Scanning Encrypted When Authorized

[captaincab]

Considering the county involved I can guarantee you that you will be told no and create a huge crap storm even asking and definitely have people looking at you sideways. They do not play well with personal radios in that county.

 

[ElroyJetson]

A bit off topic, but I've actually given serious consideration for running for the state legislature. If I were to run and win, two bills I would soon attempt to introduce for consideration would be one to outlaw toll roads in the state, and another to ban public safety usage of encryption for routine traffic. If I could drum up enough support for either.

 

[mmckenna]

routine traffic.

How would you define "routine traffic"? Serious question. And the definition would need to be precise enough to write in legal terms as part of the bill.

 

[ElroyJetson]

That might be kind of an interesting choice of words. "When operating under normal conditions and not a declared emergency requiring that the channel (talkgroup) be kept clear for usage only by those responders directly engaged in the subject activity".

And any channel that might carry sensitive personal information (names, addresses, SSN, etc) should be a candidate for encryption as well. So that'd be the "teletype" channel.

 

[mmckenna]

That might be kind of an interesting choice of words. "When operating under normal conditions and not a declared emergency requiring that the channel (talkgroup) be kept clear for usage only by those responders directly engaged in the subject activity".

I can see a few things that would be up for discussion in that definition.

And any channel that might carry sensitive personal information (names, addresses, SSN, etc) should be a candidate for encryption as well. So that'd be the "teletype" channel.

Assumes that a small agency has multiple channels, which not all of them do. Would said bill fund second channels for all those agencies that only have one?

Someone tried to submit a similar bill in California and it had specific wording that said the state funds would cover any additional costs necessary in enacting the bill.

The first attempt at the bill was struck down. It was poorly written.
The second attempt has been stalled until at least next year. It's slightly less poorly written.

It's important to take into account the protection of CJI at all times and in all modes of transport as required by state and federal law enforcement. That part is non-negotiable.


Not trying to burst the bubble, just trying to have an honest conversation about this. It comes up frequently, but it's usually started by someone that doesn't understand the requirements involved.

I don't see that providing entertainment to scanner listeners should be anywhere on the list of priorities for a public safety agency, and lets be honest, 99% of those against encryption are just using it as a form of entertainment. Some will try and claim that it's for monitoring the actions of our publicly funded officials, but there's better ways to do that. Shady stuff isn't going to happen on the radio, that's all usually recorded. The actions that people claim they are concerned about happen in dark alleyways, via phone calls, text messages, etc.

I have no issues with keeping a primary dispatch channel in the clear. We may be doing that here, but ultimately it is up to our chief, not me. Currently, we only have a single channel, so switching to another encrypted channel isn't an option. Right now, no personal/CJI is carried over the radio, it's done via terminal or cell phone, so the radio traffic has dropped off quite a bit.

 

[KevinC]

That might be kind of an interesting choice of words. "When operating under normal conditions and not a declared emergency requiring that the channel (talkgroup) be kept clear for usage only by those responders directly engaged in the subject activity".

And any channel that might carry sensitive personal information (names, addresses, SSN, etc) should be a candidate for encryption as well. So that'd be the "teletype" channel.

How about we wait until you’re in office to discuss this.

Anyway, the OP has gotten enough input to further his venture so I’m closing this.