RSO opposes Senate bill to restore public police radio communications

blantonl

Founder and CEO
Staff member
Joined
Dec 9, 2000
Messages
10,387
Location
San Antonio, Whitefish, New Orelans
The Riverside County Sheriff's Department is negotiating with a California state senator on a bill that would restore public access to encrypted police radio traffic .

In recent years, after a Department of Justice mandate, police departments around California have encrypted their radio signals, blocking the public from hearing real time public safety updates.

SB 1000, proposed by Sen. Josh Becker (D-SD 13), would change that by requiring police agencies to make some of their radio traffic public again – and while RSO officials say they oppose the bill "as it is written," they're working on finding a compromise.

"We are trying to work with with Senator Becker on this and we are definitely not opposed to any other transparency concerns," said Sgt. Julio de Leon, RSO's legislative representative.
 

KG7PBS

Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2015
Messages
537
Location
Sacramento CA
Well from a technical standpoint I have the perfect solution. It's a trunking system so you can create as many talk groups as you want. You have the system administrator create a new receive only dispatch talk group for all the dispatch channels. Then the system Techs just route the dispatch traffic this new unencrypted talk groups. The talk groups don't have to get programmed into the radios cuz they won't be used by law enforcement. But you can now route the encrypted traffic to those talk groups in the clear. maybe a couple thousand bucks to do that and done. Don't work harder work smarter
 

marcotor

I ♥ÆS Ø
Feed Provider
Joined
Nov 4, 2004
Messages
915
Location
Sunny SoCal
Before anyone gets too excited, there is NO mandate in the bill to un-encrypt over the air dispatch channels. Everyone is excited, but the bill merely directs agencies provide "access" to the public, and may charge a "reasonable fee". This could be as simple as come to the desk, give us date / time information, and we will provide. If this passes as-is, I think agencies will be interested in the solution Orange County provided for Fire. Broadcastify feeds. No need to touch any radios. No infrastructure rigamarole, or routing of talkgroups.

Everything stays encrypted over the air. Nothing in SB1000 mandates removal of OTA encryption, only providing "public access".
 

mmckenna

I ♥ Ø
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
18,824
Location
LATA 722
Before anyone gets too excited, there is NO mandate in the bill to un-encrypt over the air dispatch channels. Everyone is excited, but the bill merely directs agencies provide "access" to the public, and may charge a "reasonable fee". This could be as simple as come to the desk, give us date / time information, and we will provide. If this passes as-is, I think agencies will be interested in the solution Orange County provided for Fire. Broadcastify feeds. No need to touch any radios. No infrastructure rigamarole, or routing of talkgroups.

Everything stays encrypted over the air. Nothing in SB1000 mandates removal of OTA encryption, only providing "public access".
Yep, I've been saying this for months. Our Cheif and I have been watching it, and we're not concerned. It's the same protocol we use now to give access to 911 call records and other info.

But, this keeps getting tossed out as "end of encryption".
 

KG7PBS

Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2015
Messages
537
Location
Sacramento CA
Yep, I've been saying this for months. Our Cheif and I have been watching it, and we're not concerned. It's the same protocol we use now to give access to 911 call records and other info.

But, this keeps getting tossed out as "end of encryption".
Oh trust me I know it's not the End of Encryption. I was just merely making a comment for that sergeant that thinks it's going to cost so much to give access. Person I think that's the easiest way to do it.
 

scannerizer

Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2009
Messages
440
Location
Bryn-Mawr/Skyway Area
Well then, put a Broadcastify feed or calls of each station with maybe a delay. They put radio audio from critical incidents in their videos. Why not click on the Patrol Station and have a Live Audio button on the website, or on Broadcastify/Calls?
 

mmckenna

I ♥ Ø
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
18,824
Location
LATA 722
Well then, put a Broadcastify feed or calls of each station with maybe a delay. They put radio audio from critical incidents in their videos. Why not click on the Patrol Station and have a Live Audio button on the website, or on Broadcastify/Calls?
Problem is the requirement to not send PII/CJI out over the radio/computer/internets/telegraph/tin cans and string, still apply.

Simply streaming radio traffic, even with a delay, doesn't fix the issue.
Redacting/bleeping out PII/CJI is still required. That requires a dispatcher to hit a button to stop the streaming during the transmissions where that happens.
 

wd8chl

Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2007
Messages
133
Problem is the requirement to not send PII/CJI out over the radio/computer/internets/telegraph/tin cans and string, still apply.
That information should never be passed on normal dispatch channels. Ever. Under any circumstances. Another argument for better training.
In fact, that kind of information, if it has to be passed by voice, is the ONLY info that justifies encryption, and it should be done off of dispatch. TAC channels should still be open as well.

I look at this somewhat the way I look at dashcam/bodycam footage. The public has a right to to know what their law enforcement is doing and why. Especially with the massive abuses we've seen coming to light (and trust me, it's been going on all along, but we can finally shine a light on it now.), the public needs to be able to hold them accountable when they screw up and someone gets hurt.

Cleveland is passing a law that bodycam footage from incidents must be released in 7 days. Radio traffic should also, plus near live (typical internet lags are more than enough delay) reception should be required as well.
 

mmckenna

I ♥ Ø
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
18,824
Location
LATA 722
That information should never be passed on normal dispatch channels. Ever. Under any circumstances. Another argument for better training.
In fact, that kind of information, if it has to be passed by voice, is the ONLY info that justifies encryption, and it should be done off of dispatch. TAC channels should still be open as well.
Absolutes, like "never" "under any circumstances", etc. are nice, but don't reflect reality. The world is a dynamic place, and agencies need to be able to adapt to situations.
I get it, for scanner listeners it's nice to see mandates like this, but in reality, it doesn't work.

If this gets pushed to far, agencies will just go to LTE and no one will be able to listen to anything.

And not all agencies are on trunked systems or even have more than a single channel.

I look at this somewhat the way I look at dashcam/bodycam footage. The public has a right to to know what their law enforcement is doing and why. Especially with the massive abuses we've seen coming to light (and trust me, it's been going on all along, but we can finally shine a light on it now.), the public needs to be able to hold them accountable when they screw up and someone gets hurt.
I can mostly agree, but what you will never see is 100% uninterrupted real time access to officers body cams. That's always going to be restricted at some level, and rely on an agency releasing that to the public.

All public safety needs to be held accountable, but we gotta get off this thing where the only possible and acceptable way to do that is via a random dude with a scanner.

Law enforcement agencies have a black eye, and yeah, it hurts. There needs to be more accountability. There's many ways to do that, and almost all those ways benefit MORE people than just scanner listeners.

Agencies are not going to cater to a specific hobby. Radio traffic in the clear is certainly one option, but there are others.

Cleveland is passing a law that bodycam footage from incidents must be released in 7 days. Radio traffic should also, plus near live (typical internet lags are more than enough delay) reception should be required as well.
Internet streaming delays do nothing to protect CJI/PII.
 

marcotor

I ♥ÆS Ø
Feed Provider
Joined
Nov 4, 2004
Messages
915
Location
Sunny SoCal
All public safety needs to be held accountable, but we gotta get off this thing where the only possible and acceptable way to do that is via a random dude with a scanner.
But.. but.. what about the MILLIONS of instances (according to posts here) where scanner users have assisted in the capture of wanton criminal mayhem suspects? ;)

And I heartily agree, public safety need to be held accountable, but it seems a bit of inflated importance and self-serving to claim listeners are the watchdog of the airwaves. Reminds me of "When all else fails".

Edit: Now that I think of it, all those demanding from public safety instances where someone was captured using a scanner, I would ask the same from them, for a list of instances where scanner listeners held police accountable for whatever chicanery they were up to.
 
Last edited:

mmckenna

I ♥ Ø
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
18,824
Location
LATA 722
But.. but.. what about the MILLIONS of instances (according to posts here) where scanner users have assisted in the capture of wanton criminal mayhem suspects? ;)
There are obviously much better ways for law enforcement to reach the public instantaneously IF they want the help of the general public.
 

Ravenfalls

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
319
CHP, their new setup will be dispatch in clear & Blue etc enc?

RSO does run people on main channel - don't see anything working out for scanner listeners from them. Keep a 2nd
dispatcher on the main talkgroup for records check.
 
Top