SB-1000 Law enforcement agencies: radio communications

[Oakland_Tower]

Up in the Portland Metro area there is a two county (Washington and Clackamas) P25 system that came online in the past few months. All LE is encrypted. However, the agency provides links to the public (through Broadcastify) of dispatch talk groups. Certainly EBRCS and other big systems could provide this. When I was up there February listening to fire traffic live and comparing to the feed, there was only a 1-2 minute delay (normal). WCCCA Scanner Info

 

[scannerboy02]

Do you have any idea how much that would cost?

It's a great solution, but not all agencies have the money to do that.
Adding another talk group on a trunked system is pretty easy.
Adding another channel on a non-trunked system isn't.
Adding more channels to a dispatch console isn't cheap.
Adding voice recorders isn't cheap.
Support, maintenance, depreciation all adds up.
And don't even think about raising taxes…..

Remember, ever vendor along the way wants their cut of the taxpayer pie. They are not going to give this stuff away.

It's not that expensive to have "channel 1" on 154.0 (frequency used as an example only) unencrypted and "channel 2" on 154.0 encrypted. Many, many, many small departments all over the country are making this kind of setup work very well for them.

 

[mmckenna]

It's not that expensive to have "channel 1" on 154.0 (frequency used as an example only) unencrypted and "channel 2" on 154.0 encrypted. Many, many, many small departments all over the country are making this kind of setup work very well for them.

But that goes back to officer/dispatcher training, which is an issue.
When you are dealing with PII, leaving it up to the end user to encrypt or not encrypt isn't a security procedure that would stand up in court. This is the reason why some agencies have chosen to go 100% full time encryption. It takes the guess work out and reduces the chance of someone screwing it up.

 

[Outerdog]

But that goes back to officer/dispatcher training, which is an issue.
When you are dealing with PII, leaving it up to the end user to encrypt or not encrypt isn't a security procedure that would stand up in court. This is the reason why some agencies have chosen to go 100% full time encryption. It takes the guess work out and reduces the chance of someone screwing it up.

Your position on PII and lawsuits related to OTA PII seems oversold. Why aren't California agencies buried in "lawsuits" now? The CLETS policy has been in place forever.

I'm also not convinced that these people with whom we place so much public trust are too stupid to cope with a radio protocol. Untold numbers of agencies have encrypted records channels. If the answer is that they just don't want to bother with it, then say that and stop making dumb excuses.

 

[mmckenna]

Your position on PII and lawsuits related to OTA PII seems oversold. Why aren't California agencies buried in "lawsuits" now? The CLETS policy has been in place forever.

I have no knowledge of any past or present lawsuits related to PII and CLETS. I'm not going to guess if there are any or not. It's not something I follow or am willing to put time/effort into researching.
My attempt here was to give the OP an alternate point of view. Usually when discussing complex issues like this, people like to have as much information as possible to make an informed decision/opinon. This isn't my "position", this is the CADOJ's position, and that document has been shared on this site before, and it's available to the public on the internet.

The primary driver behind this is to -prevent- issues. In a very litigious society, everyone is on guard. The state and individual agencies do not want to get sued. And we all know there are attorneys out there just looking for a reason to start a class action lawsuit.

I'm also not convinced that these people with whom we place so much public trust are too stupid to cope with a radio protocol. Untold numbers of agencies have encrypted records channels.

I agree. Again, it goes back to agencies not wanting to get sued. They want their policies and training to stand up in a lawsuit.
Individual agencies are coming up with their own policies and training for this. That's why there are different interpretations from agency to agency.

If the answer is that they just don't want to bother with it, then say that and stop making dumb excuses.

I think that is -exactly- what some of these agencies are saying in their own way. Unfortunately not everyone wants to hear it.

 

[pb3400]

This has exactly nil to do with court or getting sued, and everything to do with LE in CA finding a way to jump on the encryption bandwagon. Please don't take us for fools. Look at the Palo Alto fiasco, incredulous! Add on top of that the piss poor record some of these agencies have...they don't like being questioned; they wish to control the narrative. The proliferation of citizen oversight by use of mobile app audio feeds runs contrary to the LE ego, plain and simple.

Pretty much every major agency already has multiple channels and those users are already switching regularly. The State of CA has a budget surplus, perhaps they can spend that money on proper P25 interoperable radios or something useful, not like a train to nowhere.

On a related note though, does anyone think it fair that large newsrooms get access to encrypted feeds, but Joe citizen is left out in the cold? Simple as a function of one being "press" and the other not? In the US there is no "press license", anyone is the press, the system is designed that way. Providing radios and keys to some but not others is wrong.

 

[mmckenna]

This has exactly nil to do with court or getting sued, and everything to do with LE in CA finding a way to jump on the encryption bandwagon.

If it really was about "LE in CA Finding a way to jump on the encryption bandwagon.", they would have just required encryption.
They didn't, and since your statement doesn't provide any proof, it's just an assumption.

Remember, the DOJ bulletin does NOT require encryption, it only requires that PII be protected (Surprise, FBI/DOJ require the same thing). How that's done is up to the agencies. The current laws leave that decision up to the individual agency to do what works best for their situation. That's the way it should be.

Providing radios and keys to some but not others is wrong.

Easy solution.
No one gets radios. No one gets keys. Done.

 

[scannerboy02]

Easy solution.
No one gets radios. No one gets keys. Done.

Good thing people like me are around to make sure my public employees aren't taking it easy.

 

[mikkut]

This bill is up for a critical hearing with the senate appropriations committee on May 19. Besides corresponding with your local state senate member, you can comment directly to the senate appropriations committee here:

California Legislature Position Letter Portal

Creating an account is required but very easy, be sure to select SB1000 and select appropriations committee.

 

[mikkut]

Looks like this passed the appropriations committee. Next milestone is floor debate and vote of the full senate which appears hasn't been scheduled yet. Let your local state senate members know where you stand on this ....

 

[jirishpride707]

State Senate approved the bill. Next step, needs to pass the assembly and be signed by governor.

 

[MtnBiker2005]

Senate Bill 1000, also known as the "Public Right to Police Radio Communications Act,"

Upcoming Hearing:
Hearing: Jun 21 @ 9:00 am Assembly Public Safety Hearing
Tuesday, June 21, 2022
( Listen to this hearing )
https://apsf.assembly.ca.gov/hearings
https://www.assembly.ca.gov/media/126-video/audio

 

[scannerboy02]

Made it out of the Public Safety committee 3 to 2. Now on to appropriations.

 

[scannerboy02]

SB-1000: Law enforcement agencies: radio communications, has been set for hearing on 03-AUG-22 9 a.m.

 

[jwood]

 

[mmckenna]

SB1000 does not prohibit encryption. This bill has been in the pipe for a few months now...

The bill says that agencies should make appropriate access to radio traffic possible.
"Possible" does not mean requiring all radio traffic in the clear.
"Appropriate" means tactical and record channels can stay encrypted, and dispatch can be encrypted with work arounds:

It can mean that recordings can be requested via freedom of information act type requests, but agencies can charge a reasonable amount to produce them. PII/CJI will still be redacted.
It can mean that PII/CJI is handled on another channel, where possible/available
It can mean that transcripts can be requested from the agency, and said agency can charge for their labor.

SB1000 doesn't overturn the requirements from the CADOJ requiring the protection of personal info.

 

[marcotor]

Isn't this news story from June 13th? Hardly makes it NEWS THAT JUST HIT.

I have a feeling if this passes the Assembly and Gov. signs it, there will be a boon to Broadcastify. Be relatively easy for an agency to provide an "Official Feed" and meet the requirements while maintaining the integrity of the system, and not having to reprogram, rekey, etc.

In spite of what many think, there is no "switch to flip".

 

[medic9351301]

if the bill does pass , keep in mind the agencies may have to pay to unecncrypt. or thats what i have been told .
but i could be wrong .

 

[ecps92]

All depends on how their radios were programmed.
Selectable ENC - just move the rocker knob - no cost
Strapped ENC - needs to have a radio tech reprogram the radio. Cost is the Tech's time and if an outside Radio Shop - cost overhead (add ons)

if the bill does pass , keep in mind the agencies may have to pay to unecncrypt. or thats what i have been told .
but i could be wrong .

 

[mmckenna]

if the bill does pass , keep in mind the agencies may have to pay to unecncrypt. or thats what i have been told .
but i could be wrong .

The bill includes some funding to cover potential costs.