Senator Becker re-introduces law enforcement radio encryption bill (SB 719)

[mmckenna]

I know we will never get back to the halcyon days of the 90's I would be willing to compromise and have a Burbank/Chicago situation. I want to know crime trends and emerging problems in my neighborhood, that's good enough for me. What really bothers me is that we use to have police executives and people like Don Root that would interface with us because our hobby was their work. Now, it just seems like the police managers have a go "F" yourself mentality where we the public our considered unimportant and our concerns are meaningless.

I understand what you are saying, but please look at it from this angle:

Scanner listeners are a small portion of the population. There's a lot of demands on agencies to have transparency, well documented procedures, records, and documentation. A lot of that is publicly available thanks to laws put in place to give the general public transparency into the operations of law enforcement.
For agencies to properly do this, it takes a LOT of labor hours. We have staff that -just- take care of these public facing reports and documentation. It's a huge effort that goes into filing these reports every year, on time, and 100% accurate.

Expecting a law enforcement agency to cater to a small segment of the population when they are required to make information available to all citizens is no longer a reasonable request.

I know, a lot of scanner listeners feel that since they had the ability to listen in to radio traffic completely unrestricted in the past, that they should always have that ability in the future. That's not realistic with the latests requirements that have come down the pipe. Expecting agencies to provide specific radio feeds in the clear when they have much better ways of reaching a wider segment of the population is where the effort gets spent.

Public safety agencies have much better tools available to reach the general population. It's not a scanner.

There are very good reasons that encryption is being used, and that's been discussed many, many times. It hasn't changed.

These senate bills are well intended, but they are written by politicians that probably wouldn't know which end of the radio to talk into. And I think they understand that, based on the alternate means of providing radio traffic that have been included in the various versions that have been proposed. Unencrypted radio traffic isn't always an option, especially for smaller departments that only have one channel.

A delayed feed on it's own does not meet the CADOJ/FBI requirements of protection of CJI/PII. A delayed feed with PII/CJI redacted takes a lot of manual input, and that's a challenge on its own.

I know, not what people want to hear when they've invested money in an expensive scanner.

This has real life implications like recruitment crises. I got attracted to law enforcement by listening to police calls. Now police-community relations are in the gutter and people see that the Police Executives are mediocre at best although they think their brilliant. This is not the Cop on the beats fault, this is the Police managers fault. Most stink at their jobs, cannot bring people together, and that is why no one wants to work for them anymore which is why taxpayers now have to pay thousands in recruitment incentives. We need new Chiefs and Sheriff's. I will continue to fight, not to reform the Police but to Reform the Brass!

I think that's an extremely generalized, broad brush stroke statement that doesn't apply to all agencies. There may be challenges with your local agencies, but that doesn't mean it's the same across the state or across the country.

A new chief or sheriff isn't going to be able to over rule the CADOJ/FBI requirement. The requirements are very clear on that.

 

[657fe2]

If Burbank can stream then they should all be able to stream. If an agency can't have an encrypted tac then they should have to explain why they cannot do that. I did not mean to imply that all sheriff's and chiefs are bad, some police/sheriff departments are beloved by their communities, ex. Burbank.

 

[mmckenna]

If Burbank can stream then they should all be able to stream.

Streaming is fine, as long as all CJI/PII is properly scrubbed. That takes work, work costs money, and no one wants to pay 1¢ more in taxes.

If an agency can't have an encrypted tac then they should have to explain why they cannot do that.

Many small agencies have only a single channel.
Also, relying on users changing channels depending on the traffic creates a security risk. There are no easy ways around this. There's other factors involved besides making a hobby enjoyable for a small group of citizens.

 

[657fe2]

How many members does your group have to have to matter to the government? Broadcastify currently has approximately 63,000 listeners on it. That could determine who wins and who loses an election. I want hobbyists to start thinking politically. We can exempt small agencies with 1 channel that somehow avoid joining one of these new trunked systems.

 

[mmckenna]

How many members does your group have to have to matter to the government? Broadcastify currently has approximately 63,000 listeners on it. That could determine who wins and who loses an election. I want hobbyists to start thinking politically. We can exempt small agencies with 1 channel that somehow avoid joining one of these new trunked systems.

Unfortunately it's not a matter of numbers. And it's not political.

The existing CADOJ as well as FBI/USDOJ requirements are to protect Criminal Justice Information and Personal Identifying Information at all times and in all forms. That requirement has been in existence for a very long time.

It's information that is not for public consumption and it's protected very closely. That includes not broadcasting any of it in the clear at any time, and that includes delayed feeds.

But I understand what you are saying. I got my start with a scanner, a short wave radio and a CB a long time ago. That turned into a career. On the professional side, I understand the requirements to protect that information. I've had to go through all the background checks to be around those systems. I have to go through periodic training to satisfy the DOJ requirements for our agency.

I think the best you can hope for is that agencies that have more than one channel/talk group chooses to split up into a dispatch channel in the clear and a records channel that is encrypted. But before you ask for that, understand that there's a lot involved behind the scenes to make that happen. It's not a simple thing, and it's not foolproof. Not being a foolproof solution is what keeps it from happening in most cases.

Delayed feeds don't meet the DOJ/FBI requirements in any way. When other states start enforcing this, those will slowly disappear.

Not an ideal thing for the hobbyists, but the true purpose of these radio systems isn't for entertainment or providing information to random people. Public safety agencies have much better tools for reaching the general public if they choose to.

 

[657fe2]

If they choose too. Some will some won't, in the end I hope I live in a jurisdiction with an innovative Chief! Any homes for sale in Burbank?

 

[scannerizer]

If Burbank can stream then they should all be able to stream. If an agency can't have an encrypted tac then they should have to explain why they cannot do that. I did not mean to imply that all sheriff's and chiefs are bad, some police/sheriff departments are beloved by their communities, ex. Burbank.

As someone who grew up in SoCal, I wish upon a star that Sheriff Bianco would make each sheriff station accessible via Broadcastify and a 15-20 minute delay a la Burbank PD. Used to love to scan them on my visits during their EDACS years.

That's really what excited me about this SB.

 

[marcotor]

Unfortunately it's not a matter of numbers. And it's not political.

I think the best you can hope for is that agencies that have more than one channel/talk group chooses to split up into a dispatch channel in the clear and a records channel that is encrypted. But before you ask for that, understand that there's a lot involved behind the scenes to make that happen. It's not a simple thing, and it's not foolproof. Not being a foolproof solution is what keeps it from happening in most cases.

But don't you read the experts who post here? It's merely a "flip" of a "switch" and everything automagicaly works!
Ad for larger systems, adding a few specialized talkgroups and then getting it into the radios is "simple" in particular for agencies with thousands of subscribers and no OTAP.

 

[marcotor]

Found the pic:

 

[KevinC]

Found the pic:


View attachment 160989

GREAT! Now everyone knows it really is that easy. I'm disappointed in you.

 

[ecps92]

Found the pic:


View attachment 160989

That was Easy

 

[657fe2]

Now we can be in the dark in the next disaster like the hundreds who died in Maui County Hawaii.
Call your legislators!

 

[marcotor]

Now we can be in the dark in the next disaster like the hundreds who died in Maui County Hawaii.
Call your legislators!

Hyperbole much? Is there clear EVIDENCE the deaths in Maui were directly attributable to Encryption?

We'll wait.

 

[RaleighGuy]

So, the bill appears to be dead if I'm reading the status correctly.

But it is important to point out, even if passed, they can still encrypt all the frequencies/talkgroups they use, as long as they follow the loop hole in B and C below:

SEC. 2.​

Section 13675 is added to the Penal Code, to read:

13675.​

(a) (1) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (3) and subdivision (b), each law enforcement agency shall, by no later than January 1, 2024, 2025, ensure that all radio communications are accessible to the public in real time.
(2) A law enforcement agency may comply with this subdivision in any manner that provides reasonable public access to radio communications, including, without limitation, any of the following means:
(A) Use of unencrypted radio communications on a radio frequency that is able to be monitored by commonly available radio scanning equipment.
(B) Online streaming of radio communications accessible through the agency’s internet website.
(C) Upon request and for a reasonable fee, providing access to encrypted communications to any interested person.

Looks like they can (A) broadcast an unencrypted feed on their website (not required to do it on Broadcastify) or they can (B) make you purchase a radio compatible with their system and charge you for the radio and programming it. Even if it does pass they can make it difficult for anyone to actually listen to them and it doesn't mean scanners will work.

 

[mmckenna]

Found the pic:


View attachment 160989

Yep, I have that identical switch on the wall of my office. I like to flip it on and off periodically just to mess with people. Sometimes the janitors mistake it for the light switch, too.

 

[mmckenna]

So, the bill appears to be dead if I'm reading the status correctly.

It essentially is, again. It's not dead - dead, but it's dead, but in a holding pattern.

At least this version was slightly better written than the SB1000. That was a total mess and appeared to be written by someone who had no idea how any of this stuff worked. I got a few chuckles in the radio industry.

Looks like they can (A) broadcast an unencrypted feed on their website (not required to do it on Broadcastify) or they can (B) make you purchase a radio compatible with their system and charge you for the radio and programming it. Even if it does pass they can make it difficult for anyone to actually listen to them and it doesn't mean scanners will work.

There's a lot of loopholes.

The issue with streaming (even with ## minutes of delay) is that it does nothing to address the PII/CJI factor in all this. I've mentioned this a few times, but some of the folks in the back just are not getting it.

 

[mmckenna]

Now we can be in the dark in the next disaster like the hundreds who died in Maui County Hawaii.
Call your legislators!

Not even close, dude.

 

[657fe2]

So we won't be in the dark in the next disaster? As for evidence, if I lived in Maui County, I would have had a scanner on, unless they were encrypted. So when the authorities did not warn people a Firestorm was descending on the town, I would have heard the fire on the scanner and evacuated and tell my neighbors too. As for evidence, I can't talk to the people who died, so you got me there encrypted troll.

 

[mmckenna]

So we won't be in the dark in the next disaster? As for evidence, if I lived in Maui County, I would have had a scanner on, unless they were encrypted. So when the authorities did not warn people a Firestorm was descending on the town, I would have heard the fire on the scanner and evacuated and tell my neighbors too. As for evidence, I can't talk to the people who died, so you got me there encrypted troll.

From what I've read on the incident (it was covered heavily in the trade journals) simply having a scanner on wouldn't have helped.

SB-719 and the previous SB-1000 did not apply to fire agencies.

Assuming you are going to get all the information you need from a scanner would be a dangerous assumption.

 

[marcotor]

So we won't be in the dark in the next disaster? As for evidence, if I lived in Maui County, I would have had a scanner on, unless they were encrypted. So when the authorities did not warn people a Firestorm was descending on the town, I would have heard the fire on the scanner and evacuated and tell my neighbors too. As for evidence, I can't talk to the people who died, so you got me there encrypted troll.

That is NOT evidence. That is SPECULATION, based on your own self-inflated opinion of yourself. And really, using the dead to pimp your cause it just bad form.

PS: Where I live, all Law Enforcement and Fire Departments are ENCRYPTED. SO, you might want to think twice with your knee-jerk name calling, Mr. Scanner Hero.