Roselle PD encryption

[Analogrules]

I just noticed that the Roselle PD (channel 3) is encrypted. I updated the DB. I really hope this doesn't become the case with all PD's on NJICS.

 

[ansky]

I assume channel 3 is probably some special ops channel and not the main dispatch channel. I'm ok with that kind of thing as long as dispatch remains in the clear.

 

[Analogrules]

Yeah, it's not their main dispatch channel. But, I am sure that they have the "option" to encrypt any of their channels at any time. This begs the question why they don't just choose to encrypt everything on NJICS since as far as I heard, all their radios have that option?

 

[APX8000]

Just because a PD had the "option" to encrpt doesn't mean that they have the willingness to. Most of the subscriber units rolled out by Big M have the ADP encryption option as well, but the vast majority don't use it.

 

[Analogrules]

I am just surprised they don't have the "willingness" to encrypt since they have that option to prevent people from listening in.

 

[Markscan]

Encryption kinda defeats the purpose of interoperability doesn't it? Tactical or detective channels I understand, but dispatch should be in the clear. Just my opinion.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Analogrules]

Of course WE would all like to see all dispatch channels in the clear. However, encryption wouldn't defeat the concept of "interop" as long as ALL radios in the interop system have the option to encrypt. It would not prevent anyone in the system to communicate with each other.

 

[APX8000]

Encryption does not mean you lose interoperability...as long as keys are shared among the agencies that you wish to have interoperability with. The Feds have numerous channels and shared/IOP keys and they work just fine. Just look at the recent Pope visit to DC, NYC and Philly. The majority of federal comms in all three cities were encrypted and think of how many different federal agencies were there. Yet, they were all able to communicate. So I'll respectfully disagree with you. The willingness to encrypt is what drives it or prevents it. Some Chiefs want the people to know that they are out there doing the work and doing it good while others want to hide what goes on in their jurisdiction. I will again say that I personally don't believe everyday comms should be encrypted and I've worked in public safety for 20 plus years. But I will tell you if I switch to a tac that's encrypted it's because I don't want you to hear and it's for a reason...whether it be active surveillance, getting an alarm code or hidden key location to check a house, confirm someone's SSN for a warrant, etc. I'll my coffee over the main channel and could care less. By the way, I take it Bravo no Sierra or Boy no Sam depending on which alphabet you use.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[APX8000]

Edit...I would agree with you not respectfully disagree.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Analogrules]

Signal Zero....so are you basically saying that most public safety officers including yourself don't mind if a scanner hobbyist is listening in, as long as you are not relaying sensitive information? I feel that is the point you are making, but just wanted to verify that I understand you correctly.

 

[APX8000]

Correct...I don't know anyone personally in Police, Fire or EMS that's cares if the people listen in to their comms. In fact, I know several departments that actually broadcast their channels over broadcastify.

I've been helped numerous times from citizens that heard something on the scanner, whether it was trying to locate an address or call to say the suspect they we looking for just ran through their backyard. I remember prior to 911 when I was working the desk and someone called to report an rollover in front of the old McCanns Farm and then got disconnected due to a bad analog cell signal (I'm dating myself now). The guys on the road, also young and new like I was, had no idea where that was when I put it out over the air. Within a few seconds the phone rang and the caller
says "tell your units it's on XYZ road about 1/4 mile from ABC road." Needless to say he was listening and it helped or else we would have been driving all over the place searching. The encryption mentality comes from overzealous bosses who forget the reason they took the job.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[APX8000]

But again, there is a place for encryption like the scenarios I mentioned, SWAT, Detective, Narcotics, etc. and I believe those channels SHOULD be. I know they are fun to listen to and you'll hear some interesting things, but in this world of social media...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ansky]

But again, there is a place for encryption like the scenarios I mentioned, SWAT, Detective, Narcotics, etc. and I believe those channels SHOULD be. I know they are fun to listen to and you'll hear some interesting things, but in this world of social media...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree there are some instances where encryption should be used. Just this past week I was listening to one of the local police departments in my area. The officer gave out a person's full name, address, date of birth, and SSN over the air and in the clear. This was on a secondary channel, but it was not encrypted. This opens up the serious potential for identity theft with all that sensitive information.

 

[johnls7424]

Encryption kinda defeats the purpose of interoperability doesn't it? Tactical or detective channels I understand, but dispatch should be in the clear. Just my opinion.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

It does, but they justify it by " mutual aid" channels that almost every dept can have programmed into their radios for their interop purposes.