San Francisco Public Safety going Digital June 2021

[leonzo]

I have a couple of suggestions for people who live in California and are upset about law enforcement encryption.1. Contact the head of the California Department of Justice. Their "mandate" is what is causing this encryption mess. So basically a bureaucrat made a decision that effects all law enforcement statewide? California citizens need to make sure that the head person knows that you disagree and that the order should be rescinded.
2-Contact a member of your state legislature, preferably the one that represents the area where you live. Ask them to sponsor a bill mandating that taxpayer funded law enforcement agencies that respond to citizen 911 calls CANNOT encrypt their dispatch and or operational channels. As to the rationale why not, send me an email to "Leonzo@hotmail.com". I will email you a paper that I have written on this subject and you can share that paper with the state legislative staff people. It will lay out many reasons why total encryption in a democracy is not only a bad idea but goes against democratic ideals that this country professes to stand for. The state of Colorado recently passed a law mandating what I just outlined. Since Colorado was successful in a state law, I am sure it is possible in California and or any other state where the citizens fight back against public safety radio encryption!

 

[Outerdog]

Is this thread going to turn into an encryption debate?

 

[neilharvey94044]

Can confirm, only SFFD on analog channels now. I've put off getting a digital system because it looked like encryption was likely, now that appears to be the case and aligns with what every department that's gone digital on the Peninsula has done. Aside from the hobby, this makes government transparency and general knowledge of safety issues much harder for the public.

 

[AK9R]

There is nothing in the forum rules prohibiting discussions of encryption of public safety radio.

If you do not want to participate in a discussion of encryption of public safety radio, then don't post.

However, if you are going to debate the impact of live scanner feeds on encryption, then go here:

The Official Thread: Live audio feeds, scanners, and... wait for it.. ENCRYPTION!

In the words of the Bud Light commercial .... HERE WE GO! Go forth and fight for and against the RadioReference Live Audio Feed platform. Keep it civil, keep it clean. Good luck :roll:

forums.radioreference.com

 

[Outerdog]

There is nothing in the forum rules prohibiting discussions of encryption of public safety radio.

No, but there is:

6. Stay on topic. If the post topic is about "Your Favorite HF Frequencies" and you jump in and post "What is the best HF Radio?" then you are just taking the thread into the weeds. Start a new thread if it isn't on topic for the existing one.

This thread is about SF's transition to the new P25 digital system including the use of encryption, not about the merits of encryption.

 

[KD6JEK]

Since about 1:30 this morning, I have been hearing activity on the encrypted LE talkgroups (A1, A3, A5, and A7). It's very brief and not anything like before, but it's better than nothing at this point. You just hear the dispatchers... you don't hear the officers. It's similar to what UCSF PD and SF State PD are doing now.

 

[rustyhodge]

Confirm. Mostly just the dispatcher. Lot's of "10-4s". I put some recordings on Dropbox in case anyone wants to check them out. I'll leave them there for a few days:

Dropbox - Error - Simplify your life

www.dropbox.com

Definitely a lot less informative as you're not hearing the disposition of calls now.

 

[resnickm]

Can confirm, only SFFD on analog channels now. I've put off getting a digital system because it looked like encryption was likely, now that appears to be the case and aligns with what every department that's gone digital on the Peninsula has done. Aside from the hobby, this makes government transparency and general knowledge of safety issues much harder for the public.

Ha, I noticed this as well but started hearing SFFD on the P25 again a bit ago.

 

[KD6JEK]

Fire switched over first back in September…

 

[WB6WQF]

SFPD B3 (Event 3) is coming through. Everything else on SFPD is still dark.

 

[WB6WQF]

SFPD A1 and A7 are very active this morning

 

[footage]

Yes, the clear transmissions are irregular but it's good to start hearing something. BTW, never any answer from my queries to SFPD. I'm going to ask my Supervisor (our city council person) to look into why they never answer their emails.

 

[WB6WQF]

Yes, the clear transmissions are irregular but it's good to start hearing something. BTW, never any answer from my queries to SFPD. I'm going to ask my Supervisor (our city council person) to look into why they never answer their emails.

Oh, the stories that I could tell you about the City (offline). Don't expect a response and be a fortunate one of very few if you do receive a response.

 

[es93546]

I have a couple of suggestions for people who live in California and are upset about law enforcement encryption.1. Contact the head of the California Department of Justice. Their "mandate" is what is causing this encryption mess. So basically a bureaucrat made a decision that effects all law enforcement statewide? California citizens need to make sure that the head person knows that you disagree and that the order should be rescinded.
2-Contact a member of your state legislature, preferably the one that represents the area where you live. Ask them to sponsor a bill mandating that taxpayer funded law enforcement agencies that respond to citizen 911 calls CANNOT encrypt their dispatch and or operational channels. As to the rationale why not, send me an email to "Leonzo@hotmail.com". I will email you a paper that I have written on this subject and you can share that paper with the state legislative staff people. It will lay out many reasons why total encryption in a democracy is not only a bad idea but goes against democratic ideals that this country professes to stand for. The state of Colorado recently passed a law mandating what I just outlined. Since Colorado was successful in a state law, I am sure it is possible in California and or any other state where the citizens fight back against public safety radio encryption!

I don't think the CA Dept. of Justice is responsible for encrypting or keeping PII (Personal Identifying Information) traffic off the air. I believe it is the FBI or federal Dept. of Justice that is doing so. I could be wrong, as I am time to time, but I think this is the case. I don't want to continue an encryption gripe discussion, but this is as good a place to answer where this PII radio traffic policy is coming from.

 

[Outerdog]

I could be wrong,

You are.

https://oag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/clets-ppp%2012-2019.pdf

 

[es93546]

You are.

https://oag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/clets-ppp%2012-2019.pdf

Thanks for the link. I have some reading to do to find out what the California policy is. I should note California's adoption of this policy may be the result of a federal policy. Maybe this CA DOJ policy spells this out, but I can't look right now. I have to shovel some major (but not record breaking) snow off my back deck.

 

[mmckenna]

Thanks for the link. I have some reading to do to find out what the California policy is. I should note California's adoption of this policy may be the result of a federal policy. Maybe this CA DOJ policy spells this out, but I can't look right now. I have to shovel some major (but not record breaking) snow off my back deck.

It partially is. FBI CJIS requirements say that CJIS must be encrypted and not shared. That includes over the radio.
The State of California CLETS system also has the same requirements.
None of these requirements are new, they've been there for a very long time. They are only now being enforced.

The FBI has requirements regarding protecting access to CJIS.
The State has requirements regarding protecting access to CJIS.

The FBI provides access to their databases to the state. The requirements to protect access to the FBI databases gets passed down.
The state provides that access to the FBI systems as well as state systems to the counties.
The counties turn around and provide that access to local agencies.

The FBI requirements for protecting access to CJIS information doesn't just apply to ~just~ San Francisco, or ~just~ the State of California. It applies to everyone who touches it. Doesn't matter what state, county or city.

 

[es93546]

The FBI requirements for protecting access to CJIS information doesn't just apply to ~just~ San Francisco, or ~just~ the State of California. It applies to everyone who touches it. Doesn't matter what state, county or city.

That's what I thought, thanks for pointing that out. So encrypted channels for "info" or similar names will be the minimum for all systems at some point. There are a lot of rural LE radio systems that don't have this capability at this point. I suspect that the radio systems of my favorite agencies, the natural resource agencies, are going digital in the near future and that encryption will be part of that move.

I'm going to take a stab at what CJIS means since you didn't define the acronym. How about "Criminal Justice Information Service?" I have such poor luck doing Google searches of the undefined acronyms I see on this site, I just skipped doing it this time.

 

[mmckenna]

That's what I thought, thanks for pointing that out. So encrypted channels for "info" or similar names will be the minimum for all systems at some point. There are a lot of rural LE radio systems that don't have this capability at this point. I suspect that the radio systems of my favorite agencies, the natural resource agencies, are going digital in the near future and that encryption will be part of that move.

I'm going to take a stab at what CJIS means since you didn't define the acronym. How about "Criminal Justice Information Service?" I have such poor luck doing Google searches of the undefined acronyms I see on this site, I just skipped doing it this time.

Close enough. Criminal Justice Information Systems.
PII = Personal Identifying Information.

There is absolutely nothing new going on here. The requirements to protect personal identifying information (criminal or otherwise) has been on the books for a long time. Only thing that changed is that the agencies are enforcing the requirements that law enforcement agencies agreed to a long time ago.

How that's done varies:
Handle person info over a cell phone or terminal.
Handle it over a separate encrypted radio channel.
Don't handle it at all, leave the officers in the dark and with no clue who they are dealing with.
Carrier pigeons.
Some combination of above.

But there's so many different agencies with different communications systems that there's not one solution that works for all instances.

Doesn't matter what happens, someone is going to be upset….

 

[leonzo]

I don't think the CA Dept. of Justice is responsible for encrypting or keeping PII (Personal Identifying Information) traffic off the air. I believe it is the FBI or federal Dept. of Justice that is doing so. I could be wrong, as I am time to time, but I think this is the case. I don't want to continue an encryption gripe discussion, but this is as good a place to answer where this PII radio traffic policy is coming from.

I have to push back on that idea because, if it was a federal government issue, then the "excuse" would be in effect nationwide. The state of CA is the only place where law enforcement officials are citing the CA DOJ as the reason for encryption.