Police Encryption: Good or Bad?

[zz0468]

The scanners were put in because too many people were misssing their callsign when using the (at-the time) Spectras to scan the other agencies.

I see several flaws with this philosophy. Starting with the perception that one agency must know what the others are doing in order to function within their roll, I question how true that would be, outside a major incident operating under unified command.

Priority scan works pretty good, but it requires careful consideration of how many channels are allowed to be scanned. Receiving ones own traffic while stopped on a scanned talk group relies on the priority scan data carried on the voice channel. It's possible to set priority scan to an excessive number of talk groups. In conventional operation, it's reliant on the priority revert where the radio samples it's priority channel, making that audible tick heard while scanning. At worst, you'd miss a couple tenths of a second of transmission.

In any event, if scanning is causing problems, adjustment needs to be made somewhere, and part of what gets looked at is what actually NEEDS to be scanned. In some cases, a joint dispatch operation may be what's called for.

And finally, if one agency goes encrypted, defeating scanning, and problems arise between agencies, management and the local politicians need to step it up and formalize cooperation. That could include creation of a JPA with a regional system under common control.

At a truly professional level, encryption is not an impediment to interagency cooperation. If it is, someone somewhere is not operating at a truly professional level.

 

[mmckenna]

The consequences unfortunately could be a seriously injured or dead police officer or EMT in my situation and I obviously don't want that.

When I was young, my uncle was a sergeant in a large police department. I rode along with him when I was in my late teens one night.
The way they addressed this was that the primary radio stayed on the dispatch channel for that district.
Only the sergeants vehicles had scanners. He'd monitor what the adjacent agencies were doing and pass on the necessary information to his guys as it was needed. That took the requirements off the officers to monitor multiple radios.

The agency I work for is fortunate enough that all local agencies are running analog VHF, so monitoring them is easy. There is only one adjacent jurisdiction they monitor in the cars using priority scan. Dispatchers know this and will call the units ID twice if they don't get an answer the first time. As for all the other local agencies, the dispatchers have receivers that allow them to hear what's going on. If the determine there is something happening that might splatter on our guys, they pass it on.

If loss of life is a real concern, then relying on a consumer electronics product is probably a very bad plan. It makes me wonder how a union would approach that in the event it did happen. Seems like it's a huge lawsuit waiting to happen. Worse yet, if your agency is expecting you to provide your own scanner as part of your job and for officer safety, then it would be time to make a really big decision about how bad I wanted to work there.

As zz stated, there's ways to address this, and agencies refusing to cooperate, being penny wise-pound foolish, or just ignoring the issue isn't the way to do it. If officer safety is a concern, then agencies need to properly equip their people.
There is a lot of officer safety information that comes in via other sources than just radio.
If the pertinent information was coming in via the CAD system to your dispatch, and the dispatcher failed to pass it on to the officer, there'd be some hell to pay somewhere along the line and that would get fixed.
Same would be true for radio traffic from a nearby agency. If it's required as part of the job, and you can't get it due to encryption, then that needs to be fixed. The chiefs need to meet and work this out. It's not going to get fixed on a hobby scanner website. It's one of the issues that needs to be addressed when the decision is made to switch to encryption. If said local agency refuses to share encryption keys, or at least allow your agency to buy at least one radio that they program on their system, then you've got much bigger issues on your hands.

If this is an issue you do face today, you probably need to talk to your union rep about your concerns. I think expecting a consumer scanner to be a life saving tool is getting a bit ridiculous, tight budgets or not.

 

[mmckenna]

But I wasn't talking about the hobbyist category from your post. I was talking about the middle one; "Self Appointed government watchdog: The government is out to get me and I need to be able to monitor all their communications." I quoted that part and was the only part I was addressing. I am of the opinion that you were too dismissive (uncharacteristic of your usual posts) of the real need for the people to watch over their own government if they with to remain a free people. It is a long standing tradition and perhaps duty for individuals to continue to pull towards individual liberty to counter balance government's continual pull towards tyranny. Without that resistance, what happens to government is a dangerous and terrible thing. History bears witness to this time and time again.

I understand what you are saying, but I disagree.

There is no requirement that the public have real time access to law enforcement radio communications, that's why I'm seeming to be dismissive about the suggestions that it is. If that's a documented law somewhere, I'd welcome you pointing me to it.

The fact that it has been possible for so long should be viewed as pure convenience, and convenience only. There's no requirement that an agency give you access to their communications just because they change technologies. And technologies will continue to change, and scanner manufacturers will lag behind. When P25 falls out of favor and LTE takes over, scanners will be left in the dark, even without encryption.

 

[KevinC]

When P25 falls out of favor and LTE takes over, scanners will be left in the dark, even without encryption.

I heard that the guys that did DVP Buster and ASTRO Hack have already figured out LTE. :wink:

 

[Hans13]

I understand what you are saying, but I disagree.

Fair enough. You've expressed you reasoning and viewpoint and I've expressed mine. Remember, I'm not arguing for transparency based upon a law. Rather I am arguing for it based upon the whole of human history. Governments grow out of hand and eventually turn on the people it serves. This nation was founded with this essential fact firmly in mind. It is the centerpiece of the Constitution of the United States of America and many states' constitutions. The colonists fought a revolution and a nation fought a civil was over the notion of unchecked government power. Although I no longer consider myself bound by it, many of us here have sworn an oath. Early on in adulthood, my interest was, in part, motivated by that. Now, it is a matter of self-preservation and leaving behind the best chance at a free society for posterity. Bottom line for me... wholesale encryption of public safety radio traffic is extremely dangerous to individual liberty because it is yet another avenue to limit transparency and foster the growth of tyranny. The more public safety, law enforcement in particular, separates itself from community, the more the public will grow distrustful of it. In the long run, lack of transparency will ironically cost public safety employees' lives on many fronts.

 

[mmckenna]

Fair enough. You've expressed you reasoning and viewpoint and I've expressed mine. Remember, I'm not arguing for transparency based upon a law. Rather I am arguing for it based upon the whole of human history. Governments grow out of hand and eventually turn on the people it serves. This nation was founded with this essential fact firmly in mind. It is the centerpiece of the Constitution of the United States of America and many states' constitutions. The colonists fought a revolution and a nation fought a civil was over the notion of unchecked government power. Although I no longer consider myself bound by it, many of us here have sworn an oath. Early on in adulthood, my interest was, in part, motivated by that. Now, it is a matter of self-preservation and leaving behind the best chance at a free society for posterity. Bottom line for me... wholesale encryption of public safety radio traffic is extremely dangerous to individual liberty because it is yet another avenue to limit transparency and foster the growth of tyranny. The more public safety, law enforcement in particular, separates itself from community, the more the public will grow distrustful of it. In the long run, lack of transparency will ironically cost public safety employees' lives on many fronts.

And all that I agree with, mostly.

But the government is made up of the people. If those in the government are not behaving, then they need to be voted out and replaced with citizens that will. Law enforcement agencies have oversight from the government, that government is us.
I think my issue is when the U.S. "government" gets viewed as an elite bunch of people that are separate from the rest of us. Some may think that, I know the current meat head we have in office certainly acts that way. But "we the people" need to change that. There's a whole lot of reason that is happening, and it comes down to the voters.

Although I no longer consider myself bound by it, many of us here have sworn an oath.

As have many of us. However I fail to see where any of that gives us rights to encrypted material in real time. Never happened when I was in the service. We don't have real time access to law enforcement e-mail, phone calls, etc. Not sure why scanner traffic is different than that, other than the simple convenience of it.

 

[Citywide173]

I see several flaws with this philosophy. Starting with the perception that one agency must know what the others are doing in order to function within their roll, I question how true that would be, outside a major incident operating under unified command.

Priority scan works pretty good, but it requires careful consideration of how many channels are allowed to be scanned. Receiving ones own traffic while stopped on a scanned talk group relies on the priority scan data carried on the voice channel. It's possible to set priority scan to an excessive number of talk groups. In conventional operation, it's reliant on the priority revert where the radio samples it's priority channel, making that audible tick heard while scanning. At worst, you'd miss a couple tenths of a second of transmission.

In any event, if scanning is causing problems, adjustment needs to be made somewhere, and part of what gets looked at is what actually NEEDS to be scanned. In some cases, a joint dispatch operation may be what's called for.

And finally, if one agency goes encrypted, defeating scanning, and problems arise between agencies, management and the local politicians need to step it up and formalize cooperation. That could include creation of a JPA with a regional system under common control.

At a truly professional level, encryption is not an impediment to inter
agency cooperation. If it is, someone somewhere is not operating at a truly professional level.

1. It is a UHF conventional system across PD, FD and EMS....talkgroups have nothing to do with it and Motorolas have a max 16 channels in a scanlist on conventional. That couple of thenth's is all that's needed to miss your number, as was the case when we decided to add the scanners. The call volume has increased exponentially in my time with the department, but not the radio system. We are currently running about 140,000 calls per year-all are dispatched verbally, although the content dispatched has been reduced by the addition of MDTs. All calls also require verbal acknowledgement. There really isn't time to have to call units multiple times. All systems are independently maintained in-house.

2. The police and EMS dispatchers are adjacent to each other, separated by a single wall with two doors. Fire Alarm is at a separate location. The police are dispatched by civilians who are part of an outside union and EMS is dispatched by uniformed EMTs who are part of the police patrolman's union. Messages are sent via CAD. When the police want EMS fast, they come through the door, but when info that might be important to EMS is shared, they usually send it via CAD. It is not going to be combined anytime soon.

3. Claiming there is a flaw with having to know what another agency is doing seems to completely contradict my statements earlier about having avoided driving into an active shooting scene. That scene went to crap in about 15 seconds while we were responding in. I have helped officers that were calling for help because they were getting their ***es kicked. If you do not maintain situational awareness, you are not doing your job right. If you have a tool that helps that awareness, you should be using it.

4. Professional is a relevant term. When you have your own fiefdom, you protect it. You do not allow anyone else to get their fingers into something you have power over for fear of losing that power and you don't care what the effect is on someone that you don't have control over. This is the reality of the system managers-they will claim the officer safety line as justification and quite honestly not care if it puts other responders at risk. This is the Northeast, it's been part of politics for over three hundred years and isn't going to change anytime soon.

I like your Utopian view, unfortunately it is not the world I live in. If it comes to a consideration here, my best option is to make as much noise about it and bring so much attention on that person's fiefdom that they choose to go with the path of least resistance rather than be scrutinized. That is the reality of politics around here. I said it before-I don't see it happening anytime soon, but the more departments that fully encrypt increase the chances it will happen here. There is no need to encrypt daily operations channels and anything sensitive can go over an encrypted tactical channel or the phone. This is coming from a person who works the street, who used to own a shop and understands how systems work. To be told "it's the wave of the future, get used to it" is not acceptable to me.

 

[Citywide173]

Worse yet, if your agency is expecting you to provide your own scanner as part of your job and for officer safety, then it would be time to make a really big decision about how bad I wanted to work there.

No, the scanners are provided. I personally carry an EX600 in addition to my issued XTS2500 for the sole purpose of monitoring the local police district and fire channels when I'm working so that I minimize the risk of not knowing about something while I'm out of the vehicle.

This is what the guys in the trucks have.

 

[bob550]

Here's an interesting five year-old read on the subject: https://www.theverge.com/2013/4/19/4243766/why-are-police-scanners-open-to-the-public.

 

[Hans13]

And all that I agree with, mostly.

But the government is made up of the people. If those in the government are not behaving, then they need to be voted out and replaced with citizens that will. Law enforcement agencies have oversight from the government, that government is us.
I think my issue is when the U.S. "government" gets viewed as an elite bunch of people that are separate from the rest of us. Some may think that, I know the current meat head we have in office certainly acts that way. But "we the people" need to change that. There's a whole lot of reason that is happening, and it comes down to the voters.

We do not disagree on this point. I say it comes down to more than voters. It comes down to every liberty loving individual in a nation; voter or not. (Think back to the original qualified voter in the nation. It was not all inclusive and I'm not so sure it should be. It is not currently all inclusive, but in a different way.) Each must do what they can towards the goal of ensuring maximum transparency and accountability. I, and many others, do our part as best we can.

As have many of us. However I fail to see where any of that gives us rights to encrypted material in real time. Never happened when I was in the service. We don't have real time access to law enforcement e-mail, phone calls, etc. Not sure why scanner traffic is different than that, other than the simple convenience of it.

That's a misuse of the term "rights." My only purpose in pointing out an oath was to highlight the initial reason that some get involved in government accountability and to remind those who still bind themselves to an oath. This is tied to your original post of, "Self Appointed government watchdog: The government is out to get me and I need to be able to monitor all their communications."

The reason that encrypted radio traffic is different is because it takes an intentional and overt act as well as public money on the part of government to obscure the communication. Left unencrypted, the traffic would be available to the public as it traditionally always has. Real time access to email, telephone calls, etc; would require specialized efforts to make them available. That is something which has not traditionally been done. The comparison is apples to oranges.

Government has no rights; only privileges as something must be living to possess actual, natural rights. (Let's avoid the tangent of a legal fiction known as corporations.) Likewise, when a government employee accepts a paycheck, that employee acts primarily under government privilege and not under the individual's rights (primarily). That means while the agent of government acts under privilege, that agent agrees to set aside exercise of some of those individual rights in exchange for compensation. Right =/= privileges. Government must be as transparent as possible, otherwise the nation will eventually find itself under a tyrannical, oppressive government. If a people wish to remain free and avoid crushing servitude, they must continually struggle for transparency and accountability in government. Encryption of all public safety traffic is an enormous leap towards that servitude.

 

[Hans13]

I like your Utopian view, unfortunately it is not the world I live in. If it comes to a consideration here, my best option is to make as much noise about it and bring so much attention on that person's fiefdom that they choose to go with the path of least resistance rather than be scrutinized. That is the reality of politics around here. I said it before-I don't see it happening anytime soon, but the more departments that fully encrypt increase the chances it will happen here. There is no need to encrypt daily operations channels and anything sensitive can go over an encrypted tactical channel or the phone. This is coming from a person who works the street, who used to own a shop and understands how systems work. To be told "it's the wave of the future, get used to it" is not acceptable to me.

Spot on. Thank you for continuing to fight for what is necessary. You have my gratitude and respect.

 

[MTS2000des]

4. Professional is a relevant term. When you have your own fiefdom, you protect it. You do not allow anyone else to get their fingers into something you have power over for fear of losing that power and you don't care what the effect is on someone that you don't have control over. This is the reality of the system managers-they will claim the officer safety line as justification and quite honestly not care if it puts other responders at risk. This is the Northeast, it's been part of politics for over three hundred years and isn't going to change anytime soon.

This view is the biggest fantasy world many persons who are scanner enthusiasts who are NOT involved with public safety communications frequently espouse on forums whenever (insert agency name here) implements encryption. With a few exceptions, most system administrators/support managers/radio managers do as they are INSTRUCTED by their superiors the same way you accept directives from your employers.

Many radio enthusiasts then resort to accusing those officials of being corrupt, on the take, getting kick backs from vendors, et al with absolutely ZERO evidence, proof or anything and these statements do nothing other than further alienate the radio hobby community from public officials. Remember this when making such statements on forums.

 

[mmckenna]

The reason that encrypted radio traffic is different is because it takes an intentional and overt act as well as public money on the part of government to obscure the communication. ……….

……….Encryption of all public safety traffic is an enormous leap towards that servitude.

I can certainly appreciate your passion, however, I don't agree with how it all applies to this discussion. Especially that last part, to me that is a bit of a stretch.

Not too long ago a lot of police departments were dispatched via one way calls over frequencies not far above the current AM broadcast band. With a home AM broadcast receiver, tuning to the high end of the band would allow the average citizen to hear police dispatches.

-So, when the change was made from the top of the AM broadcast band to higher frequencies using public funds, was that an overt act? Were police departments expected to stay on those frequencies for the benefit of the listening audience?



I think it's dangerous to take something for granted that was never intended for public consumption, and get upset when it gets taken away. That's where my "convenience" statement came in.

I agree, I don't like the government taking things away from me, especially things that are intentionally set aside for public use. National Parks and monuments, for one, opened up for oil exploration. Hunting opened up on game refuges, for another. Those were areas that were intended for the good of the people from the start, then taken away. However, I don't see that public safety communications was ever intended for public consumption.

I like the idea of dispatch channel staying clear and the tactical frequencies going encrypted. That makes a lot of sense, however it has some issues:
-It requires additional work by the officers and dispatchers. They have enough to do as it is.
-It adds risk when an officer or dispatcher forgets to switch channels. Assuming something is private when it actually isn't tends to get a lot of people in trouble.
-Any public safety professional that wants to hide their actions from the listening public just needs to switch channels, pick up a cell phone, or some other means of already private communications.
I don't see that stopping encryption is going to address any of this, other than the convenience for the public listener. And I think that is what this really boils down to, at least from the point of view of a hobbyist website.
And I think that's what the chiefs will see when this discussion comes up.

 

[K9JLR]

I spent some considerable time last month riding with my stepbrother (Arizona state trooper, GIITEM - Gang and Immigration Intelligence Team Enforcement Mission). I brought my SDS100 along, we used it in a few cases to listen to local traffic and offer assistance to those agencies, and we had some spirited conversations. There were a couple of other details that involved the county SO or municipal PDs, in one case with them riding in our vehicle, so it was interesting to get all of their perspectives on this whole topic.

I'm completely an advocate for keeping routine dispatch operations in the clear, as a hobbyist, but I respect some of the concerns on the other side of the aisle. There is virtually no support from some of those professionals for keeping things in the clear. They claim to encounter a large number of members of the general public who either have scanners or are listening on the apps. They constantly have to consider what they say over the air, or change the way they conduct routine operations over the radio because of this. One of their biggest issues is also either people showing up on calls, or tipping off, aiding, or abetting criminals via information gained by monitoring the police frequencies. Sometimes they do actually effect arrests where the perps either had a scanner or were listening on an app themselves. You can't really argue that that doesn't pose some officer safety risks. It's a real issue and a major inconvenience for how they do their job, so they would be none too happy to see more security in that regard.

So it's not the ordinary hobbyist, most of which populates this forum, that seems to be the real problem. It's the few misusing it that are ruining it for everybody else. That having been said, this was just a small, anecdotal sample size based on my own conversation with a few LEOs last month. I certainly did my part to express positive reasons why routine traffic should be in the clear, but sometimes it's good to hear the other side of the equation too.



Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

 

[K7MFC]

People also need to stop acting like a local agency going encrypted is the death knell of their hobby hobby. The times are certainly different from when most of us got into scanners, but there's still SO much to listen to out there..

 

[Hans13]

I can certainly appreciate your passion, however, I don't agree with how it all applies to this discussion. Especially that last part, to me that is a bit of a stretch.

It's good that we can get relevant points of views out there for others to consider.

Not too long ago a lot of police departments were dispatched via one way calls over frequencies not far above the current AM broadcast band. With a home AM broadcast receiver, tuning to the high end of the band would allow the average citizen to hear police dispatches.

-So, when the change was made from the top of the AM broadcast band to higher frequencies using public funds, was that an overt act? Were police departments expected to stay on those frequencies for the benefit of the listening audience?

That's another apples to oranges comparison. Switching frequency or modulation is not necessarily an overt attempt to hinder transparency. Encryption is specifically designed to hide the content. Frequency and modulation changes can, within reason, often be overcome. Encryption has only one purpose; to hide the information.

I think it's dangerous to take something for granted that was never intended for public consumption, and get upset when it gets taken away. That's where my "convenience" statement came in.

I agree in the caution but not in the premise. Those communications should be accessible to the public in real time. You are starting from the opposite viewpoint. In this, intent isn't as important. It may not have been the intent that the public can hear but it does not negate the idea that the public should, indeed, be able to listen. Again, my point of view is from government transparency and a free society.

I agree, I don't like the government taking things away from me, especially things that are intentionally set aside for public use. National Parks and monuments, for one, opened up for oil exploration. Hunting opened up on game refuges, for another. Those were areas that were intended for the good of the people from the start, then taken away. However, I don't see that public safety communications was ever intended for public consumption.

I resonate which much of that but reiterate that intent is not important for this aspect of the issue. The basic questions include, "Should we live in a free society?" "How important is transparency to a free society?" "Who is the servant and who is the master?" I believe many of these questions can be answered by even cursory examination of the writings of those who broke away from the British monarchy and sought to form more free nations. Although not gospel, their writings and the writings of great thinkers that influenced them will lead one to the conclusion that government accountability is paramount in prevention of tyranny. How this relates to intent in this discussion is that the intentions of public safety in regards to earlier communications are irrelevant as maximum transparency is a requirement of a free society. Perhaps they didn't originally intend on the public being able to listen to radio traffic. It doesn't matter because the people of a free society ought to be listening to that traffic and watching over what their servants are doing.

I like the idea of dispatch channel staying clear and the tactical frequencies going encrypted.

That makes a lot of sense, however it has some issues:
-It requires additional work by the officers and dispatchers. They have enough to do as it is.

Inconvenience to government is not an excuse. They "do" too much. There's too much intrusion into people's lives already. I'm a strong proponent of peace officers and not law enforcement officers. The former is consistent with a free society wherein individuals are responsible for their own safety and security. The latter eventually becomes an oppressive force. The Nuremberg Defense is not acceptable for good reasons.

-It adds risk when an officer or dispatcher forgets to switch channels. Assuming something is private when it actually isn't tends to get a lot of people in trouble.

Incompetence and mistakes are no excuse. Government creating problems and then offering solutions, in this case encryption, is typical bad form.

-Any public safety professional that wants to hide their actions from the listening public just needs to switch channels, pick up a cell phone, or some other means of already private communications.

Yes. That is what they need to do. Wholesale encryption is undoubtedly detrimental to transparency. That is why it ought not be implemented in a free society.

I don't see that stopping encryption is going to address any of this, other than the convenience for the public listener. And I think that is what this really boils down to, at least from the point of view of a hobbyist website.

These examples need to be addressed in training, not by encryption.

And I think that's what the chiefs will see when this discussion comes up.

No doubt. However, when the servant calls the shots, the master has lost control of the house. Just because chiefs won't see it that way doesn't mean they can't be forced to accept transparency or find a different line of work. As I previously stated, encryption across the board is one more nail in the coffin for community and public safety relations. Combined with the many other factors present and rising in this nation, it won't end well for public safety or the people of the community.

 

[mmckenna]

One of their biggest issues is also either people showing up on calls...

This was a situation that was mentioned in a talk at APCO in August. I wish I could recall the agency, I want to say it was in in the Southeast US…
They had a shooter at a school. Lots of responders trying to focus on the #1 issue.
However, word got out to the public because of streamed traffic and/or scanner listeners posting on social media. Instead of having 100% of the responders focusing on the issue, they had to dedicate a fair number of them to crowd control. The police didn't want the public there, they needed them well out of the way, however they didn't have any control over how information was released. They didn't quantify how that affected the outcome, but no one can tell me that losing a number of their responders to traffic/crowd control didn't have some impact on it.

And, as a parent, I can fully understand the publics reaction.
However, it's a good example of how controlling/delaying the release of information can be beneficial.

 

[plughie]

https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/loc...e-to-Communicate-With-Dispatch-485183981.html
This is why encryption is bad for police/fire dispatch.

 

[zz0468]

https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/loc...e-to-Communicate-With-Dispatch-485183981.html
This is why encryption is bad for police/fire dispatch.

What does encryption have to do with it?

"After troubleshooting, administrators discovered the outage was likely caused by an off-site human error at the agency that runs the communications system.

Employees were testing new equipment meant to allow different police departments to communicate each other. But after the testing, an employee forgot to reset the system to the original settings."

 

[12dbsinad]

I see several flaws with this philosophy. Starting with the perception that one agency must know what the others are doing in order to function within their roll,

You see several flaws in a system that has been working in the Northeast for decades? The Boston area has one of the best systems around and the word interoperability is something they proud themselves of, and that includes monitoring area agencies. Lives are saved by this. BAPERN was introduced in the 70's and is a highly monitored set of channels. It is effective.

While I respect your opinion, New England area knows a little bit better on what works and what doesn't than some internet jockey on a scanner forum. Perhaps you should take a vacation to the east coast and do some ride alongs. Agencies monitor other agencies, and they have been for decades. That's a fact, and I have not seen many flaws with this since I've been around, only success stories. .