STARS

[richardbritt]

Basically it probably won't be updated other than marking talkgroups encrypted and TDMA unless someone who has the ability to hear the encrypted communication volunteers new talkgroups and who is the user. It might happen but anyone else just monitoring with a scanner won't have the ability to confirm a new talkgroups use and user (except for the RID but not use of the specific talkgroups). I have talkgroups being used on NC VIPER I have RIDs for their users, but can't get the actual use of the talkgroups. So they don't get added unless they ever get verified. I just put up a new antenna and have a real good signal for the STARS site in Chesapeake as of yesterday. Nothing comes across except control channel data. No voice audio due to encryption.

Regards

Richard in NC

 

[BAH1]

Why compleat
strapping? cannot see sense in this AT ALL!

 

[BAH1]

I totally dislike All commerciall Media This is all I have, Socialy too!

 

[KC4ASF]

Oh, well, I was hoping the STARS that I have listened to for sooooo many years would come back so this old listener would be smiling.
I still don't understand how encryption is needed for the VDOT folks!

 

[GMB2711]

will all be gone soon unless enough people complain to their elected officials

 

[hill]

will all be gone soon unless enough people complain to their elected officials

Yea, I really don't think that's going to help with not having encryption on STARS, as we are way past this stage.

That's what happens when police agency runs the radio system.

Going forward I think will still fire departments to monitor for many years and that is what I monitor the most.

 

[KC4ASF]

A very good point!!!

 

[io401]

Not to beat a dead horse, but it's worth pointing out that not every decision-maker is pro-encryption—there are people within many agencies who support open communications and are radio nerds like us. You just don't hear or see from them directly. That said, when it comes to law enforcement, encryption is a losing battle. Whether you agree or not, there is a reasonably defensible argument for encrypting law enforcement communications.

What we’re seeing with the full blanket encryption on STARS, however, is the result of a large, multi-agency system being managed by a law enforcement entity. If the Commonwealth had instead established a neutral governing authority—similar to the Utah Communications Authority, for example—I suspect we’d see far fewer talkgroups being encrypted by default (VDOT SSP for example).

Unfortunately, this is the situation we’re in now.

 

[KC4ASF]

I agree with you. I have always thought that it was no way that everyone wanted total encryption!

 

[manda1993]

Not to beat a dead horse, but it's worth pointing out that not every decision-maker is pro-encryption—there are people within many agencies who support open communications and are radio nerds like us. You just don't hear or see from them directly. That said, when it comes to law enforcement, encryption is a losing battle. Whether you agree or not, there is a reasonably defensible argument for encrypting law enforcement communications.

What we’re seeing with the full blanket encryption on STARS, however, is the result of a large, multi-agency system being managed by a law enforcement entity. If the Commonwealth had instead established a neutral governing authority—similar to the Utah Communications Authority, for example—I suspect we’d see far fewer talkgroups being encrypted by default (VDOT SSP for example).

Unfortunately, this is the situation we’re in now.

Exactly thank you