Scanners Going away?

[kermit1]

It is ironic that, as governments seek to invade the privacy of citizens, they simultaneously attempt to make their own activities less and less transparent. I have started collecting news articles related to scanning and encryption and several common themes have emerged.

1. Public safety requires encryption of all transmissions.
2. The public has no right to listen to these transmissions.
3. Scanner users are a lunatic fringe of busybodies.

These points ignore the legitimate need of outsiders to get information first hand. The news media is obvious. There are others with good reasons to listen including disaster service providers like the Red Cross and amateur radio groups who provide communication support in times of need. Of course, citizens who are in the vicinity of a disaster need to know what's going on too. In short people have reasons to use scanners that go way beyond idle curiosity. With few exceptions the news reports ignore or trivialize these concerns and naturally public officials do too.

When asked, most honest police officials will admit that the use of scanners by criminals is rare. Yes, it happens, but not to the extent that it is a serious problem. Also, most public safety radio traffic is not confidential. Rather, it's routine and boring and does not need to be encrypted.

The problem is that the issue is not one that most people care much about, have the technical expertise to understand or will be asked to approve anyway. The decision to encrypt transmissions won't be put to a vote or even debated in public. Your elected representatives will give little thought to it either. After all, who could be against more safety and security. The Nazis used the same arguments in the 1930's. Want to get people to give up freedom and privacy, tell them it will make them more secure.

What to do? Keep tabs on local changes to radio systems if they are made public. Try to educate public officials about the value of transparent systems. Get the support of the media. Don't let yourself be marginalized as a crazy.

AB6JK

When my town went encrypted a few years ago, they gave the TV station an encrypted radio to shut them up when they complained about 'transparency'. They quickly shut up and nobody has heard a peep about it since.

As long as the media gets theres, they don't care about anybody else.

 

[Hatchett]

The TYT MD-380 includes basic encryption for free out of the box. I never said it had hacked encryption. I own 2 stock non hacked they do.
http://www.hamgeeks.com/technical-resources/tytera-md-380-dmr-info/

$120 radio with encryption….
Here is a question that keeps popping up in my mind that I have ask before….
When the primary licensed user of a frequency is using encryption.
Then bootleggers using those $120 radios sporadically operate on that same frequency.. also using encryption.

How will the primary users even know the bootleggers are there? They will never hear the voice of the offending party across their speakers.

How will someone monitoring the frequency be able to tell which transmissions are from licensed users, and which is from the bootleggers?

It is bad enough when both parties are using non encrypted radios with different TGs. They won’t hear each other over their radios. But you could still use a scanner or SDR to find out if someone else in on frequency, and who they are.

When you throw in encryption, it will make enforcement very difficult on standard LMR frequencies. It will basically make it impossible on the itinerant frequencies.

 

[kermit1]

$120 radio with encryption….
Here is a question that keeps popping up in my mind that I have ask before….
When the primary licensed user of a frequency is using encryption.
Then bootleggers using those $120 radios sporadically operate on that same frequency.. also using encryption.

How will the primary users even know the bootleggers are there? They will never hear the voice of the offending party across their speakers.

How will someone monitoring the frequency be able to tell which transmissions are from licensed users, and which is from the bootleggers?

It is bad enough when both parties are using non encrypted radios with different TGs. They won’t hear each other over their radios. But you could still use a scanner or SDR to find out if someone else in on frequency, and who they are.

When you throw in encryption, it will make enforcement very difficult on standard LMR frequencies. It will basically make it impossible on the itinerant frequencies.

I know when you transmit on a military radio encrypted and you listen in the clear, all you hear is static. When you transmit in the clear and the radio you listen on is encrypted, you dont notice a difference. If a bootlegger was on the same freq, but was probably using a different key, it would essentially be the same as my first scenario, so all the licensed owners would hear static when the bootleggers keyed and talked, and the bootleggers would all hear static when the licensed operators keyed and talked.

Now, if they all had the same key, it would depend on the size of the system. Smaller systems, the people might know the voices of who has the radios and where people are. Larger systems......?? I think CPD (Chicago PD) just had a problem recently with people on their system calling out racial slurs, and they figured out they were off system based on radio ID's (more accurately, radio ID's not associated with their system being identified), so I would think it would work that way some how.

 

[Hatchett]

I know when you transmit on a military radio encrypted and you listen in the clear, all you hear is static. When you transmit in the clear and the radio you listen on is encrypted, you dont notice a difference. If a bootlegger was on the same freq, but was probably using a different key, it would essentially be the same as my first scenario, so all the licensed owners would hear static when the bootleggers keyed and talked, and the bootleggers would all hear static when the licensed operators keyed and talked.

Now, if they all had the same key, it would depend on the size of the system. Smaller systems, the people might know the voices of who has the radios and where people are. Larger systems......?? I think CPD (Chicago PD) just had a problem recently with people on their system calling out racial slurs, and they figured out they were off system based on radio ID's (more accurately, radio ID's not associated with their system being identified), so I would think it would work that way some how.

You are referring to a situation where the bootleggers want their voices to be heard by the licensed users. In that situation, they intentionally picked active CC and TG combinations to transmit on, knowing that the licensed users would hear.

I am referring to the situation where the bootleggers do NOT want to be heard by the existing users. They pick unused CC and TG combinations. NO existing users on the frequency have radios that are programmed to those combinations, so the existing users will NOT hear a thing. That leaves the bootleggers free to use the frequency for their own activities, with the existing user being totally unaware that anyone else is there…. unless something really odd happens.

Yes, they will most likely not be able to use the repeater/trunked system, but they will still be able to use the frequency for direct short range communications to their hearts content.

Remember, the FCC is a complaint driven organization. If the primary user never knows anyone is there, then there is no reason to file a complaint. So nothing is ever done.

 

[kermit1]

You are referring to a situation where the bootleggers want their voices to be heard by the licensed users. In that situation, they intentionally picked active CC and TG combinations to transmit on, knowing that the licensed users would hear.

I am referring to the situation where the bootleggers do NOT want to be heard by the existing users. They pick unused CC and TG combinations. NO existing users on the frequency have radios that are programmed to those combinations, so the existing users will NOT hear a thing. That leaves the bootleggers free to use the frequency for their own activities, with the existing user being totally unaware that anyone else is there…. unless something really odd happens.

Yes, they will most likely not be able to use the repeater/trunked system, but they will still be able to use the frequency for direct short range communications to their hearts content.

Remember, the FCC is a complaint driven organization. If the primary user never knows anyone is there, then there is no reason to file a complaint. So nothing is ever done.

Well, in honesty, once enough licensed users are denied by the system because of bootlegged users using it, and somebody goes and checks, that would be the only way I could think of that it would be found.

On the .mil side though, we don't deal with that. And on the LE side, not to say we don't care, but as long as we can talk, and people aren't A) interfering with us by getting on our freqs and B) aren't listening in on sensitive stuff, we don't care either.

 

[buddrousa]

Well for what it is worth the MD-380 will not decode any other encryption other than a MD-380 just as a Motorola Kenwood EFJohnson will not decode anything else but a same brand radio basic encryption. Also if you are caught with a radio that decodes another agencies encrypted signal with out the permission of the encrypted signal owner you are in big trouble.

 

[SCPD]

Remember there is no "right" for us to be able to monitor public safety comms. Yes encryption sucks the big one but if an agency chooses to then that's their prerogative. Best we can do is contact the elected officials or chiefs to voice our displeasure about their actions and hope they listen and at least not encrypt the non-sensitive communications. There is no doubt that sites which stream public safety communications are a major threat and contribute to more and more encrypted comms. In other cases a particular agency may encrypt for no reason and do it because they can.

Face it, digital systems are much more easier and cost allot less to implement encryption. Scanners are not going anywhere, in fact they are getting better with the ability to decode different modulation schemes. While your local PD maybe unmonitorable, there is many other things to listen to. I enjoy listening to all my scanners and professional radios with lots out there to enjoy. I will continue to buy scanners as the companies who make them do more and more. Sure have come along way since my first scanner was a PRO-43!.

 

[buddrousa]

My first scanner was a Regency 10 Channel low band 30 to 50 Mhz, VHF 150 to 170 Mhz, and UHF 450 to 470 Mhz CRYSTAL SCANNER. 1972

 

[AggieCon]

Living in a country by and for the people, we have an inherent right to monitor all records (i.e. activities) created or maintained by the government. Additionally, the transmission is occurring on public (not government, but the people's) radio frequencies. Most public information laws require information to be made public without the need for a request when feasible (the inverse of this is to not purposely conceal from the public information that is natively publicly accessible). No one has sued on this basis to my knowledge, but I assert most agencies encrypting are breaking their state freedom of information law, unless they have a very very good reason for concealing it (and I can't think of one). Even better than leaving it in the clear over the air, the agencies ought to have their own internet stream (for equality reasons). And, even if it is encrypted, we still maintain the right to a copy of the records, though it would be delayed and not as beneficial to the public.

 

[RayAir]

You are referring to a situation where the bootleggers want their voices to be heard by the licensed users. In that situation, they intentionally picked active CC and TG combinations to transmit on, knowing that the licensed users would hear.

I am referring to the situation where the bootleggers do NOT want to be heard by the existing users. They pick unused CC and TG combinations. NO existing users on the frequency have radios that are programmed to those combinations, so the existing users will NOT hear a thing. That leaves the bootleggers free to use the frequency for their own activities, with the existing user being totally unaware that anyone else is there…. unless something really odd happens.

Yes, they will most likely not be able to use the repeater/trunked system, but they will still be able to use the frequency for direct short range communications to their hearts content.

Remember, the FCC is a complaint driven organization. If the primary user never knows anyone is there, then there is no reason to file a complaint. So nothing is ever done.

There exists software that can monitor all activity on a system. That's one way they could be detected. This is assuming they're using a P25 or DMR system. NXDN could have similar system watch software too.

Even if they're running encryption their calls would still be logged.

 

[jparks29]

Remember there is no "right" for us to be able to monitor public safety comms.

They have trained you well..

Lest you forget pesky things like 'consent of the governed' and all that jazz.....


'We the people' have EVERY right to know......

It's not just a right, it's a DUTY to question things. Hell, I'd even go so far as to say it's unpatriotic to not question ones gov't....

“. . . The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now and then. It is like a storm in the atmosphere.”

'For the children' bans guns, plastic bags, and slurpees

'Public safety' bans scanners by removing the ability to monitor.

'Transportation Safety' bans water bottles, and searches you AFTER you get OFF the train.. (not kidding, look it up)

All the above has ZERO to do with safety, and EVERYTHING to do with CONTROL...


But let's not take this too far off topic.....

Just like AMPS and POTS hackers back in the day. When encryption becomes commonplace and there are illegal means to monitor, they won't disappear, they'll just go underground when the spotlight is shined on them.....

 

[Hans13]

AggieCon & jparks29... spot on!

 

[AggieCon]

I love the "originally posted" by Thomas Jefferson.

So there is the "You can have my gun... when I run out of bullets" saying.

We need to create one for scanners: "You can have my scanner... when ???"

Any ideas?

 

[wb0wao]

.....
I am referring to the situation where the bootleggers do NOT want to be heard by the existing users. They pick unused CC and TG combinations. NO existing users on the frequency have radios that are programmed to those combinations, so the existing users will NOT hear a thing. That leaves the bootleggers free to use the frequency for their own activities, with the existing user being totally unaware that anyone else is there…. unless something really odd happens.

On any type of trunk system, your radio has to affiliate in one manner or the other to even use the system. This could require one or more of the following: the System Key, your UID programmed into the system, or being limited to the talk groups programmed into the controller.

You can't just get a trunk-capable radio, plug in the frequencies, and access the system. On the example you give above, which sounds like a DMR trunk system - unless the person setting up that system was totally incompetent, the only talk groups and color codes that will access the system are those programmed into the system. I'm not even sure if you can program a DMR system to do what I think you are talking about.

 

[jparks29]

On any type of trunk system, your radio has to affiliate in one manner or the other to even use the system.

Nope. Not true.

Scanners work without affiliation.

Most radios can also be programmed not affiliate... and still track the system properly.. Even checking other control channels for a stronger signal....and changing to it if it's better....

This could require one or more of the following: the System Key, your UID programmed into the system, or being limited to the talk groups programmed into the controller.

You can't just get a trunk-capable radio, plug in the frequencies, and access the system.

Not true. Lots of idiots end up affiliating unknowingly on a trunked system because they 'put in the frequencies' (system ID, control channel, talkgroup, connect tone/NAC), and end up interfering, ie knocking a dispatch console offline, or getting their radios inhibited. BY ACCIDENT....Why do you think it's so hard for a guy who WANTS to do it, when there are idiots doing it by accident?

 

[Hatchett]

Nope. Not true.
Not true. Lots of idiots end up affiliating unknowingly on a trunked system because they 'put in the frequencies' (system ID, control channel, talkgroup, connect tone/NAC), and end up interfering, ie knocking a dispatch console offline, or getting their radios inhibited. BY ACCIDENT....Why do you think it's so hard for a guy who WANTS to do it, when there are idiots doing it by accident?

He Is also stuck on the idea that someone “wants on the system”!

My entire point is That someone can operate on a frequency “Without” accessing the trunked radio system. The person may just want to use the “frequency” and not the “system.”

Yes, a system operator can control access to “the system” but what goes on outside of that physical system is beyond his control. Unless he has stuff specifically set up to record all transmissions on that frequency, then he will be most likely oblivious to such actions outside of his realm of control.

A radio, can loiter on a lightly used channel or during non working hours and use that frequency to directly communicate with other “illegal” users who are loitering on the frequency, while the legal users of the system will most likely not even be able to tell they are there...


Take a digital police tactical channel that is used for direct communications between mobiles at a scene of an incident. Most of the time, there will be no one using that channel. Plenty of radios will be monitoring, but none will be transmitting.

Those radios will only receive a transmission on that frequency when they hear one with a specified CC, system ID, TG, and time slot.

A set of bootleggers could set up radios with a different CC, system ID TG, that do not match anything the police radios are programmed for, and intermittently use that cannel for direct personal communications without the primary users even being able to figure out anyone was there.

Yes, the police radios would hear the communications, but because it does not match any of the settings for their system, it will be ignored out of hand by the radio. And the primary users would never see any indication that any transmission was even happening on that channel.

Remember, one of the primary features of digital and trunked systems, is “private channels”. System radios are inherently restricted from blindly monitoring (ability to listen to any transmission with no regard to System, CC, Or TG) any communications that may be happening on their frequency, otherwise it would be inherently impossible to have a “private channel”

The same structure built into the digital system that allows the licensed users to have discreet “private communications” also allows the illegal users to conduct activity on the system while maintaining a level of “discreet-ness”


In a way, the “compartmentalization” built into the digital standards themselves, is the Achilles heel of modern digital two way radio communications when it comes to illegal users bootlegging on the frequencies.