Engine104
Member since 2005
Interesting read in today's L.A. Times on the SD Sheriff's encryption. Not much new info, though... San Diego County Sheriff's Department encrypts radio communications; lack of transparency decried
San Diego County encryption
- Thread starter Anderegg
- Start date
- Status
This is a good example of the disparity that exists between what CVPD puts out for the public vs what actually happened. Note the distinct absence of the 187 that started as a physical altercation. If the media had not found out about this, the public would not have been made aware of it.
JKPHOTO
Member
As long as we are on this topic, just how did you discover the incident at the Seven Mile Casino considering the silence of CVPD radios? I understand if it is proprietary information, and you don't wish to disclose. Is that CVPD Incident Log open to the public and how would I find it? How up to date is the log?
Thank you.
Thank you.
Assignment editors do what are called "beat checks", which involve making phone calls to agencies to ask them if anything newsworthy is happening. This was one of the rare times that someone answered the phone. CVPD Watch Commanders typically will be seen out in the field in white unmarked SUVs, and away from the landlines we call for info. For the majority of agencies, the dispatchers who answer media calls at night are not permitted to answer media inquiries.
Paul
San Diego County sheriff's radio goes silent
www.sandiegoreader.com
Paul
JoeyC
Senior Member
I looked up 1/19/2022 and it shows 1 call for the 24 hour period. What a joke.
Good news Chula Vista PD has FINALLY issued a press release for the incident that happened a week ago... 
On a homicide related side note, the daytime stringer didn't hear a 187 that came out in Lakeside yesterday due to encryption. When a tipster spoke of something happening in Lakeside, our news desk called SDSO, and was told they could not tell us what was happening, or any location of the incident they were not admitting happened, or didn't happen. A press release followed the next day, but you didn't sere it on our newscast because of encryption, and the departments inability to respond to a specific request for information from the news media.
If my previous idea to request a clear patch for active newsworthy incidents were to be agreed to, I wonder if Broadcastify would agree to not carry the channels on their live feeds. I think it's the live streaming that bothers agencies rather than the hobbyists who spend $700 for a physical scanner.
On a homicide related side note, the daytime stringer didn't hear a 187 that came out in Lakeside yesterday due to encryption. When a tipster spoke of something happening in Lakeside, our news desk called SDSO, and was told they could not tell us what was happening, or any location of the incident they were not admitting happened, or didn't happen. A press release followed the next day, but you didn't sere it on our newscast because of encryption, and the departments inability to respond to a specific request for information from the news media.
If my previous idea to request a clear patch for active newsworthy incidents were to be agreed to, I wonder if Broadcastify would agree to not carry the channels on their live feeds. I think it's the live streaming that bothers agencies rather than the hobbyists who spend $700 for a physical scanner.
What you're saying reminds me of when SDFD used to deem an event as Code N (newsworthy). It's doable if the agency wanted to push out an alert on an unencrypted channel like Blue 1 or an LE Command as you suggest Paul.
I totally agree about no intenet feed.
I am wondering, why isn't there more of an outcry from the media and assignment editors? Are they trying to work through the Co. Board of Supervisors or City Councils to gain access for transparency?
I know up in Palo Alto where I am from, the city council wasn't even informed that the PD encrypted. They are looking into alternatives now that they were made aware by a local paper who reported it and claimed there was no longer transparency. Now the city council may possibly push to unencrypt if its an option.
I totally agree about no intenet feed.
I am wondering, why isn't there more of an outcry from the media and assignment editors? Are they trying to work through the Co. Board of Supervisors or City Councils to gain access for transparency?
I know up in Palo Alto where I am from, the city council wasn't even informed that the PD encrypted. They are looking into alternatives now that they were made aware by a local paper who reported it and claimed there was no longer transparency. Now the city council may possibly push to unencrypt if its an option.
It is a problem with many angles. There is the "mandate". Then there is the individual agencies decision to fully encrypt. Then there is the agencies decisions or policies to either not answer the phone when it rings, or to not provide information "on demand" when requested. Then you have public records requests, which would first require knowing that something has happened to request records on i, then waiting an inordinate and unregulated amount of time. It's like "you don't know what you don't know".
As far as I know, there is no state or federal law that requires law enforcement agencies to proactively notify the media or the public to active or recent incidents. The new policies and actions you see with some agencies releasing bodycam footage the same day, are a direct response to angry demands (violent protests even) made by the public. Obviously this is not coded in statute, rather a department proactively making the decision to do so with the intent of lessening any backlash and liability that may come from not doing so.
Encryption is here to stay, and agencies are free to keep secret the goings on of their patrol officers interacting with the public. Just as COVID changed so many things forever, encryption and the desire to not have something best described as "state controlled media" will hopefully spawn a change in how the media and law enforcement interact. Like it or not, the media plays a key role in informing the public, as you cannot expect an agency to email every single citizen in the county, or reverse 911 messages for every call for service. So it falls on the media, with backing by the public who would demand the vital and important functions the media performs not be infringed.
Paul
As far as I know, there is no state or federal law that requires law enforcement agencies to proactively notify the media or the public to active or recent incidents. The new policies and actions you see with some agencies releasing bodycam footage the same day, are a direct response to angry demands (violent protests even) made by the public. Obviously this is not coded in statute, rather a department proactively making the decision to do so with the intent of lessening any backlash and liability that may come from not doing so.
Encryption is here to stay, and agencies are free to keep secret the goings on of their patrol officers interacting with the public. Just as COVID changed so many things forever, encryption and the desire to not have something best described as "state controlled media" will hopefully spawn a change in how the media and law enforcement interact. Like it or not, the media plays a key role in informing the public, as you cannot expect an agency to email every single citizen in the county, or reverse 911 messages for every call for service. So it falls on the media, with backing by the public who would demand the vital and important functions the media performs not be infringed.
Paul
speedway_navigator
Member
I would not like to think content delivery networks providing information in between revenue generating ads would have the ability to get info members of the public would not. The internet has changed the pipeline of info that use to be thought of as only something news media could provide.
If anyone has every read the daily NAB news list they treat journalists as something akin to angels of mercy. When Trump pulled a CNN reporters access it was a major item, when Joe called a reporter an SOB it was damn near the last item on the list.
I've been a cop and a reporter, I'm involved in local government and have been openly opposed to encrypting dispatch channels. I keep reminding govt officials that public safety only has 2 words and the first isn't 'need to know'.
If anyone has every read the daily NAB news list they treat journalists as something akin to angels of mercy. When Trump pulled a CNN reporters access it was a major item, when Joe called a reporter an SOB it was damn near the last item on the list.
I've been a cop and a reporter, I'm involved in local government and have been openly opposed to encrypting dispatch channels. I keep reminding govt officials that public safety only has 2 words and the first isn't 'need to know'.
Careful with words like "need", because public and media would counter with words like "rights", the LE counter with "duty" and "oath", then other side counters with protests and riots. Just like a slice of pizza, the issue comes with two opposing sides.
Paul
Paul
There must still be a lot of un-keyed (my word(s) for radios without correct encryption key) in use as I am still hearing a lot of in the clear traffic as patched to the TAC-2 channels (which, as I understand it, are temporarily being used to carry the dispatch traffic non-encrypted for those units still needing it). Any idea how long this may last. I know it will go away sometime, of course, just a little surprised it has lasted as long as it has since they threw the switch on the main dispatch channels. I am referring to the SDSD stuff, Poway, San Marcos, and Vista.
The encrypted traffic on primary will always come out decoded over the unencrypted patch channel. Once in a while a deputy who just got reprogrammed will accidentally transmit on Tac 2 (cue Cops TV show "cant transmit on tac 2") as encrypted and the unencrypted deputies can't hear them. I wonder how this will affect TAC 1???? The encrypted reprogrammed radios are still clear on Tac 1, but the primary encryption is hard programmed into the radios, so who knows if a fleetmap change was also performed and the old Tac 2 is renamed something else and will be deleted next touch.
I was told this will be an expected (planned) 12-week transition process.
Paul
I was told this will be an expected (planned) 12-week transition process.
Paul
I'm glad for the reprieve, even though I know it's short-lived. We still have Blue 1, North Command, etc., for mutual aid incidents, such as pursuits, though (unless they encrypt those, too, at some point).
d119
Patch & Channels Clear...
You can bet that these agencies are reveling in the discussions here on the forum about it. Maybe just constant media ridealongs going forward.
It's one big fraternity. They don't give a rats ass about the public.
Get used to it now, though. The next step for public safety radio is inevitably going to be a cellular-style situation, and encryption would be inherent in that anyway. We've already touched on that subject.
You can bet that the mutual aid trunked talkgroups for law enforcement will eventually go encrypted as well, once all of the concerned agencies have encryption-capable radios and have encrypted their stuff.
It's one big fraternity. They don't give a rats ass about the public.
Get used to it now, though. The next step for public safety radio is inevitably going to be a cellular-style situation, and encryption would be inherent in that anyway. We've already touched on that subject.
You can bet that the mutual aid trunked talkgroups for law enforcement will eventually go encrypted as well, once all of the concerned agencies have encryption-capable radios and have encrypted their stuff.
After SDPD goes full encryption, they will want the RCS M/A zone encrypted as well. They would still have County Call/Tacs and ICS if they really needed outside agency assistance, like how Orange County has those clear Tan channels.
Paul
Funny… it’s almost as if that’s what a lot of people have been complaining about with law enforcement for some time now.
Paul, Have you heard of any plans of SDPD going to full encryption so far? I know it's always a possibility but I had the feeling the mayor wasn't a fan of encryption based on a bill he authored in the state assembly years back to keep transparency at least with the media, if not the public.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked