safe goes so far against the ideals that America was founded on that I really have difficulty comprehending it. No wonder we gave you guys the boot a couple hundred years ago.

In the very ABC trials you refer to, almost all the charges were dropped because the prosecution had to acknowledge that nearly every "fact" in the article was already public information. Not giving an installation an official descriptive name is not the same as denying it exists.

In the same paragraph, you talk about being able to keep secrets and then give away the exact location of a site that somebody is trying very hard to keep on the down low. How very un-British of you.

To stay relevant to this thread, full encryption is considered a problem for several reasons. There is argument that certain states sunshine laws would cover public safety radio transmissions. There is the ever present transparency and accountability arguments, that say behavior changes when it can't be supervised. There are financial, technical, and complexity issues that arise as all these letters attest to.

Just because the federal government requires something of you to give you more money doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.
 

KM4OBL

Authorized Personnel
Joined
Dec 6, 2016
Messages
112
Location
Palookaville, USA
Actually, in the 1700's in the colonies and USA, individual rights were most often circumscribed and limited by individual responsibilities. These ideas were written into many of the laws, because in those days, it was more popular than it is today in the USA to make a distinction between rights exercised individually and rights exercised communally (as a group). So, the idea of limiting liberty for the sake of other rights, like safety, is not at all foreign to the ideals the country was founded on.

For example, the colonists had a very different idea about firearm rights than we do today. The 2nd amendment was written very narrowly, in keeping with the thought of the times, to limit firearm possession to the context of keeping and bearing arms for the purpose of forming militias (used to capture escaped slaves in those days). There is nothing in the amendment about owning firearms or keeping them for personal protection. That wording was not an accident. Many people in those days believed a firearm should be used even for hunting only if it benefitted the community, rather than the individual doing the shooting. James Madison actually proposed a Virginia law that would ban use of a firearm to kill game unless the game was shared with the community. Today, such a law would be considered absurd in the USA, but that wasn't the case in the 1700's.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top