Some CT cities turning off encryption

Status
Not open for further replies.

sefrischling

Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2003
Messages
1,273
Location
New London, CT
At the time, from what I recall, they were looking into something to the effect of forward looking whole systems, or whatever they called it. Within that was future infrastructure viability. It did not only impact radios, but many things. I am sure that was not the straw that broke the camels back, but it was a factor.
 

MrAntiDigital

Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2008
Messages
307
Again not accurate, NYPD is going Digital and encrypted as money allows. They currently have 5 digital encrypted channels.
So much talk here of encryption "OUTSIDE of CONNECTICUT", starting with reply/post # 13 on this thread.

I have no problem with that myself but my earlier post was removed and we were explained why one such post was cleaned up. I understand as I had mentioned a few cities OUTSIDE of Ct.

I might just like to respond to this one above quoted sentence if I may please.

The NYPD has much more than FIVE channels that they operate with. Perhaps those encrypt channels are for administration and high security activity only (president visits etc). It is still possible to monitor a very large group of NYPD channels.

Thank you all very much for your understanding, as each of us give our thoughts on this subject of interest within the State of Connecticut.
 

PJH

Database Admin
Database Admin
Joined
Aug 23, 2002
Messages
3,564
At the time, from what I recall, they were looking into something to the effect of forward looking whole systems, or whatever they called it. Within that was future infrastructure viability. It did not only impact radios, but many things. I am sure that was not the straw that broke the camels back, but it was a factor.
Negitive.
 

MrAntiDigital

Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2008
Messages
307
Let's just take a look at the original post here, the first one at the beginning of this thread. It seems in that article that some Connecticut cities are talking about turning OFF Radio Encryption.

After having encryption installed, why would they then want to consider turning it off. Of course this is solely based on Connecticut according to this article. Shouldn't these cities/towns be advised of the mistake they are making.

What do the emergency workers involved have to say about this. Would this step backwards put those workers in more danger than they already face ? Any quotes or recent articles from police officers or firefighters objecting to this move ?

Thank you in advance to those offering an explanation on this topic of; "should they or shouldn't they". .
 

APX7500X2

Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2010
Messages
655
Location
NY/CT
Let's just take a look at the original post here, the first one at the beginning of this thread. It seems in that article that some Connecticut cities are talking about turning OFF Radio Encryption.

After having encryption installed, why would they then want to consider turning it off. Of course this is solely based on Connecticut according to this article. Shouldn't these cities/towns be advised of the mistake they are making.

What do the emergency workers involved have to say about this. Would this step backwards put those workers in more danger than they already face ? Any quotes or recent articles from police officers or firefighters objecting to this move ?

Thank you in advance to those offering an explanation on this topic of; "should they or shouldn't they". .
Just FYI no departments in CT are turning off Encryption, The article does not name 1 department that is currently encrypted full time that is going to turn it off.
It talks about 1 department that has never been encrypted on the main channel staying that way and then other departments out of state that have done it.

I agree that your post should not have been deleted, The article talks about CT and many other sates and if this discussion is about the article then we should be able to talk about the entire article and not be unfairly censored
 

MrAntiDigital

Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2008
Messages
307
Just FYI no departments in CT are turning off Encryption, The article does not name 1 department that is currently encrypted full time that is going to turn it off.
It talks about 1 department that has never been encrypted on the main channel staying that way and then other departments out of state that have done it.

I agree that your post should not have been deleted, The article talks about CT and many other sates and if this discussion is about the article then we should be able to talk about the entire article and not be unfairly censored
Yes Sir, perhaps NO department in Connecticut has turned off their Encryption. Perhaps this newspaper article is only stating that some "MAY BE" considering turning off their encryption.

But sometimes we all need to look beyond our own walls. That is what I tried to show when I posted my thoughts that were deleted from this thread. I tried to present facts as reported by other major cities that could possibility be considered related to this article.

However now, in trying to stay with the facts here my thoughts are:
"COULD Encryption put our first responders at risk". That is what I got from reading the first post here from that local newspaper article.

For many of us, we have personnel friends throughout the State of Connecticut, who are police officers or firefighters. Something we should all be concerned with. Perhaps there are family members doing these jobs that would be most concerning to them, as well as the issues presented to these police officers and firefighters themselves.

I really lack the knowledge to say whether this is right or wrong. I am concerned about those who are out there protecting every one of us. Based on my readings from other places, this could make an already very dangerous job, even MORE DANGEROUS.

If there is ANY indication that this encryption would have a negative effect on their safety, NONE OF US should be in favor of it. If it can be shown to have NO such effect, then a city or town has the right to consider this. However, before any place goes with this I would strongly suggest following up on some of the negative impacts that have been previously reported.
 

mkt853

Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2016
Messages
219
Location
CT
Seems like most of the towns down here in the southwestern part of the state are encrypted. I guess it's because they are rich and can buy the latest and greatest toys? I don't understand why they can't do what they used to do in the not so distant past. Radio comms in the clear, and use their email/chat thingies in their cars for the sensitive stuff (in the older days they used their Nextel PTTs for such things). I think that is what CSP does - you hear them say check your email or check your chat or something to that effect from time to time. Seems to work ok for such a large department with a wide range of police responsibilities. The towns with lots of fancy gated houses also used to do the same thing with respect to gate codes - dispatch would say check your email/chat for the gate code. Certainly little towns like Wilton don't need encryption if NYC somehow manages without it LOL. I was told Greenwich only went encrypted when they got a new police chief or mayor a few years ago and the previous administration had promised not to encrypt for so many years while everyone around them was doing so. Now they are building or looking to build a new radio system after just upgrading to digital not too long ago though I guess they want better coverage. Talk about money burning a hole in their pocket! I once helped CSP find a guy they were looking for. I forget the call, but they put out a BOLO for a guy, and I was in the area driving over the Q bridge and saw him, so I called them up and said hey the guy I think you are looking for is walking on the bridge towards East Haven. I'm sure some of you guys have similar stories of helping out when you can. Take it easy.
 

MrAntiDigital

Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2008
Messages
307
Seems like most of the towns down here in the southwestern part of the state are encrypted. I guess it's because they are rich and can buy the latest and greatest toys? I don't understand why they can't do what they used to do in the not so distant past. Radio comms in the clear, and use their email/chat thingies in their cars for the sensitive stuff (in the older days they used their Nextel PTTs for such things). I think that is what CSP does - you hear them say check your email or check your chat or something to that effect from time to time. Seems to work ok for such a large department with a wide range of police responsibilities. The towns with lots of fancy gated houses also used to do the same thing with respect to gate codes - dispatch would say check your email/chat for the gate code. Certainly little towns like Wilton don't need encryption if NYC somehow manages without it LOL. I was told Greenwich only went encrypted when they got a new police chief or mayor a few years ago and the previous administration had promised not to encrypt for so many years while everyone around them was doing so. Now they are building or looking to build a new radio system after just upgrading to digital not too long ago though I guess they want better coverage. Talk about money burning a hole in their pocket! I once helped CSP find a guy they were looking for. I forget the call, but they put out a BOLO for a guy, and I was in the area driving over the Q bridge and saw him, so I called them up and said hey the guy I think you are looking for is walking on the bridge towards East Haven. I'm sure some of you guys have similar stories of helping out when you can. Take it easy.
Thank you for telling that story "mkt853". Yes, I too can relate to exactly what you are talking about. I often wonder, how many criminals have I driven by or saw in the street that might have been caught and put away if only I was able to hear the broadcast over my little portable scanner. Then just call the local PD using my simply cell phone and saying: "I think the guy you have been looking for is right here". "I'll try to keep an eye on him until you get here".

I wonder how many times a day that used to be played out. As you see the wanted perp being put into cuffs and taken away you get a good feeling that as a law abiding citizen, you did a pretty good job.

Meanwhile the "skell" wonders, "How the hell did these guys get me" ?

Today, I look at this encryption as; "A BIG LOSS for the GOOD GUYS". But, "A BIG GAIN for the BAD GUYS".
 

pro106import

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
1,333
Location
Milford, Ct. perched high above Long Island Sound
Unfortunately for us hobbyists the cost of incorporating encryption to newer or newly installed radio systems is virtually no factor any more like it was say 10 years ago. Whether they choose to use it or not is only a decision they make for other reasons. There is little no additional cost to them monetarily to incorporate it, as most cases it is included in newer radio systems for little or no extra cost.
 

PJH

Database Admin
Database Admin
Joined
Aug 23, 2002
Messages
3,564
^ I just ordered several radios, did not specify any encryption for them but Motorola included ADP at no cost.
 

APX7500X2

Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2010
Messages
655
Location
NY/CT
I believe you are correct. Harris offers single key DES at no cost to compete with Motorola ADP.

ADP keeps scanners from hearing. Weak but effective.
Harris and Johnson/Kenwood now have Motorola APD as an option

Johnson/Kenwood calls it-"ARC4™ encryption; compatible with ADP™"
Not sure what Harris calls it.
 

PJH

Database Admin
Database Admin
Joined
Aug 23, 2002
Messages
3,564
I'd have to find it but recently .gov put out a notice (essentially aimed at Motorola) that such products are counter to the P25 standard and that certification for grants and other "free" money would be suspended for such products.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top