Riverside killing off encrypted media radio access

[alcahuete]

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

Well then I apologize. So then, why do you want encryption in case of the very tiny instance in which a criminal might use a scanner to aid in a crime? It so very rarely happens that it's really a non-issue. Again, makes no sense, unless of course something is trying to be hidden, as others have mentioned.

I don't know that I particularly believe that having open radio frequencies in the clear is a freedom of the press. Some might make that stretch, but I don't know that I'm there quite yet. But I certainly do see it as a transparency and accountability issue. And of course, if you go to submit a records request for the tapes or transcripts, they will either be not made available or will be so heavily redacted to where nothing is useful.

Back to Riverside, I would simply inundate their department with records requests (though they can't be FOIA'ed, per se, as they are not a federal agency), and encourage the press and others to file lawsuits (as is already being done), and introduce bills in the legislature to remove the encryption. That's the only thing we the people can do to attempt to regain control of our public servants.

 

[crazyboy]

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.

Encrypting a radio system is in absolutely no way preventing the press from being able to cover a story. Should we ban phone calls, email, snail mail etc because the press does not have immediate access to them either? The courts are never going to prevent encryption.

 

[marcotor]

There is no right to know in the First Amendment. Period.

 

[mmckenna]

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.

The DOJ didn't require it be removed. It was the departments own legal counsel that recommended it.

The California DOJ is not mandating encryption. Our department just went through a DOJ inspection and we run VHF analog. Not a word about needing to change that.

 

[krazybob]

Here is the rationale of moving to encryption established by DHS, the same agency that provides grants to those entities that makes a move. It appears that the impetus is technologically based rather than tactically based.

The encryption of public safety land mobile radio systems is a decision that many public safety agencies are contemplating or have made in recent years. It is a primary method of mitigating threats from the potential compromise of personal or sensitive data and can enhance operational security as well as improve interoperability. Protecting land mobile radio systems and the information they transmit from unauthorized interception and use is increasingly important to maintaining effective public safety communications.

Successful encrypted interoperability depends largely upon improved coordination between agencies that need to interoperate. It is also enhanced when all agencies understand how the use and coordination of key management parameters can affect their ability to interoperate. It is vital that agencies implement encryption and key management in a consistent manner and in collaboration with other public safety agencies.

The Best Practices discussed in this document provide an understanding of how basic key management parameters are related in Project 25 land mobile radio (P25 LMR)
systems. In addition, the document addresses improved coordination of these elements, and the use of
standards-based encryption can enhance encrypted interoperability while minimizing the risk of
compromising sensitive information. Examples of these Best Practices are listed below.

• Key Management Organization – Develop an effective key management structure.
• Key Generation and Distribution – Adopt P25 standard key parameters for enhanced interoperability.
• National SLN Assignment Plan – Adopt a standardized Storage Location Number (SLN) plan to minimize conflicts.
• Standards-based Encryption – Use P25 standard AES-2567 security solution to protect against compromise.
• Crypto Period Considerations – Use defined crypto periods to mitigate risk.
• Communications Planning – Develop Communications Plans that incorporate encryption requirements.
• Education and Training – Develop appropriate training for system personnel to improve effectiveness.
• Exercise and Testing - Develop and execute regular communications exercises and testing to maintain effectiveness.
• Outreach – Collaborate with experts to ensure effective encryption implementation.

Project 25 was previously referred to as APCO Project 25, now simply P25.

Although these best practices are considered important in developing an environment where encrypted interoperability is realizable, significant additional planning and coordination must be accomplished to enable progress on a national scale. Leadership in developing more detailed encryption guidelines and support for further education and outreach is also needed.

These best practices are governed by the same guiding principles of the Interoperability Continuum in that they are based on the goal of interoperability by effective leadership, planning, and collaboration among public safety agencies.

 

[Citywide173]

Encrypting a radio system is in absolutely no way preventing the press from being able to cover a story. Should we ban phone calls, email, snail mail etc because the press does not have immediate access to them either? The courts are never going to prevent encryption.

It does not stop coverage of the story, it prevents timely coverage of a story. It limits the information that was previously readily available to the media, it is a reversal of a decision to give the media access to the radios-quite honestly, the agency created precedent by giving them access in the first place. What I find interesting is that after the media outlets were notified, only one radio went deaf. If you don't think that was a message, you're crazy. That particular media outlet did something that pissed someone off, and in an effort to punish them, a unilateral decision was made to prevent them from monitoring, but so that it didn't appear that they were targeting that particular outlet, they had to shut everybody out. Officer safety and HIPAA were the excuses given, but they have nothing to do with the decision.

"I don't know why your radio is the only one that stopped working, we sent the stun signal to every radio that we authorized the media outlets to use." <--- said in the most innocent tone possible

 

[krazybob]

I can't tell if what you posted is in response to the technical information I posted. If so, what you posted doesn't relate to what I posted.

If I may, what is your source that indicates that only one news agency went dead? This also overlooks the greater issue of civilian overview. I previously cited incidents where the Orange County Sheriff's Department used encryption and mobile data communications to conceal special handling of the undersheriff's son on more than one occasion while he was out of jail on bond for gang rape, a highly-publicized incident nationwide. Sheriff Carona as part of an overall investigation into the agency was sentenced to 66 months in federal prison.

Although the Constitution does not discuss in any manner our ability to monitor public safety communications, something not envisioned of course in the 1700s, it does specify We the People. The issue is much greater than a news outlet that somehow irritated the Sheriff's Department, which proves the point that we the people are being spit on. What makes a sheriff's department think that if they don't like something civilian overview has to say, they can then just kill their radio so they can't listen? Based on what federal or even state law was just authorized? Acting as a body of the government that would appear to be a direct infringement of the Constitution.

In my opinion for whatever it's worth, the government et al has not provided sufficient information to warrant and justify the wholesale encryption of communications. I've already granted I would forego sensitive tactical communications such as anti-terrorism, narcotics, and other aspects of law enforcement, but not routine communications. At a time when law enforcement needs the community even more to assist them with community policing they're shutting them out. Would you concede that point?

It is not uncommon for encrypted agencies to provide radios to news media, at least in California. I've already stated my objection to just the news media having access. It is not unreasonable to give examples of perhaps a kidnapping that just occurred with a vehicle description and license plate and a commuter that happens to have a scanner hearing the broadcast and seeing the vehicle right in front of him.

I make a regular 2 hour drive from the mountains of San Bernardino to Irvine California which usually has me returning at about 3 AM. That stretch the freeway is notorious for drunk drivers. On more than one occasion I have been the witness to the drunk driver and as one who has been previously employed as a traffic accident investigator, which includes DUI enforcement, and as a previously qualified expert on the matter, I've telephoned the incident in only to hear CHP put out the basic information and terminate it with "no follower" even though I have specifically stated to CHP that I am following. This is important because units don't generally head for an area when they're 10 miles away. On one occasion I followed because it was on my way anyway. He was using all lanes of a 5 lane freeway at a speed between 35 and 70 mph. With my hazard lights on I ran a rolling break behind the vehicle so that other motorist would be aware. None the less, I watched the vehicle I had previously reported go head-on into a gore point. A complaint was filed the following morning.

Ed, your knowledge on HIPAA is clearly greater than mine. But this is not a HIPAA incident. This is predominantly a Law Enforcement issue. While I would agree that EMS channels may be encrypted to facilitate better communication between EMS crews and the hospital, I would challenge the confidential nature of the information on the hospital side. It is my experience that it is a radio with a microphone sitting up on top of a file cabinet with a speaker and may be heard in the waiting room. I'm certain this is not a geographical phenomenon.

On the other hand, two years ago I participated in a rescue of three individuals that decided to go 4x4ing into a blizzard. They got stuck. In order to prove that the incident was not a joke I was asked to provide information on the driver. As prior law enforcement I knew to obtain the driver's license number, the street address, and the name of the individual. It was on a cell phone however. For more than 10 hours I treated three patients for hypothermia by communicating with a CB radio operator that was communicating to me and I was communicating to the battalion chief over analog fire radio. The three victims where rescued and arrived at the ER 14 hours after the incident began.

Because of advanced communications on my part with ER they already knew who was coming in. But that was done by telephone as well. I've been disabled for quite some time now and emergency communications via amateur radio is my way of giving back to my community. As a fellow ham yourself you know where I'm at on this. It did not hurt that I had a formal unit identifier and was authorized to communicate over the fire frequency. But the average civilian does not. I suppose that's my overall point is that the average citizen doesn't have a scanner and doesn't get involved.

 

[DaveNF2G]

Total misinterpretation of events.

California, like New York and probably most other states, has a computer network that accesses criminal record and other data. Access is not by voice radio. The states tightly regulate and control who has access to the database. (In NY, NYSPIN operators must be trained and certified by NYSP, who maintain the network. A dispatch center must meet certain requirements in order to have a terminal installed.)

A breach of the state regulations regarding access to the computer network and database can result in revocation of access. It has nothing to do with voice dispatch or other monitorable operations.

 

[krazybob]

Total misinterpretation of events.

California, like New York and probably most other states, has a computer network that accesses criminal record and other data. Access is not by voice radio. The states tightly regulate and control who has access to the database. (In NY, NYSPIN operators must be trained and certified by NYSP, who maintain the network. A dispatch center must meet certain requirements in order to have a terminal installed.)

A breach of the state regulations regarding access to the computer network and database can result in revocation of access. It has nothing to do with voice dispatch or other monitorable operations.

I said absolutely nothing about computer access. Neither did the news media whose two-way radio was stunned. Your disagreement with my interpretation empirically states that your interpretation is correct when there is no evidence that that is the case just as there's no evidence that my interpretation is correct. That's the point of discussion. I was very clear that I was discussing voice communications.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Citywide173]

If I may, what is your source that indicates that only one news agency went dead?

From the linked article in the OP:

Since it launched in 2010, ERICA has allowed The Desert Sun, KESQ, KMIR and City News Service to listen to its radio system, which is not available to the general public. In November, ERICA alerted the four news outlets it had decided to revoke their access to the broadcasts.

The radio at KESQ went silent shortly thereafter. Radios at The Desert Sun and KMIR continue to broadcast.

EDIT...rather than make an entirely new post.

Ed, your knowledge on HIPAA is clearly greater than mine. But this is not a HIPAA incident. This is predominantly a Law Enforcement issue.

In general it is predominantly a LE issue, but when they start making BS statements such as:

Chief Travis Walker of Cathedral City, who serves as chairman of the ERICA Technical Advisory Committee, said the agency decided to confine ERICA communications to law enforcement after legal counsel warned that allowing media access risked releasing protected information like warrants and medical history to people unauthorized by law to hear it.

They are relying on the public's ignorance of HIPAA's extensiveness to justify their actions, when there is nothing in there mandating them to do what they are doing. If they think that just because their system is encrypted it is HIPAA protected after they remove the media from monitoring and can say whatever they want, they are mistaken and will find that out the hard way eventually.

 

[krazybob]

Thank you for taking the time to do the research on this. I was completely unaware this situation even took place. Part of the reason for that is Riverside County Sheriff's department has undergone two significant changes. They are now a standard p25 encrypted system whereas previously they were not. As I recall they used EF Johnson but I can't be quite certain of that at the moment.

I don't know what KESQ would have done that would have compromised HIPAA. That is unless they use EMS Communications for some reason the names of the officers in the shooting was disclosed. I put some context to this but it also sets in motion legal challenges that I believe the media will win. As prior law enforcement I do not agree however with a new station releasing the names of the two murdered officers in the one seriously injured. I recall that day quite well. That's assuming that's what happened. It is going to be another legal challenge to say that they withdrew the ability to monitor their agency from all news media when in fact they only removed it from one. That means you're going to have the legal Departments of three other news entities jumping in and saying no you don't.

 

[flythunderbird]

The DOJ didn't require it be removed. It was the departments own legal counsel that recommended it.

The California DOJ is not mandating encryption. Our department just went through a DOJ inspection and we run VHF analog. Not a word about needing to change that.

Then I stand corrected. However, if DOJ legal counsel is currently recommending it, it's not completely unreasonable to think that there will eventually be a push to require it. The general trend in government is to conceal more, not less, and I say that as someone who has spent nearly 20 years in the federal government.

We'll see what happens. I really hope that I'm wrong.

 

[captainmax1]

I usually donate to my local LEO every year but the first year they go encrypted will be the last year I donate. My philosophy is that if everyone who donates quits donating when their local LEO goes encrypted then that would give a clear message to them that we don't like it and will not support it financially.

 

[krazybob]

Just for the sake of clarity let's point out that California DOJ is different than federal DOJ. Let's also remember that what I posted above comes from the Federal Department of Homeland Security and their recommendations on departments switching to encryption did seem more technical oriented than tactically.

 

[Citywide173]

Thank you for taking the time to do the research on this. I was completely unaware this situation even took place. Part of the reason for that is Riverside County Sheriff's department has undergone two significant changes. They are now a standard p25 encrypted system whereas previously they were not. As I recall they used EF Johnson but I can't be quite certain of that at the moment.

I don't know what KESQ would have done that would have compromised HIPAA. That is unless they use EMS Communications for some reason the names of the officers in the shooting was disclosed. I put some context to this but it also sets in motion legal challenges that I believe the media will win. As prior law enforcement I do not agree however with a new station releasing the names of the two murdered officers in the one seriously injured. I recall that day quite well. That's assuming that's what happened. It is going to be another legal challenge to say that they withdrew the ability to monitor their agency from all news media when in fact they only removed it from one. That means you're going to have the legal Departments of three other news entities jumping in and saying no you don't.

I don't think it was a HIPAA event or even a LE issue per se, I think that something negative was reported on that may or may not have had anything to do with the radio system and pulling the access was the quickest and most effective punishment to "put the media in their place." Of course, they had to justify it and used CORI and HIPAA concerns because most people aren't familiar enough to call BS.

 

[krazybob]

I don't think it was a HIPAA event or even a LE issue per se, I think that something negative was reported on that may or may not have had anything to do with the radio system and pulling the access was the quickest and most effective punishment to "put the media in their place." Of course, they had to justify it and used CORI and HIPAA concerns because most people aren't familiar enough to call BS.

I recall this incident. Three Palm Springs police officers were ambushed. Two died at the scene and I don't know the disposition of the third officer.

When I originally started in law enforcement I was assigned to Los Angeles County LCMC. On one particular occasion we had victims brought in by ambulance of a major event. The ambulance pulled in head first and was unloading visible to the public. This really was a no no. One particular news media was on scene while I was there and I informed them that they were fully aware that they were not authorized to record the victims. While one of them talked to me they both faced me but the camera man turned the camera and continued filming the individuals. I saw the red light on the camera and having at one time done stringer footage and knew exactly what he was doing. That's when I ordered the camera off and directed them to public information.

This situation seems similar. Except that they used the radio somehow to determine the names of the officer, the circumstances, or any combination, and released it publicly. You do not release the names a victim's over-the-air! If this is what took place then KESQ has earned a place on the naughty list.

The problem as I see it is that the sheriff's department indicated that all news media was going to have their ability to monitor removed but only hit KESQ. That may bite them in the butt. Policies need to be uniform and not punitive.

But as another user mentioned banning one news media organization opens the door to banning others. When the news media wins in court that will be the opening for the civilians to say "Hey! Wait a minute! We pay their salaries and they're not letting us listen but they're letting the news media listen?"

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

The logic behind this is pretty twisted. There are hundreds of agencies nationwide who operate radio systems which are not encrypted and the media and others can listen freely. Those agencies have no special requirement under HIPPA, DOJ or any other federal mandate to encrypt or otherwise bar the media from listening in. It is a political move and "Legal Counsel" of govt agencies are usually very susceptible to supporting whatever way the political winds are blowing.

What this will do is enrich the big two radio vendors to cash in on upgrades of existing systems by convincing local politicians that there is yet another federal mandate, just as P25 was thrown around as a Federal Mandate" when it was not.

This is your elected government in action folks. Pay attention..

 

[krazybob]

EXACTLY! That's why I posted the position paper direct from DHS. We need to remember the DHS hands out grants for entities upgrading their systems. What constitutes as an upgrade may very likely be an entirely new radio system.

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

EXACTLY! That's why I posted the position paper direct from DHS. We need to remember the DHS hands out grants for entities upgrading their systems. What constitutes as an upgrade may very likely be an entirely new radio system.

The fallacy of depending on federal grant money for P25 upgrades is huge. The grants barely cover any of the differential costs between P25 and analog or DMR. In fact DMR is 1/6 the cost for a small system.

To get back on topic. I am more concerned with huge credit "protection" bureaus Experian or Kroll losing my personal data than some news desk reporter with a scanner.

 

[krazybob]

The fallacy of depending on federal grant money for P25 upgrades is huge. The grants barely cover any of the differential costs between P25 and analog or DMR. In fact DMR is 1/6 the cost for a small system.

To get back on topic. I am more concerned with huge credit "protection" bureaus Experian or Kroll losing my personal data than some news desk reporter with a scanner.

As a victim of identity theft three times I would definitely agree with that!

Keep in mind that grants for large systems like Los Angeles County or San Bernardino County or whatever it may be out here in the West Coast or out on the East Coast, that's one thing. But when you're talking about a 25 million dollar grant to accounting of 1,000 that's a lot of money.

I'm also sure that individual cities within a County are requesting grants and then are contributing that grant money to a much larger County as they're buying. Individual County on the other hand submit for a grant and receives grant money as well.

But let's not forget the information I posted directly from DHS urges entities to update their systems to be technologically compatible and not technically. The only mention in brief compatibility for interoperability sake.