Riverside killing off encrypted media radio access

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

I gotta agree with mmckenna. Encryption is coming and we are not going to stop it.

It used to be outrageously expensive to encrypt and the audio became lousy.

Well APCO 25 came along, little said about encryption. APCO 25 is outrageously expensive and the audio is lousy. So now encryption is really only a tiny bit of the cost and it does not make the already lousy audio any lousier.

It is like boiling frogs on low heat. Surprise, your boiled.

What is disturbing to me is at the same time that the government is bottling up and concealing information, the government wants citizens to reveal more. You private letters are no longer secure as provided by the constitution. You can be searched and papers examined and taken within 100 miles or the border (all of Florida) and within 100 miles of an airport. You are compelled to reveal passwords.

The government is up in arms about Chinese company Huawei Corp dealing with Iran yet we are dealing with the Saudis (who attacked us in 9/11) as well as a host of other terrible governments. We are angry that Huawei might have back doors in their telecom products yet the NSA has intercepted and planted back doors in routers sold to our allies. The NSA tapped cellphones in Greece during the Olympics. The NSA planted backdoors in encryption products sold by Swiss Company Crypto-AG for decades.

The hypocrisy is overwhelming.

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

mmckenna is correct.



In response to krazybob, down in the urban areas the number of people using scanner aps to monitor what is happening is substantial. Any time the local PD's helicopter goes into an extended hover and/or 4 police units show up in our neighborhood, someone is posting the call details on social media - unless the call is sensitive, in which case the details go over the MDC and the encrypted tacs are used.

Well, my local agencies are not livestreamed at all and whenever the county helicopter is hovering overhead, some do gooder in my town phones the busy dispatch center to ask whats up and posts it on facebook. They must field a lot of calls as it is a regular thing. One reason I have started scanning again because they make a low orbit over my house whenever they do this. Makes me nervous because of the unreliable "Jesus Nut".

 

[mmckenna]

The interesting bit is what the American people do about it; if anything at all.

Most have zero clue what it is, so won't have an opinion other than what Social Media tells them to have.

 

[allend]

Most have zero clue what it is, so won't have an opinion other than what Social Media tells them to have.

You are exactly right. This is why we continue to lose traction because zero people in the world compared percentage of people that know to the people nationwide is equal to ZERO.

Its not like we have the option to vote on a bill or a proposition. We have no ground to stand on until people die or an agency gets sued to the third degree because something bad happened due to communication breakdown or failure. This would have to happen on a mass scale. Then when a county or city got sued so bad and lost all of their money then they would turn the corner. But until then which is never we just stand down and keep taking a foot in the mouth.

This is my logic and to me it makes sense. Things never change in people's decisions until attorney's hit their pocket book.

 

[mmckenna]

Communications breakdowns can happen for a lot of reasons, and more often than not (in my experience) it's user error, not the technology.

Encryption, on its own, isn't a risk to communications systems. It annoys hobbyists. It might annoy the media. Done right, it's not going to impact a properly designed radio system with properly trained users.

In this day and age, anyone can get sued for dang near anything. Agencies usually have legal counsel to reduce this risk. It would be interesting to hear of a specific case where this has happened due to radio system failure.

Usually the professionals involved have the skills necessary to adapt to a communications issue.

 

[Eugene]

I feel your pain. Virginia is now FAST becoming a meca for encryption and it is increasing logarithmically. Almost every month a new county (or 2) climb on the bandwagon. I would be willing to bet that about 1/4 of the state now has some sort of LE encryption....so California is not unique, and in comparison maybe even a little behind the curve. I believe there is a need to encrypt sensitive channels as most people have suggested but routine dispatch...not so much.

The rallying cry of course is "officer safety".....which at first blush makes people think "sure, that makes sense" which is what they want. However they cannot back it up (because if they could they would be jumping up and down pointing out the data). I have done some amateur research in the FBI's Uniform Crime Report which I have put out on other sites here, but the Readers Digest Version is that in the last 2 years (and the first quarter of this-according to Newsweek) assaults on officers have increased, not decreased, so there you have it.

I feel the reasons are twofold. One, some Police Chief's inherent paranoia (if you aren't LE, your a perp) and two, Radio Companies inherent greed at selling a product they know damn well isn't totally necessary. And yes, billions of dollars isn't an unreasonable figure (4 localities in VA spent a combined monies of close to 132 million dollars to encrypt their areas [Richmond City, Henrico/Chesterfiled Counties and Va, Beach City] and VA Beach admits to 250 K per year to maintain). Funded partially by grants which any way you chose to slice it comes from we the taxpaying citizens (where do you think the Feds get their monies).

An any event, I feel all the posters here are right in that it is here to stay, like the snowball which by it own inertia becomes the avalanche. Colorado tried, unsuccessfully, to pass a no encryption bill and I fear that public apathy will keep that trend alive. Edward R Morrow stated " A nation of sheep begets a government of wolves" Sucks but such is the society we now live in. At least there's still Aircraft and Marine left.

Eugene KG4AVE

 

[allend]

I feel your pain. Virginia is now FAST becoming a meca for encryption and it is increasing logarithmically. Almost every month a new county (or 2) climb on the bandwagon. I would be willing to bet that about 1/4 of the state now has some sort of LE encryption....so California is not unique, and in comparison maybe even a little behind the curve. I believe there is a need to encrypt sensitive channels as most people have suggested but routine dispatch...not so much.

The rallying cry of course is "officer safety".....which at first blush makes people think "sure, that makes sense" which is what they want. However they cannot back it up (because if they could they would be jumping up and down pointing out the data). I have done some amateur research in the FBI's Uniform Crime Report which I have put out on other sites here, but the Readers Digest Version is that in the last 2 years (and the first quarter of this-according to Newsweek) assaults on officers have increased, not decreased, so there you have it.

I feel the reasons are twofold. One, some Police Chief's inherent paranoia (if you aren't LE, your a perp) and two, Radio Companies inherent greed at selling a product they know damn well isn't totally necessary. And yes, billions of dollars isn't an unreasonable figure (4 localities in VA spent a combined monies of close to 132 million dollars to encrypt their areas [Richmond City, Henrico/Chesterfiled Counties and Va, Beach City] and VA Beach admits to 250 K per year to maintain). Funded partially by grants which any way you chose to slice it comes from we the taxpaying citizens (where do you think the Feds get their monies).

An any event, I feel all the posters here are right in that it is here to stay, like the snowball which by it own inertia becomes the avalanche. Colorado tried, unsuccessfully, to pass a no encryption bill and I fear that public apathy will keep that trend alive. Edward R Morrow stated " A nation of sheep begets a government of wolves" Sucks but such is the society we now live in. At least there's still Aircraft and Marine left.

Eugene KG4AVE

You brought alot of good points. As this thread starting about the ERICA system and since Palm Springs is part of this full encrypted system a few years ago there was a crazy man that ambushed a couple of police officers and killed them and Encryption could of never saved their lives with encrypting their system a 100 percent. It happened and it was really unfortunately a bad situation. So when police chiefs and city officials say its for officer safety its all a lie.

Ask The Palm Springs Police Chief if encryption would of saved their lives since they fully encrypted their system

 

[kma371]

Definitely not a "lie." There were several times crooks had the jump on me because they had a scanner. Does it happen? Yes. Does it affect officer safety? Yes. Does it happen all the time? No.

This narrative of "what do they have to hide" is nonsense anyway. If cops wanted to hide something, they definitely wouldn't be using the radio. There are several methods to hide what you're doing that don't involve a radio.

I am against encryption of dispatch channels though.

 

[K6CDO]

Definitely not a "lie." There were several times crooks had the jump on me because they had a scanner. Does it happen? Yes. Does it affect officer safety? Yes. Does it happen all the time? No.

This narrative of "what do they have to hide" is nonsense anyway. If cops wanted to hide something, they definitely wouldn't be using the radio. There are several methods to hide what you're doing that don't involve a radio.

I am against encryption of dispatch channels though.

I keep looking for that "Like" button.

 

[hardsuit]

allend - while I'm for Public Safety to transmit in the Clear using Digital radios.
they also have the right to protect its officers from criminals using scanners to commit or assist in crimes.
while I dislike the idea of Full Encryption, I find only selectively Encrypting active TAC channels during an OP acceptable. that said, One thing that may compensate for Scanners going Dark is ATSC 3.0 .
Its a NEW digital HDTV system set to deploy in 2019. ATSC 3.0 has FREE OTA broadcasts of 4K HDR content and FREE Broadband internet. ATSC 3.0 will have a 1080p Mobile component as well. and ATSC 3.0 has Localized Advanced Emergency alerting built in. this means on your HDTV will appear a Emergency Widget , and will Deliver LOCAL Emergency Alerts in your area. In the Future your Smartphone and Mobile Device will have an ATSC 3.0 receiver and it can Wake Up sleeping devices to Alert you to Emergencies. for more INFO search youtube - ATSC 3.0.

 

[alcahuete]

This is akin to the whole gun control debate, as far as I'm concerned. I don't want to put words in kma371's mouth, but based on his other arguments in this thread, I think I can safely assume that he is of the school of thought that guns should be taken away from everybody, because they might be used against officers, or give criminals an edge against officers.

There are laws on the books in every state (to my knowledge) that address using a scanner in the commission of a crime. It's 636.5 here in CA, but I'm sure as a peace officer, that's nothing you don't already know. It's a misdemeanor. PROSECUTE IT!

If a criminal uses a scanner to get a 30 second head start in outrunning you, then you catch them (you had to have caught them, otherwise you wouldn't know they used a scanner) and the DA prosecutes them under 636.5. That's how the law works.

You don't take away public servant transparency because something MIGHT happen...because a criminal MIGHT use a scanner to outrun the police, just as you don't disarm citizens because criminals MIGHT use firearms to shoot at police.

 

[krazybob]

This is akin to the whole gun control debate, as far as I'm concerned. I don't want to put words in kma371's mouth, but based on his other arguments in this thread, I think I can safely assume that he is of the school of thought that guns should be taken away from everybody, because they might be used against officers, or give criminals an edge against officers.

There are laws on the books in every state (to my knowledge) that address using a scanner in the commission of a crime. It's 636.5 here in CA, but I'm sure as a peace officer, that's nothing you don't already know. It's a misdemeanor. PROSECUTE IT!

If a criminal uses a scanner to get a 30 second head start in outrunning you, then you catch them (you had to have caught them, otherwise you wouldn't know they used a scanner) and the DA prosecutes them under 636.5. That's how the law works.

You don't take away public servant transparency because something MIGHT happen...because a criminal MIGHT use a scanner to outrun the police, just as you don't disarm citizens because criminals MIGHT use firearms to shoot at police.

To a certain extent I agree with you. But I can tell you in California it's at the bottom of the barrel and is not going to get prosecuted. If you have somebody for armed robbery that's aggravated by a firearm for example you're not going to throw in a misdemeanor charge for having a scanner and less having the scanner directly impacted the situation. That would mean something to the effect that using the scanner they lay in wait to attack the officer rather than flee. It is considered a de minimis crime. That's one of them fancy Latin phrases meaning the minimum. You're not going to charge the low-hanging fruit even as a lesser included. The DA's going to throw it out. You're going to go top to bottom with your highest charges down on the felony scale and let the court waffle it down to a misdemeanor. You charge High and let the process take it low. But you're not going to throw in a misdemeanor that in plea bargaining is going to get thrown out anyway. It just increases impediments to a quick conclusion to having a bad guy in custody.

I don't know the kma371 was saying he thinks everybody should have their guns taken away at all. I'm basing that on his prior statements agreeing that encryption is not a good thing. I don't want to put words in his mouth either and maybe I misunderstood him. I prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt. I do know that police officers tend to be pro-second Amendment. In the right hands of course. I don't want to take us off course again here but if California continues to narrow the Second Amendment the criminals will remain the only ones that have guns. Law-abiding people don't break the law.

I recently read an article where an 18 year old young lady watching her younger siblings had someone that was trying to break in. She was on the phone with 911 and told the dispatcher that she was armed with a 12 gauge and asked if it was okay to shoot if the person succeeded in breaking in. The dispatcher told her that she could not advise her one way or another but to do what she needed to do. The guy came through the door, around went off, and he was carried out in the bag. No charges were filed against the young lady. I point this out not to take us off topic again but to keep us on topic and say that too much government intervention is violating our rights.

The Constitution doesn't have a specific right that allows us to listen to police Communications but it's also based on the power of We the People. We pay these people to protect us while at the same time we allow them to keep us from hearing what they have to say about us?

The bottom line is someone else is already said is that encryption is here and it's coming to a Station House near you. There's nothing we can do about it and the one thing that people need to understand is that encryption can be cracked. Doing so is a felony but the drug cartels don't care and have more than likely already cracked the Border Patrol for example and any other major Metropolitan Sheriff's Department or minor City that they do business in. I'm guessing because I have nothing to base that on. I'm just going based on what we know his happened in the past. If you go to a Comm Tech making say $60,000 a year and offer them $100,000 for the encryption key and $20,000 for every time that it changes you're going to find somebody that will take you up on that. That's just my opinion. We know what they're like. That's literally chump change to a drug cartel.

I apologize for the length of my message. I use voice to text and speak contemporaneously. Before I know what I've written the book and I truly apologize.

 

[alcahuete]

To a certain extent I agree with you. But I can tell you in California it's at the bottom of the barrel and is not going to get prosecuted. If you have somebody for armed robbery that's aggravated by a firearm for example you're not going to throw in a misdemeanor charge for having a scanner and less having the scanner directly impacted the situation. That would mean something to the effect that using the scanner they lay in wait to attack the officer rather than flee. It is considered a de minimis crime. That's one of them fancy Latin phrases meaning the minimum. You're not going to charge the low-hanging fruit even as a lesser included. The DA's going to throw it out. You're going to go top to bottom with your highest charges down on the felony scale and let the court waffle it down to a misdemeanor. But you're not going to throw in a misdemeanor that in plea bargaining is going to get thrown out anyway. It just increases impediments to a quick conclusion to having a bad guy in custody.

Then that's a problem with the legal system, and then people wonder why they are used in the commission of crimes? Sounds like the legal system is just contributing to the possibility that scanners would be used, since criminals know nothing would happen.

Not the citizens' problem. If police officers are going to say that their safety is being jeopardized because of scanners, but then the prosecutors do absolutely nothing to stop it, then too bad. Perhaps the police unions should get together and make the DA's office aware of their disgust in the lack of prosecution. We know that isn't going to happen, and you and I both know exactly why. It's simply easier for the police to go to encryption, because there are way more benefits for them, especially the whole avoiding transparency thing.

I don't know the kma371 was saying he thinks everybody should have their scanners taken away at all.

He doesn't have to. That's what encryption does. The frequencies become dead to the point where people might as well not have a scanner. You don't have to physically take the scanners away, though operationally, that's exactly what is happening.

I agree that it's coming to a station near you, or already has! Accordingly, it's going to be up to the citizens to take our state/country back and put these things to a vote.

 

[alcahuete]

The Constitution doesn't have a specific right that allows us to listen to police Communications but it's also based on the power of We the People. We pay these people to protect us while at the same time we allow them to keep us from hearing what they have to say about us?

Holy edit, Batman! There were quite a few new things added there, but let me just finish with this one before I go off to bed for the night.

The government wants to monitor us, they want us to be more transparent, they want to know more and more details about us. Yet at the same time, they want to conceal themselves, hide behind encryption, and tell us less and less about what we pay them to do. It's unfortunate.

 

[krazybob]

Holy edit, Batman! There were quite a few new things added there, but let me just finish with this one before I go off to bed for the night.

The government wants to monitor us, they want us to be more transparent, they want to know more and more details about us. Yet at the same time, they want to conceal themselves, hide behind encryption, and tell us less and less about what we pay them to do. It's unfortunate.

My apologies on the edits. I forget I'm not the only one awake at this ungodly hour!

Here's the issue. Scanners and cell phones are not being used wide-scale to monitor the police during the commission of crimes. That's what law enforcement administrators have been told to say. Go with the party line. But yet they are unable to produce the statistics it back up the need for encryption. I'll have to find it but I have an article from APCO that discusses just this. It was like a template of what administrators were to put down when requesting funds for encryption.

It bears repeating. Scanners and cell phones are not being used on a wide-scale basis by criminals committing crimes.

 

[krazybob]

Holy edit, Batman! There were quite a few new things added there, but let me just finish with this one before I go off to bed for the night.

The government wants to monitor us, they want us to be more transparent, they want to know more and more details about us. Yet at the same time, they want to conceal themselves, hide behind encryption, and tell us less and less about what we pay them to do. It's unfortunate.

BTW, I agree with your assessment on the government. They want to know everything that we're doing and I've allowed Google and Facebook an Instagram and Twitter to gather the information but it is gathered none the less. You think the NSA doesn't know what Facebook has? And you're absolutely right. They want us to be completely transparent while the administration hides behind encryption. Not your Beat cop. To them it's just a radio. On that I speak from experience. My God. Having to sit all day to learn how to use a new handheld. On your day off but you get paid OT for it.

 

[kma371]

This is akin to the whole gun control debate, as far as I'm concerned. I don't want to put words in kma371's mouth, but based on his other arguments in this thread, I think I can safely assume that he is of the school of thought that guns should be taken away from everybody

What the hell are you talking about?! You're assumption is DEAD WRONG.

 

[KevinC]

Closed until we can clean this crap up.

Re-opened...for now. :roll:

 

[Citywide173]

As a certified EMT-I (expired now)

First, thank you for your service

I can tell you that this is BS. You do not need to give patient demographic information to the hospital while on scene or in route in order to treat the patient.

You obviously misread, I said nothing about communicating with the hospital. I said necessary for proper access and treatment. I was referring to DISPATCH information. Address, age, sex and chief complaint (protected health information under HIPAA) are all information that can be used to identify the patient, but they are necessary to initiate a proper EMS response. Once on-scene, if a unit is having difficulty in locating the patient and a callback cannot be completed to obtain additional information such as floor or apartment, it is permissible to provide a patient's name over the air under the HIPAA exemption in order to make every effort to provide the patient with the care they requested.

This will be replaced when 5G LTE comes out and EMTs and Paramedics are able to communicate with hospitals using an inherently encrypted system to begin with.

No, it won't, as HIPAA refers to any transmission of protected healthcare information that can be used to identify a patient. It does not differentiate or provide additional protections beyond the "least amount reasonably necessary to provide service" because a radio system is encrypted. Information transmitted electronically between those who provide, bill or maintain records for covered entities must have executed BAAs and occur over HIPAA compliant servers. A radio system, encrypted or not, will always have people who are not entitled to the information able to access it, and this is understood, which is why the exemption exists. Putting non-relevant HIPAA protected information into a CAD system for use on MDTs is considered a violation, and that is much more secure than a radio system. Cell phone conversations are considered secure under HIPAA as long as all of the parties involved on the cell call have a right to the protected health information, but any other transmission of said information over the same device, such as text or email is not.

But you don't need to know the name of the patient in order to tell the paramedic to start an IV with ringers. You do not need to know the patient's name who is GCS 5 with a compromised airway in order to begin RSI.

This is absolutely correct, but not what I was referring to.

When the time comes and people are chipped, which is an issue I don't even want to get into, a code can easily be sent to the hospital and they can pull up patient history based on the code. There will still not be a need to know the patient's name. HIPAA is protected. Their argument is specious at best.

This is probably closer than we think, and I agree, is a huge issue

 

[flythunderbird]

Encrypting radio traffic is not Congress making a law that restricts free exercise of speech, so what in the world would one base a right to listen/First Amendment suit on? There is nothing in that gem says you have a right to know.

The First Amendment covers more than just free speech; specifically, it covers:

1. Freedom from government establishment of religion
2. Freedom of religion
3. Freedom of speech
4. Freedom of the press
5. Right to assemble peaceably, including freedom of association
6. Right to petition the government for redress of grievances

I was specifically referring to freedom of the press and the government using encryption to prevent the press from being able to cover a story, not freedom of speech. The DOJ demanding that the ability of the press, in its watchdog role, to monitor encrypted communications be taken away might be viewed by the courts as infringing on the press's right to cover and report on government activities. This is why I see the courts getting involved at some point.