From the article:Article on the Press Enterprise about it
RIVERSIDE COUNTY: Sheriff switches to encrypted radio system (UPDATE)
Early on in the project, encryption was considered because it's just one more tool available to use to keep officers safe from bad guys who may be listening, and because the technology is now nearly seamless and well integrated into the hardware.Not surprised at all. I overheard some people that were involved with the PSEC rollout discussing this and the smartphone topic came up multiple times in their conversation.
Wrong. It's a private system intended for use only by the agency that built it.Its not a private radio system...
"its a private radio system, used by a public agency paid for by the public."its a public radio system, used by a public agency paid for by the public.
Wrong again. There is no "right to monitor". Where on earth did you get that? Could you show us where in the Constitution or Bill of Rights it says we have a "right to monitor"? You can't, because there is no such right.One more way for the Gov. to hide any possible violations they may commit while the citizen looses his or her right to monitor its police force to hold accountable its potential unlawful actions.
My eyes ARE open. After 35 some odd years in public safety communications, I have a very good idea as to the reasons behind the move toward encryption. It's very simple, and none of them have anything to do with hiding accountability or a dislike of scanner listeners.Same as the gun rights argument. A few bad guys get used as an excuse for all of us law abiding citizens to loose our rights to own a gun for protection. open your eyes
As flawed as your research may be, the decision to encrypt is not necessarily based on anything other than a perception that the officers would be safer. Perception trumps reality every time.In conclusion to my findings is that there is no solid hard factual evidence saying that any department is safer using Encryption one bit.
But there are major components of that situation that encryption is NOT designed or intended to protect against. If the cop killer had a scanner or listened to an ap on his phone, then encryption could possibly prevent an ambush. But encryption is not going to help anybody in the earliest stages of a crime when no one really knows what's going on except the killer.Orange County has been using full Encryption for the past 13 years and we had a COP killer running around on the streets killing good people and the residents were blind to what was happening for the first 24 hours while they were hiding the story from the public.
Bottom line is that you have no answer to why the toughest city in the US is keeping their communications completely open to the general public. You seem to pick apart paragraphs and have a complete negative thought process about everything. Of course you are a radio engineer that drinks the Kool-Aid too. Sounds like you have some strong ties to Riverside County. We all can read between the lines.Wrong. It's a private system intended for use only by the agency that built it.
A public system is one built for use by the general public. Cellphones are part of a public system.
"its a private radio system, used by a public agency paid for by the public."
There. I fixed it for you. =)
Just to clarify, this system operates under 47CFR Part 90 of the FCC rules and regulations. Part 90 is known as "Private Land Mobile Radio Services"
Here's a useful link to help you understand where I'm coming from:
FCC: Wireless Services: Private Land Mobile Radio Services: Private Land Mobile
Wrong again. There is no "right to monitor". Where on earth did you get that? Could you show us where in the Constitution or Bill of Rights it says we have a "right to monitor"? You can't, because there is no such right.
There are mechanisms in place to hold law enforcement agencies accountable to the public, and none of them require public access to their radio communications. The fact is, if anything seriously nefarious is taking place in a department, chances are, the communications related to this nefarious action is taking place via cellphone which... wait for it... CAN'T BE MONITORED.
If your concerned about what the police are doing, take your concerns to the Grand Jury. They are tasked with providing public oversight over government agencies like law enforcement, etc. There are requirements for logging radio and telephone traffic, and those logs are discoverable evidence. If there was to be some sort of episode of police abuse, logs of radio traffic can be subpoenaed as evidence.
The notion of scanner hobbyists being the last bastion of political freedom and saviors against police brutality in the U.S. is patently absurd.
My eyes ARE open. After 35 some odd years in public safety communications, I have a very good idea as to the reasons behind the move toward encryption. It's very simple, and none of them have anything to do with hiding accountability or a dislike of scanner listeners.
Here they are:
1. There is a perception among LE agencies that they are facing more serious criminal threats than they have in the past: terrorism, sophisticated street gangs, and drug cartels.
2. The technology is becoming easier and more cost effective to implement.
3. Any tool that can be acquired to help mitigate item #1 above will be considered for use.