Seven Days article on Burlington PD encryption.

[cja1987]

Your initial post basically said that just in different words.
Your attitude is exactly the type of fear mongering that agencies use when they want to hide their communications and don't have a valid reason for doing so. No one has an issue with encrypting SWAT, Drugs & Vice, or other special operations channels. It is the day to day main dispatch channel in which accidents and other routine calls are monitored on that should remain open to the public and the media.
The concern is in the control of information flow. When the only source of info about the police department day to day operations is the dept itself then that is a problem. "Trust us, we will give you the info WE want you to have!". Do you not see a potential problem when the only oversight into the day to day operations is by the department itself?
I know I am speaking to a brick wall. You are over enthusiastic in locking everyone out of your walled garden. You have already painted anyone with a scanner a criminal. You have already decided that instead of working with the media you will lock them out and only give them the info you want them to have.
Enjoy your walled garden.
Marshall KE4ZNR

Well, Tower7Troll is indeed speaking to legitimate officer safety issues. I don't think it is fair to suggest that he is in a walled garden or promotes hiding info from the public.

Lets be honest, we all listen to law enforcement on our scanners and we are fooling ourselves if we can't accept the fact that this allows us to know exactly where each officer is and what (s)he is doing at that time. This is undisputed. Lets not kid ourselves, if we were some "thugs" as Tower7Troll puts it, we would know when units were tied up and where. We would also know where to go to attack them.

The fact that some LE agencies feel the need to prevent such a situation can not be completely dismissed as BS or locking the public out.

With that said, this topic is near and dear to my heart. I spent and still do spend alot of time in Burlington, VT and was quite angry when I learned of the P25 Encryption last spring. Just about the last city in the last state I would ever expect to be running encryption. I follow the news there as well, and I do take issue with the fact that thugs using scanners have been trailing the Burlington Police. I won't deny it but I have never heard anything like that and I would like to see Tower7Troll point us to some proof of that. I would be very surprised. I don't even think there are "thugs" in Burlington.

I wonder if those alleged thugs had digital scanners. How about going just clear P25 first and seeing what the effect was? I bet the "thugs" would say "our scanners dont work anymore" and that would be it. The odds of them finding a P25 scanner to steal are fairly low I think. If it starts to become a problem, fine encrypt. But I still think going from analog to P25 F/T ENC right away was the wrong move.

I do agree that the media is likely the largest contributor to this problem as opposed to the local hobbyist. I can see why the PD's get upset, you talk a certain way on the radio among peers, just like you may talk to people you know a certain way via email. There are alot of ways people can interpret/misinterpret/spin comments not meant for them. The media misquotes and mis-uses info spit right in their face that is intended for them; now take police comms in the heat of the moment and there are a million stupid ways to spin it.

I'm no fan of encryption but as the technology becomes cheaper and better people are going to encrypt more and more.

The argument that a drug cartel can afford the million dollar supercomputers that would be necessary to keep up with rolling code P25 encryption is bogus. You would need the same equipment that the government obtains through major contracts to run weather models, Mr Felon drug kingpin buying that equipment will most certainty turn some heads.

You wanna talk drug cartels in VT well first off they would be more interested in border patrol and in the clear state police comms than Burlington locals. Secondly you are talking about small to mid level drug running gangs (if you can call them that) that move drugs and money from the Canadian Border down to the big cities on the Eastern Seaboard. No way can they obtain legally, afford and carry equipment necessary to decode P25 ENC.

I can't get over you people who think its a walk in the park to decode P25 ENC in a few simple steps and have it be permanent. Obtain a P25 radio for a few grand and then convince some ENC PD to give you the key and let you be a "user" on their system (they can identify your radio as most know), let me know how that one goes over. I won't be holding my breath.

This encryption absolutely sucks for people like us, I question BTV's real need for it in 99% of situations but thats not good enough. If an agency sees the need, they are within their right.

 

[DaveNF2G]

My point was that there is no evidence to support Burlington PD's explanation for encrypting their communications. Sure, it's possible that such things could happen, but there is no research, nationwide or locally, that shows them to be real phenomena.

Government agencies that want to spend taxpayer money should be able to demonstrate an actual need. They are not "within their right" to do anything the public doesn't approve. The government doesn't have rights, We the People do.

 

[cja1987]

My point was that there is no evidence to support Burlington PD's explanation for encrypting their communications. Sure, it's possible that such things could happen, but there is no research, nationwide or locally, that shows them to be real phenomena.

Government agencies that want to spend taxpayer money should be able to demonstrate an actual need. They are not "within their right" to do anything the public doesn't approve. The government doesn't have rights, We the People do.

I would like to see the evidence as well but FOR GOD SAKE THEY DON'T NEED EVIDENCE!!! Where do you people get these fantasies?

Not everything is intended for our ears. Do you have the right to sit in on executive sessions of meetings of elected officials in your area? Are you allowed into a closed court room? Can you be present while a jury deliberates? Can you listen to CIA covert ops? How about the secret service? Your neighbors cell phone? What if all PD's went to cell phones tomorrow like many detectives use exclusively, do you still have some right to listen? Do they not have the right to use cell phones because you can't listen? Take that one to court and let me know how it goes. You claim to be in academia so clearly if you take the emotion out of the equation and think rationally, you will agree that this "no right to encrypt" argument is going nowhere.

Where in the he#l do you get the idea that a PD does not have the right to encrypt? There is a federal law that says they can and makes it a crime to try and listen unauthorized. They don't have to prove a single thing. Does my house need to burn down once before I buy a fire extinguisher? The fact that it is a potential safety precaution is more than good enough reason. No reasonable scannist can deny that we could be up to no good with some of the info we hear if we wanted to.

Please don't anybody take this as me arguing for encryption, I get as angry as the next person when somebody goes encrypted and I can't listen but lets not fool ourselves. When you hear of plans for depts to encrypt, by all means write a letter or two expressing your opinions to those making the decision, encourage friends in the hobby to do the same. But don't sit here claiming some divine right that none of us have or should have. You can get all the transmissions through freedom of information after the fact if transparency is your real issue. Our only hope in fighting encryption with more and more departments going digital is to convince those in charge that the good people scanning (potential benefits) outweigh the costs (potential criminal monitoring).

Trying to make up some feel good arguments about those in gov't having no right to lock us out is only going to make them encrypt and laugh at us the entire time. It's like getting in a cops face and saying "I pay your salary", that makes them angry. Somebody pays everyone's salary, that does not mean that somebody owns said employee. Convince those in charge that there is a good element of the population scanning for whatever reasons you scan, explain the hobby, offer alternate, potentially more secure ways to get the info in real time. This will get us all alot more credibility then going around making up laws that don't exist and never will.

 

[RobKB1FJR]

Ladder makes it sound like the Burlington area police departments are being beaten up by scanner toting thugs left and right like a bad episode of CHIPS.

Kidding a side. Officer training should kind of prevent these "thug" incidents. Also unless the police walk around wearing masks and drive a different car everyday and stay in different houses. Its not that hard to find the police. If I'm not mistaken the Burlington Police still go to calls? Still risking their lives on a daily basis.

ENC on a primary dispatch channel is pretty obsolete in the age of cellphones and mobile computers. Sensitive OPS normally wouldn't be done on a primary dispatch channel because it would tie up the primary dispatch channel with exciting (yawn) surveillance/tactical activity.

It would be shame if Burlington ENC their fire department also. That would be horrible for people like myself, who get annoyed about not being able to listen to the police but can survive only listening to the fire department. Any police issue of significance you can guarantee that Fire/EMS will be responding.

 

[DaveNF2G]

I would like to see the evidence as well but FOR GOD SAKE THEY DON'T NEED EVIDENCE!!! Where do you people get these fantasies?

By law, maybe they don't. But there is increasing pressure on public entities to demonstrate a need for policy and expenditures. The recession is not a fantasy, nor are the calls for evidence-based policymaking.

Not everything is intended for our ears. Do you have the right to sit in on executive sessions of meetings of elected officials in your area? Are you allowed into a closed court room? Can you be present while a jury deliberates?

Apples and oranges. None of the above activities are explicitly permitted by law. However ...

Can you listen to CIA covert ops? How about the secret service?

Yes, I can, if they are using open radio channels. Chapter 119 of the United States Code says so.

Back to another invalid comparison.

Your neighbors cell phone? What if all PD's went to cell phones tomorrow like many detectives use exclusively, do you still have some right to listen?

Now you're talking about activities that are explicitly prohibited by law.

Where in the he#l do you get the idea that a PD does not have the right to encrypt?

Where did you get the idea that I said any such thing? The PD (more accurately, the local government that operates the PD) should not have the "right" to incur taxpayer expense due to policy changes without public notice and hearing, so that they can account for the necessity, based on evidence of that necessity. The fact that they operate contrary to that principle now does not make it necessary or proper.

I stand by my original objective statement - the government does not possess "rights." In western democracies, Rights belong to the People, who then permit the government to operate within constraints such as a constitution and the ballot box.

Does my house need to burn down once before I buy a fire extinguisher?

Another illogical comparison, for several reasons. Primarily, this is about private individual action, spending your own money, and has no relevance whatsoever to government spending everyone's money. Also, some localities have laws that explicitly require such precautions. At the very least, such precautions are encouraged by the terms of insurance policies.

If you want to debate law and public policy, then study how they work and how to structure logical arguments. I have.

 

[Scandxer]

Another thing I fear is that the recent proliferation of scanner feeds becoming available over cell phones etc, (scanners for dummies) will continue to lead law enforcement agencies to continue on the path towards 100% encryption.

Yes. Exactly my feelings.

Sorry folks, IMO whether you like it or not, eventually ALL police transmission will be encrypted.

I'm really surprised it isn't happening at a much faster rate in this Post 9/11 mentality we all now live with.
THE MIAC REPORT - The Modern Militia Movement


Face it. We are only one "terrorist with a police scanner (or cell phone)" incident away from mandatory 100% encryption of police departments compliments of Dept. of Homeland Security.
DHS helps local police buy military-style sonic devices - Washington Times

(Just look what happened during the G20 when protesters were twittering what they heard on the online scanner.
http://forums.radioreference.com/co...rrest-twitter-user-listening-g20-scanner.html )



Hey it was a fun hobby while it lasted.

Does anyone seriously think that cops want people listening to them with cell phones?

But it's deeper then that...


As our local police departments become more and more militarized in the name of "Domestic Terrorism" you can bet your ass listening to police radios by the public will never happen again.
DHS to fund local police counterterrorism squads | Homeland Security News Wire

The real prize in the "War on Terror" is not Iraq or Afghanistan.. IT'S AMERICA!!! (Remember those Pre 9/11 rights you once had?)
http://www.nyclu.org/pdfs/eroding_liberty.pdf

The day is fast coming when our Local Police will no longer be as friendly and open as we all once remembered.
Fusion center - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The police will be encrypted and militarized working in secrecy for the Feds.. While the American people, YOU and I, will become the suspected terrorists.

(AKA White al qaeda, Anti-Government, Insurgents, Anti-Abortion, Domestic Terrorists, Tax Protesters, Extremist, Anti-Federal Reserve and so on) Again see (THE MIAC REPORT - The Modern Militia Movement)

Fusion Center Encourages Improper Investigations Of Lobbying Groups And Anti-War Activists | American Civil Liberties Union


The Militia Movement -- Extremism in America

Tax Protest Movement -- Extremism in America

Sovereign Citizen Movement -- Extremism in America

Federal agency warns of radicals on right - Washington Times

The Department of Homeland Security is warning law enforcement officials about a rise in "rightwing extremist activity," saying the economic recession, the election of America's first black president and the return of a few disgruntled war veterans could swell the ranks of white-power militias.

Let me summarize my opinions..

All Police communications will eventually be encrypted with Terrorism being the excuse.

Once our Police become militarized, Americans will become the new Terrorists.


Just my Opinion... I do hope I'm wrong... but the writing is ALL over the wall.

 

[JoeyC]

Just my Opinion... I do hope I'm wrong... but the writing is ALL over the wall.

BS
They must be writing in clear coat then....
FYI, terrorists don't use scanners. They want to blow up buildings and kill people. From what I've seen, scanners do neither.

 

[DaveNF2G]

Your opinions might be more persuasive if they were based on objective sources rather than propaganda from various anti-government groups, and if your legitimate sources were relevant to the points you were trying to prove.

 

[gmclam]

After reading this thread, I am of the opinion that the real problem is MEDIA people showing up, not "thugs". And the media is not going to publish articles about their own actions. Now that calls are encrypted, the media is "locked out".

If I am not correct, I wonder if the police would give the media real radios and encryption keys so they can continue their business as before.

 

[Scandxer]

Your opinions might be more persuasive if they were based on objective sources rather than propaganda from various anti-government groups, and if your legitimate sources were relevant to the points you were trying to prove.

Wait what? lol

It's my opinion!

I'm not trying to persuade anyone. Folks can do there own research.

Show me one link I posted that was from an "anti-government group"..

Lol I wish it was only anti-government folks saying all this crap but it's not.

It's the Government that is labeling everyone as terrorists! Protesters are now labeled Terrorists.

My sources are plenty relevant enough for folks understand my opinion.



Here's some of the latest..

January 8, 2009

NYPD Wants to Jam Cell Phones During Terror Attack | Danger Room | Wired.com
The New York Police Department wants to be able to shut down cell phones, in case of a terrorist attack.



RAND Corporation Calls for a Domestic Stability Police Force

Wednesday, 20 January 2010

A recent study commissioned by the U.S. Army and written by the RAND Corporation calls for the creation of a “hybrid” military/law enforcement unit which could be put to use in the United States to take charge of riot control and SWAT duties, according to the authors.

http://americandaily.com/index.php/article/3059


Full PDF here
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2009/RAND_MG819.pdf

BS
They must be writing in clear coat then....
FYI, terrorists don't use scanners. They want to blow up buildings and kill people. From what I've seen, scanners do neither.

What about a "Domestic Terrorist?"

Everyone and there brother can listen to police scanners now as they are very popular apps on cell phones.

So if someone were about to harm mass amounts of people wouldn't they want to know what the local police were up too?

All it will take is one false flag or real incident with a terrorist and a cell phone scanner to open up the door for encryption and secrecy of all police communications.

Just look at the embarrassment the G20 protesters caused the police by monitoring them.

Hey just think of all the profit the Radio companies will make once the DHS funds and mandates police radio encryption!

It's just another step closer to that Totalitarian Government they seem to want so bad.

Protesters are the new Terrorists it seems.

Hey does anyone remember during the RNC in 08 when the FBI came to this website and requested the Admin shut down the live Saint Paul, Minnesota PD feed immediately?

I sure do..because they shut it down instantly with a status message saying "Feed shut down at FBI request".

I wonder what the Admins policy is now toward these types of FBI feed shut down requests?

 

[Scandxer]

In testimony today before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, New York Police Commissioner Ray Kelly (pictured) said he wanted to take out that "formidable capacity to adjust tactics while attacks are underway."

We also discussed the complications of media coverage that could disclose law enforcement tactics in real time. This phenomenon is not new. In the past, police were able to defeat any advantage it might give hostage takers by cutting off power to the location they were in. However, the proliferation of handheld devices would appear to trump that solution. When lives are at stake, law enforcement needs to find ways to disrupt cell phones and other communications in a pinpointed way against terrorists who are using them.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/01/nypd-eyes-disru/


Like I said, the writing is on the wall.

 

[JoeyC]

There have been quite a few domestic terrorist-type attacks over the last few yrs. I don't recall scanners coming into play in any of them.

I also haven't heard of any hostage situations where the hostage taker was using a scanner. For police comms to come over a cellphone would require someone be broadcasting it over the internet, and on this site, that is a clear violation of policy. I don't doubt that someone may do it against RR policy (i've heard EMS-hospital comms here that are against policy but done none-the-less.) but the chance that that one illegal feed has an on-going hostage crisis, is almost non existant.

 

[Vermontradio1966]

Scanner feeds over phones

I have two scanner feed apps for my itouch (wi-fi) and my blackberry.......guess what....they work; nationwide scanner feeds for most agencies in all states (not all, but most).

But here is the thing. I cannot control the channels. All I can do is listen to what is scanning. With sometimes hundreds of channels available, the user cannot select a channel. Only a smaller agency with a main frequency, non-trunked, can anyone utilize this as a "tool" for nefarious acts.

Listening to Charleston SC public safety on my Blackberry right now. Funny thing....at the bottom of the screen it says "Audio from radioreference.com"

 

[DaveNF2G]

I apologize for misunderstanding your intent. However, I have been reading this kind of Chicken Little stuff about the imminent end of scanning for more than 30 years.

 

[Scandxer]

Terrorist Screening Center - Police Training Video

YouTube - Terrorist Screening Center - Police Training Video as seen on the Alex Jones Show


Watch the end part with the CAT3 suspect and he steps away from the suspect so the suspect don't hear the radio transmission lol.

It is laughable yet scary.

And this is required viewing for our police officers now ?!?!

 

[38ffems]

The argument that encryption=officer security is pretty absurd, it simply hides communication. How many times is an officer giving minute by minute updates of their location and what they are doing that would protected by encryption. BPD also has MDT's in all of their vehicles and my guess is that they have some sort of geolocation software along with all their other software. I know that NYSP and many agencies can do almost everything from their car without having to say anything over the radio. If these supposed attackers are intelligent enough to be using scanners to ambush cops than they surely can plan ambush's without them. How hard is it to call a fake emergency in to draw public safety into a trap. I have been involved in fire/ems/law enforcement for 8 years and no matter what the field they always teach situational awareness and be prepared for the unexpected. If officers are being told that this technology makes them safe then it leaves them open to let their guard down. BPD is not stupid and it's officers are some of the finest in the state (you rarely here of controversy within BPD) so there has to be ulterior motives behind this move.

I believe police should have everything we can provide to ensure officer safety but I also believe that public safety agencies need transparency. The public invests a lot of money and trust and when THEIR agencies slam the door in their face with no explanation, the agencies leave themselves open to budget cuts and a loss in public faith.

 

[zerg901]

In testimony today before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, New York Police Commissioner Ray Kelly (pictured) said he wanted to take out that "formidable capacity to adjust tactics while attacks are underway."

We also discussed the complications of media coverage that could disclose law enforcement tactics in real time. This phenomenon is not new. In the past, police were able to defeat any advantage it might give hostage takers by cutting off power to the location they were in. However, the proliferation of handheld devices would appear to trump that solution. When lives are at stake, law enforcement needs to find ways to disrupt cell phones and other communications in a pinpointed way against terrorists who are using them.


================================

Someone in NYC sees police running down a street - they use their cellphone to upload the video to YouTube - someone in Thailand sees the YouTube video and rings up their buddy in NYC - "Did you know the cops are running down your street?"

In order to prevent that scenario, NYPD would have to shut down the entire Internet, and all the landlines and cellphones in the city I guess.

If someone was sending video of the situation via slow scan TV on a ham freq - I guess all the ham freqs would have to be jammed also. And all the wireless nanny cam freqs. And all the WiFi freqs. And maybe all the satellite phone freqs. And whatever else is out there.

Trying to actively control the flow of information nowadays seems to be a formidable task. Encryption for the police might be a "finger in the dike" solution.

Peter Sz

 

[zerg901]

To continue in the same vein as my previous post

ACLU files suit over cellphone video of police - Local News Updates - The Boston Globe

ACLU sues Boston PD over cellphone recording of police making an arrest on a public street - apparently BPD is trying to hide in plain sight.

Do the police really need the ability to control every last form of personal communication? How far will they take this? Encryption on everyones vocal chords?

Peter Sz

 

[LathamScan]

I find it difficult to belive that in the six years since I left Vermont that the City of Burlington has seen such a dramatic increase in criminal activity. After all, where I lived in Vermont used to put Chittenden County to shame when it came to criminal activity (Franklin & Grand Isle Counties). Our area has ALWAYS had a larger problem with criminal activity, and yes, firearms were often encountered by officers. My own opinion: Burlington does not want people (including it's neighbors) to know what's going on unless they tell them what's up. Same for the press, too which is too bad because now the local media outlets are going to be less sympathetic towards any BPD issues.

Kevin

 

[38ffems]

Kevin,
It hasn't changed and if anything it's getting better as they have been hiring a lot of new officers. I suspect this may have been a move to simply get the money for encryption. NYPD, LAPD, BostonPD, etc... do not talk encrypted 24/7 so why the hell does Burlington PD need to.