Police Encryption: Good or Bad?

[MTS2000des]

The typical scanner enthusiast is not qualified to participate in the needs assessments that take place prior to undergoing a major project like a new radio system where encryption might play a part, which is at least partially why you didn't get asked.

This. While many scanner enthusiasts love to throw insults at government officials, few actually have all the facts and lack first hand experience at procuring and implementing any technology in a modern PSAP.

Your own systems? :roll:

Tax payer dollars pays for a lot of stuff, and as a result there should be transparency in how the financial decisions are made, and where the money goes, but that does not extend to a right to listen in on communications that are not intended as broadcasts to the general public. If THAT'S what you want, listen and donate to NPR.

The police and fire departments are not chartered to provide programmed listening material.

Our tax dollars helped pay for an aircraft carrier or three, but you don't have the right to tell the Navy how to run it. Our tax dollars payed for the moon landings, but we can't demand that NASA give us all a moon rock.

This always makes me chuckle. "Taxpayers paid for it, so it's MINE and I HAVE A RIGHT..."
Taxpayers funding paid for a courthouse, yet one can't just simply waltz into a judge's chambers.
Taxpayers funding paid for schools, yet most schools are defined as "school property" and visitors must be granted PERMISSION to be on campus, show ID (in some states, a background check against sex offender registry performed instantly), and state their business before even coming through the door.

Taxpayers money paid for municipal airports yet these aren't unrestricted and one can just mosey on down the tarmac like it's their front yard.
Could go on and on, the pretzel logic displayed by some is amazing, but doesn't hold water and doesn't mean anything to those decision makers.

 

[eaf1956]

What's wrong with Canada?

Not a thing.. Trump doesn't want to build a wall for Canada like Mexico..

 

[Hans13]

TSelf Appointed government watchdog: The government is out to get me and I need to be able to monitor all their communications.

That is not at all accurate and is an atypical low blow for you.

Read a little bit by the founders of this nation and one thing is usually pretty clear; all citizens are to be government watchdogs. That's a civic duty and is the cost of liberty.

 

[Hans13]

Taxpayers funding paid for schools, yet most schools are defined as "school property" and visitors must be granted PERMISSION to be on campus, show ID (in some states, a background check against sex offender registry performed instantly), and state their business before even coming through the door.

That's a more recent development and is, in itself, another fight brewing between accountability groups and government.

Just because government can do something, doesn't mean it is right to do so. Slavery was legal in this country at one time. When a free people perceive an issue, they are practically duty bound to fight against it. It's how a people remain free. All governments tend towards more power and ultimately tyranny. That's a fact. It is throughout the fabric of human history. It's the people who constantly tug against that trend who slow the rot.

 

[Citywide173]

The discussion about this is ongoing and can be found here:

https://forums.radioreference.com/o...ive-audio-feeds-scanners-wait-encryption.html

As for good or bad, there are 3 main camps on this:

Hobbyist: I should have access to everything for my own personal entertainment/enjoyment.

Self Appointed government watchdog: The government is out to get me and I need to be able to monitor all their communications.

Those in the industry: Encryption is here, get used to it.

And a 4th smaller camp....I monitor the other 2 public safety departments in my city to keep myself safe at work. Since all three radio systems are separate and independent, there is no expectation they would share the encryption key(s) with the other agencies if encryption was instituted. Since information doesn't get relayed between dispatchers in a timely manner now, making monitoring a necessity, I can only imagine the S***shows we'd walk in on if there was encryption.

Yes, yes, I've heard the patching argument, the dispatcher should know argument, etc. The fact is that it is an old school northeast city and the fiefdoms are more important than the responders. If they ever do encrypt, the guys on the street will be at risk.

 

[12dbsinad]

Anybody getting their wallet filled by it is obviously going to be biased about Encryption. It's just the way it is.

What I don't get is being an active member of a scanner site including streaming, boosting about encryption and talking down the very hobby that they are a member of. It's like getting excited and looking forward to the FCC abolishing the ham bands, and you're a ham. It just doesn't make sense. Actually, it sorta does, and usually it has to do with green...

This whole the police need to hide all communications from the public needs to be backed up by actual statistics. How much does it help, including civilians and other LE officials monitoring, and how much does it hurt? By that I mean routine police dispatch channels.

 

[mmckenna]

That is not at all accurate and is an atypical low blow for you.

Read a little bit by the founders of this nation and one thing is usually pretty clear; all citizens are to be government watchdogs. That's a civic duty and is the cost of liberty.

I understand your feeling.
Maybe a "low blow", but it's a point of view I've developed over a long time.

Hobbyists make a lot of demands, and many of those demands are very self centered. We don't have unfettered access to phone calls and e-mail within the police department, at least not in real time. Most officers carry cell phones anyway, and anything that needs privacy can be handled that way.
While some information can be requested after the fact, having real time access to everything isn't a reality.

And from within the industry, I can tell you that there is no real concern for scanner hobbyists. Never at any point in my career has there been anyone who said "we need to make sure the general public can listen in on our radio traffic". In fact, the opposite is true. People streaming audio feeds have made the agencies jobs harder. I was specifically asked how to stop someone from streaming audio form one of our channels. Answer is: Encryption.

 

[mmckenna]

Anybody getting their wallet filled by it is obviously going to be biased about Encryption. It's just the way it is.

It doesn't impact my paycheck either way. And since most digital radios include some form of encryption, it really doesn't impact anyone else's

What I don't get is being an active member of a scanner site including streaming, boosting about encryption and talking down the very hobby that they are a member of. It's like getting excited and looking forward to the FCC abolishing the ham bands, and you're a ham. It just doesn't make sense. Actually, it sorta does, and usually it has to do with green...

Except that it's a reality. No one is talking down the hobby. People discuss these sorts of subjects on this website for the sake of discussion, and being able to bring in a different point of view is valuable, wether you agree with it or not. It's not a one sided subject. There are many sides to any discussion.
The title of the thread was "Police Encryption: Good or Bad?" I expressed an experienced based opinion saying it was good. If you'd like a thread where people are only allowed to talk about "Encryption is Bad", then maybe starting a new thread is a good idea.

This whole the police need to hide all communications from the public needs to be backed up by actual statistics. How much does it help, including civilians and other LE officials monitoring, and how much does it hurt? By that I mean routine police dispatch channels.

I think it's unrealistic to expect public safety agencies to produce statistics to justify the benefits or drawbacks of encryption for the benefit of hobbyists. I can tell you that law enforcement agencies really do not care. There are better ways for them to communicate with a much larger public audience if they feel they need their help.

But I get it, this is a scanner website, so the majority of opinions are going to be anti-encryption, and that's what I'd expect.

 

[zz0468]

I think it's unrealistic to expect public safety agencies to produce statistics to justify the benefits or drawbacks of encryption for the benefit of hobbyists.

And I am aware of several very high visibility events where unencrypted communications were either monitored by the bad guys, were interfered with, or both. The direct fallout is yet another encrypted system. These aren't hearsay or rumor. I had direct involvement.

Regardless of what hobbyists may feel, the need is real.

 

[Citywide173]

I understand your feeling.
Most officers carry cell phones anyway, and anything that needs privacy can be handled that way.

Which is the way it should be handled.

I am a hobbyist, but I am also a first responder and a fire scene photographer. I'm less worried about police departments encrypting than I am about fire departments, as that is my listening focus with the exception of Boston, where I rely on a scanner to monitor police for up to the second conditions that I or someone I am responsible for may be responding in to an evolving scene. It takes about 1-1/2 to 2 minutes for a transmission from a police officer to their dispatcher to get to our dispatcher and out to the responding unit(s) when the unit may be 30 seconds out when that transmission is made. The ability to monitor has kept me from going in to a scene with active shooting once and has allowed me to help a cop that was in a bad spot more than once as I and my partner were closer than any backup unit in their department.

I could say that police encryption doesn't bother me because I generally don't bother listening to police, but I realize the danger of not speaking out. The more departments that encrypt, the more likely Boston Police will follow suit. They will not share their encryption keys with EMS or Fire, of that I am certain and that puts me at risk. Everyone is so up on claiming officer safety, they don't realize that they may be putting people who may have to take care of those officers at risk.

And from within the industry, I can tell you that there is no real concern for scanner hobbyists.

and quite possibly for people that don't wear the same uniform, even though the city name is shared on the patch.

 

[mmckenna]

Agencies refusing to cooperate is a big issue, but that happens in a lot of different ways, not just with radios. However, that doesn't have anything to do with scanner listeners.

Similar things happen when agencies shift to radio systems that are not compatible with others, or require system keys that are not shared.

 

[12dbsinad]

It doesn't impact my paycheck either way. And since most digital radios include some form of encryption, it really doesn't impact anyone else's

Well if not involving extra green, it certainly has a ego boost effect to plug a keyloader into a radio and then log on to RR don't you think? It's displayed in this forum everyday.

Except that it's a reality. No one is talking down the hobby.

Oh yea? Then let's not post things like "I'll be thinking about you when I am at work and plug my keyloader in" type of comments (not you). That's a rub it in your face, egotistical comment.

The title of the thread was "Police Encryption: Good or Bad?" I expressed an experienced based opinion saying it was good. If you'd like a thread where people are only allowed to talk about "Encryption is Bad", then maybe starting a new thread is a good idea.

Why would I start a new thread? I am merely pointing out the hype of encryption here by some on the largest scanner and online streaming website around. You and everyone else can continue to do so, I never said you couldn't.

I think it's unrealistic to expect public safety agencies to produce statistics to justify the benefits or drawbacks of encryption for the benefit of hobbyists. I can tell you that law enforcement agencies really do not care. There are better ways for them to communicate with a much larger public audience if they feel they need their help.

The thing is. it isn't just hobbyist that lose out, it hurts the public safety community as a whole. Around here, monitoring is so important to state police that they ended up installing analog Kenwood mobiles in the cars to they could scan the smaller communities in their respective areas since the Harris radios wouldn't scan conventional. Neither the state, nor local agencies encrypt full time. The state runs a Harris VHF P25 trunking system. The need for clear everyday comms and analog patches was made clear from the get go. It wasn't to appease the "hobbyist", that I can tell you.

As far as statistics go, there is nothing wrong with trying to prove a point with facts. Everyone screams officer safety, and the bad guy is out to get us by listening to our radios. if this is the case, there should be some evidence to back this claim. If it's something that's hot, then yes, switch talkgroups to E. Even then, trying to listen to a cellphone feed while you're committing a crime probably isn't easy to keep up, especially in large city's feeds are scanning multiple TG's.

But I get it, this is a scanner website, so the majority of opinions are going to be anti-encryption, and that's what I'd expect.

Well duh.. What makes you think that???

I deal with public safety communications professionally, and come here for a hobbyist side of things. Neither in my work field, or my hobby, do I support full time encryption. It's a level of transparency that is to beneficial to not just hobbyist, but LE, fire, news media, etc.

 

[Citywide173]

However, that doesn't have anything to do with scanner listeners.

We put scanners in all of our vehicles for the sole purpose of being able to monitor the other agencies we respond with (Boston PD/FD, Massport Fire, Massachusetts State Police, Boston University Police, Suffolk University Police, Emerson College Police, Simmons College Police, Northeastern University Police, USCG and I'm sure I'm missing some) so it definitely has to do with scanner listeners, unless you are saying that those who use a scanner as a tool instead of a consumer product (couldn't resist) don't count as listeners.

 

[mmckenna]

I deal with public safety communications professionally, and come here for a hobbyist side of things. Neither in my work field, or my hobby, do I support full time encryption. It's a level of transparency that is to beneficial to not just hobbyist, but LE, fire, news media, etc.

Did you get to make the decision if your agency went encrypted or not?

I know I don't. It's the chief's decision, not mine. If he decides everything goes encrypted, then that's what I do. If he decides that the primary dispatch channel says clear and the other channels go encrypted, then that's what I do.

The trunked system that is mine, and that our PD has a few talk groups on, has some encrypted talk groups. In some cases it makes a lot of sense. There is some traffic that no one has a need to listen to.

Truth is, there's a lot of good reason for and against encryption. Appeasing the scanner crowd isn't a big concern to most agencies.

If the public in general wants no encryption, then that is what they need to push for. But I'll bet that when you look at the voting public, there won't be a high percentage of scanner listeners.

The uneducated public will usually vote for whatever the first responders tell them too. Influencing voters is pretty easy when you use the right buzzwords.

 

[mmckenna]

We put scanners in all of our vehicles for the sole purpose of being able to monitor the other agencies we respond with (Boston PD/FD, Massport Fire, Massachusetts State Police, Boston University Police, Suffolk University Police, Emerson College Police, Simmons College Police, Northeastern University Police, USCG and I'm sure I'm missing some) so it definitely has to do with scanner listeners, unless you are saying that those who use a scanner as a tool instead of a consumer product (couldn't resist) don't count as listeners.

Depends on what your use is. If you are a first responder and have a need, then the agencies you work for need to be providing that as part of your job.

I have a scanner at work, too, so I guess that includes me in on this.

 

[zz0468]

As far as statistics go, there is nothing wrong with trying to prove a point with facts. Everyone screams officer safety, and the bad guy is out to get us by listening to our radios. if this is the case, there should be some evidence to back this claim.

I suppose if encryption was going up for a vote and had to campaign, then compiling statistics would become important. But it's not. Each individual agency has its own reasons for encrypting their radio traffic, and they really don't need permission. It's not a broadcast medium intended for public consumption, and local government oversight takes place via the grand jury, and the electoral process - like they did before radios were invented.

Getting back to "evidence" to the claim of officer safety, there are stories out there of people programming up radios and causing problems. Most are pretty silly nonsense, but there are multiple threads here on RR describing the problem.

But there are some far more serious events that have occurred that didn't make the papers, for good reason. Some of those events pivot decisions toward protecting communications, and the frustration of hobbyists simply doesn't rise to the surface.

In the case of agencies depending on scanners for interoperability with other agencies who have gone dark, it will either shake out to be a non-issue, or the decision-makers will have to own the consequences. There are plenty of large regional systems where encryption is completely invisible to the real users, and interoperability is completely unaffected. For the agencies that don't know how to do this correctly, there are plenty of available resources to help learn.

Perhaps I'm too close to some blood curdling events where communication was compromised. But when I see the "officer safety" thing come out, I know what it is they're worried about. The threat is very real.

 

[Hans13]

I understand your feeling.
Maybe a "low blow", but it's a point of view I've developed over a long time.

Hobbyists make a lot of demands, and many of those demands are very self centered. We don't have unfettered access to phone calls and e-mail within the police department, at least not in real time. Most officers carry cell phones anyway, and anything that needs privacy can be handled that way.
While some information can be requested after the fact, having real time access to everything isn't a reality.

And from within the industry, I can tell you that there is no real concern for scanner hobbyists. Never at any point in my career has there been anyone who said "we need to make sure the general public can listen in on our radio traffic". In fact, the opposite is true. People streaming audio feeds have made the agencies jobs harder. I was specifically asked how to stop someone from streaming audio form one of our channels. Answer is: Encryption.

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.

ETA: BTW, I am generally NOT a hobbyist. My monitoring is for specific purposes and not general enjoyment. Although, there's nothing wrong with that.

 

[Hans13]

12dbsinad, I don't believe mmckenna's views are tainted by monetary consideration. From all of the user's posts that I've read over the years, mmckenna appears as much too principled and level headed an individual for that to be a major influence. I have too much respect for mmckenna to believe that. Although, I do think mmckenna is underestimating the destructive impact a government being so closed off from the people has on liberty. It will eventually destroy a free society.

 

[Hans13]

If the public in general wants no encryption, then that is what they need to push for. But I'll bet that when you look at the voting public, there won't be a high percentage of scanner listeners.

The uneducated public will usually vote for whatever the first responders tell them too. Influencing voters is pretty easy when you use the right buzzwords.

Bingo. Voting, lawsuits, bad press, protests, involvement with local government, community education, personal shaming of those in the community who are in charge or influence the decision, etc are ways to make changes happen and counteract the push for encryption. My groups have used all of these tools. They do often work if people are persistent and grow enough numbers.

 

[Citywide173]

In the case of agencies depending on scanners for interoperability with other agencies who have gone dark, it will either shake out to be a non-issue, or the decision-makers will have to own the consequences. There are plenty of large regional systems where encryption is completely invisible to the real users, and interoperability is completely unaffected. For the agencies that don't know how to do this correctly, there are plenty of available resources to help learn.

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. By the time the priority had kicked in, the callsign had already been said. The only option would be to put another XTL (a lot more $$ than a 996P2) in the truck, and that would be dependent on sharing of keys, which, having worked there for 22 years, I know isn't going to happen. I don't see them encrypting anytime soon, but I will voice my concerns to anyone who will listen when an agency decides to encrypt because of my above stated concern that it will have a domino effect and eventually take away a tool I use for safety. The consequences unfortunately could be a seriously injured or dead police officer or EMT in my situation and I obviously don't want that.