The Official Thread: Live audio feeds, scanners, and... wait for it.. ENCRYPTION!

[Citywide173]

Why are you "shocked"? I don't get it.

People set up unauthorized streams on the Internet of law enforcement communications, and they demand privacy and encryption.

Seems quite logical to me. I hope more police follow the lead.

Apparently you didn't read my post. I am shocked that no one posted the story to RadioReference before I did. I am in no way shocked of the consequences of streaming leading to increased calls for encryption.

The management of RadioReference repeatedly has stated that there is no definitive correlation between departments encrypting and online feeds. I'd like to see them defend this.

 

[Citywide173]

If someone could explain how streaming is helping anyone or furthering our cause, I will shut up.

It's putting money in Lindsay's pocket. See, it is helping someone.

 

[Citywide173]

they demand privacy and encryption.

Encyption protects the over the air communication only. A Freedom of Information Act request for copies of the recorded logs of an encrypted system by media or a person paying taxes that funded the system would most likely not be denied access, or if they were, the simple fact they are encrypted over the air would be grounds for overturn by a court. No public safety official, while on duty, has a reasonable expectation of privacy. In fact, many public safety officials are coming under fire for exercising First Amendment Rights while off duty if it conflicts with their department's policies.

 

[com501]

Keep enabling internet feeds and this will continue. This would never have been a problem if people kept this stuff where it required a little more finesse to receive other than any mouthbreather with a cell phone.

 

[tampabaynews]

I requested copies of radio transmissions and the request was denied as it was apart of an "open investigation." I was told it would be released when the trial in relation to the incident was in discovery phase. So law enforcement agencies can use this excuse in many circumstances to deny public records requests for months, even years. By that time, it is old news any any interested media or citizen has long forgotten or no longer wants to records.

 

[Citywide173]

I requested copies of radio transmissions and the request was denied as it was apart of an "open investigation." I was told it would be released when the trial in relation to the incident was in discovery phase. So law enforcement agencies can use this excuse in many circumstances to deny public records requests for months, even years. By that time, it is old news any any interested media or citizen has long forgotten or no longer wants to records.

If you're looking for a news story with a shelf life, yes, but if you're looking for evidence of the blatant disregard for the FCC's rules, the coffee orders, the snide comments about the general public, etc. time is only your friend, because the longer it takes to get that first tape, you can bet there is more of the same occurring.

 

[WX4JCW]

I requested copies of radio transmissions and the request was denied as it was apart of an "open investigation." I was told it would be released when the trial in relation to the incident was in discovery phase. So law enforcement agencies can use this excuse in many circumstances to deny public records requests for months, even years. By that time, it is old news any any interested media or citizen has long forgotten or no longer wants to records.

Makes you wonder doesn't it, im sure the comm managers wanted secure comm's for a long time but the streaming gave them an excuse,

 

[radioshane]

Makes you wonder doesn't it, im sure the comm managers wanted secure comm's for a long time but the streaming gave them an excuse,

I agree with the gentleman saying if it wasn't for the internet feeds government agencies wouldn't do it
a very valid point

 

[Mars_P25]

Encyption protects the over the air communication only. A Freedom of Information Act request for copies of the recorded logs of an encrypted system by media or a person paying taxes that funded the system would most likely not be denied access, or if they were, the simple fact they are encrypted over the air would be grounds for overturn by a court. No public safety official, while on duty, has a reasonable expectation of privacy. In fact, many public safety officials are coming under fire for exercising First Amendment Rights while off duty if it conflicts with their department's policies.

Spout that all you want. They're still going to use encryption, and you still won't be able to monitor.

All of the silly, self-serving justification as to why public safety shouldn't be able to encrypt will not win you the ability to monitor. The fact is, you just can't listen. Period. End of story. Bye bye scanners. No more unauthorized audio streams for criminals and no more audio clips for CNN to play on the air.

Anyone who advocates streaming also advocates the death of the hobby.

 

[kayn1n32008]

No more unauthorized audio streams for criminals and no more audio clips for CNN to play on the air.



Anyone who advocates streaming also advocates the death of the hobby.

This needs repeating.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Citywide173]

Spout that all you want. They're still going to use encryption, and you still won't be able to monitor.

All of the silly, self-serving justification as to why public safety shouldn't be able to encrypt will not win you the ability to monitor. The fact is, you just can't listen. Period. End of story. Bye bye scanners. No more unauthorized audio streams for criminals and no more audio clips for CNN to play on the air.

Anyone who advocates streaming also advocates the death of the hobby.

You really can't read, can you?

First you thought I was shocked about an officer calling for encryption, now you seem to think I was making an argument to keep a department from encrypting.

I AM NOT a supporter of streaming sensitive police communications. That being said, the majority of police communications are not sensitive. There should be day to day channels and tactical channels-the tactical channels should ALWAYS be encrypted, and any department that doesn't have encrypted tactical channels are idiots.

No where in my post did I say that there is justification why a department shouldn't be able to encrypt, but pointing out that in most cases, encryption has led to a false sense of comfort to the officers, who tend to be "freeer" with opinions and "chit-chat" when they think the public can't listen. A simple FOIA request to an encrypted department for daily routine traffic would be hard pressed for a legitimate denial, and the content of those records, might cause an uproar if the citizens who paid for the system heard what was going on.

Learn how to read, then come back....until then, it is the block list for you, troll.

 

[Mars_P25]

Citywide173: You need to be more clear and concise with your communications. You send the wrong messages and you get the wrong answers.

 

[JoeyC]

The "uproar" would be that there isn't anything juicy to say "gotcha!" to. The stuff coming across the encrypted radio channel (on routine dispatch) is the same stuff heard on analog, in-the-clear comms.

Nobody cares about cops ordering coffee over the radio, nor an occasional use of a bad word. :roll:

 

[martidav]

Spout that all you want. They're still going to use encryption, and you still won't be able to monitor.

All of the silly, self-serving justification as to why public safety shouldn't be able to encrypt will not win you the ability to monitor. The fact is, you just can't listen. Period. End of story. Bye bye scanners. No more unauthorized audio streams for criminals and no more audio clips for CNN to play on the air.

Anyone who advocates streaming also advocates the death of the hobby.

Yeah I don't think anyone here is advocating for encryption.

Even on covert stake-outs I hear them tell each other to call one another for truly sensitive comm.

Anywho, to your point... I briefly (2 seconds) considered providing a feed to RR's broadcastify.com with a spare scanner and PC because it seemed geekily cool at the time. Like building/making something.

Then I slapped my self silly.

Why would I do that?? Why would I freely give away all the hard hobby work I spent learning the scanner? Learning the memory allocation? Leaning the site configurations. Not to mention countless chats and Q & A's with you guys for this and that config. Why would I give that to some goof with an app on his/her phone? So I did NOT.

I get it though. If something's going down in another city, it can be interesting to just pull it up on an app. But no, I refuse to partake. I'll read about it later.

And so, my other scanner and PC will sit dormant until I return home. "No scanner for you!"

 

[Citywide173]

The "uproar" would be that there isn't anything juicy to say "gotcha!" to. The stuff coming across the encrypted radio channel (on routine dispatch) is the same stuff heard on analog, in-the-clear comms.

Nobody cares about cops ordering coffee over the radio, nor an occasional use of a bad word. :roll:

Having access to a few, I can tell you that is not the case. Derogatory statements about complainants and open racial profiling are quite common on two of the three systems I can monitor. The third runs a very tight ship on the radio. I don't think that 66% of the departments running encryption are doing this, as this sampling suggests, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn 20% or more were.

 

[MTS2000des]

I AM NOT a supporter of streaming sensitive police communications. That being said, the majority of police communications are not sensitive.

The fallacy in this argument is when all of the dispatch talkgroups/channels are streamed and available to anyone, routine communications can become sensitive in seconds.

An armed robbery in progress for example. At our agency, we BOLO on ALL LE dispatch talkgroups. Thanks to widely available streaming apps free to the public, perpetrators or those assisting them, can monitor across the entire world and we have no way of knowing. These situations can become as volatile and dynamic as any SWAT call or VICE sting. No longer does a perp have to hassle with toting a clumsy scanner that takes a certain technical prowess to program, configure and operate. Now the "lookout" can be miles or even states away, and tip off those on scene via text message, Twitter, FaceBook messenger or dozens of other ENCRYPTED available to the public tools.

Make no mistake, with today's anti law enforcement environment, only a fool would think that streaming hasn't been on the minds of many when it comes to securing their radio communications.

As members of the public, we demand encryption on our personal communication devices like cellphones, tablets, and home WiFi routers/access points.

Why is that for some reason, as radio hobbyists, we think an exception should be made when it comes to government two-way radio systems? We don't demand that all government email be sent without encryption, we don't demand that all of our data stored on government systems be "in the clear", I am just curious why, from a factual standpoint with technology having progressed the way it has, we want to believe that radio communications should NOT be encrypted, provided it meets Federal standards (AES-256) and does not affect performance or dramatically increase cost?

This has been a real issue with me personally now with what I do for a living. As a radio hobbyist, I want everything to be accessible for my fellow law abiding radio hobbyist. But yet, I have seen first hand the real threat to my users by keeping "everything in the open". I hear my bosses concerns and they are legitimate. They are not founded in paranoia, or some conspiracy to protect bad cops. Those concerns are based on their genuine concern to make the systems we use for communications as secure, safe and reliable as possible. No one can provide a factual argument against that.

The concerns are real. If one thinks there isn't a genuine, serious threat to law enforcement, consider there have 26 line of duty deaths nationwide since January 1, 2016. I would like to think that number won't increase, but we all know it will sadly. During the Boston bombing, it was well documented that even after sites such as Broadcasity were asked (and did comply) to take down/disable streams of BAPERN radio communications, plenty of other persons put up streams on LiveStream, FaceBook, YouTube, etc. It was reported that this hampered, not helped, those charged with taking down these scumbags.

We have to provide a safe as possible working environment for our public safety professionals. The "me me I want it now on my app" generation may not get it, but has never been a right to monitor any public safety radio traffic. It was just a side effect of the technology of the day making encryption costly, unreliable and complex. In the last decade, this has changed.

I love scanning, but I love keeping the people I support as safe as possible even more.

It isn't 1985 and the only ones listening are Bob and his Pro-2021.

 

[lelanjlaborde]

encryption

a non encrypted radio has never harmed an officer or first responder! Neither has a police scanner!

 

[cdnsnipe]

a non encrypted radio has never harmed an officer or first responder! Neither has a police scanner!

Just like a firearm has never hurt anyone... it's the f*tard who uses it for ill purposes. Have fun listening to nothing from now on.

 

[JoeyC]

Derogatory statements about complainants and open racial profiling are quite common on two of the three systems I can monitor.

I would be quite surprised if profiling is not a common practice with any law/investigative agency since it is pretty much an essential practice for any effective policing/investigative purposes whether or not you, me, the general public or anyone listening with a scanner approves. If an agency chooses to use encryption to hide basic essential practices because of public outcry, then so be it. Perhaps the critics should be the ones assigned the tasks that they are so quick to criticize.

 

[Citywide173]

As members of the public, we demand encryption on our personal communication devices like cellphones, tablets, and home WiFi routers/access points.

Why is that for some reason, as radio hobbyists, we think an exception should be made when it comes to government two-way radio systems? We don't demand that all government email be sent without encryption, we don't demand that all of our data stored on government systems be "in the clear", I am just curious why, from a factual standpoint with technology having progressed the way it has, we want to believe that radio communications should NOT be encrypted, provided it meets Federal standards (AES-256) and does not affect performance or dramatically increase cost?

For the record, my union is part of the local police union. I do not consider myself just a member of the public or the radio hobbyist community.