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

[kayn1n32008]

That's like arguing that if Facebook users saw the disparity between what Facebook earns in revenue on their participation on their platform vs what they get in return ($0), they would suddenly abandon Facebook because "OMG!! they are making too much money off my posts!!" ..and their financials are publically available for all to see.

Sorry Ed, but you are way off base. This is again typical arm-chair quarterbacking a business.

I will admit this. The pay for enhanced access/special features was brilliant.

Why not? All these users(including me at one time) providing system information for free. I think you came up with a great way to put food on your table with all that data... YOU gave that data value with that business model.

I will not knock you for it either.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[exkalibur]

first it was an AM radio that could hear them, then it was a scanner, then a programmable scanner, then a scanner that could receive 800 MHz, then a trunktracker, then P25, then broadcastify. Same old worn out arguments that they can be heard.

With due respect... Those are only technological changes that happened. Encryption is the /intentional/ act of making communications impossible to receive by those "outside". Switching from VHF to 800, or conventional to trunked, or analog to P25 isn't done to intentionally keep outsiders from listening. Switching from clear to encrypted however, is.

There's no doubt that you've built one hell of a good platform here, and no doubt made some pretty good $$ in the process. There's credit due there and it belongs to you - nobody else can come close to what you've built here. That said, you've got to be at the very least, ignorant, to not see that providing online streams is a major case for encryption. I don't need to remind you about the *****-show that happened up here a few years ago when the media played the dying words of a Police officer. The Police Service wrote you a letter outlining their discontent and all you could do was spit it back in their face saying "too bad...FO". That service is now encrypted.

The writing is on the wall - encryption is happening and in 5-10 years time, will be just as popular as P25 is today. Sure, a good chunk of that would have happened eventually anyway, but I can't help but feel that RR was in some part a catalyst for a more rapid switch. I know if I were a decision maker at an agency, nothing would make me want to encrypt more than seeing my agency's audio available for anyone, anywhere, anytime.

 

[Redneck0410]

With due respect... Those are only technological changes that happened. Encryption is the /intentional/ act of making communications impossible to receive by those "outside". Switching from VHF to 800, or conventional to trunked, or analog to P25 isn't done to intentionally keep outsiders from listening. Switching from clear to encrypted however, is.

There's no doubt that you've built one hell of a good platform here, and no doubt made some pretty good $$ in the process. There's credit due there and it belongs to you - nobody else can come close to what you've built here. That said, you've got to be at the very least, ignorant, to not see that providing online streams is a major case for encryption. I don't need to remind you about the *****-show that happened up here a few years ago when the media played the dying words of a Police officer. The Police Service wrote you a letter outlining their discontent and all you could do was spit it back in their face saying "too bad...FO". That service is now encrypted.

The writing is on the wall - encryption is happening and in 5-10 years time, will be just as popular as P25 is today. Sure, a good chunk of that would have happened eventually anyway, but I can't help but feel that RR was in some part a catalyst for a more rapid switch. I know if I were a decision maker at an agency, nothing would make me want to encrypt more than seeing my agency's audio available for anyone, anywhere, anytime.

The media playing the audio, that's on the media. Everyone here is using one isolated incident that happened many moon ago and saying that one thing is the reason agencies are going encrypted. Hogwash! If the public safety sector was more discretionary with what they put over the radio, there would be no need for encryption. Most, if not all, law enforcement vehicles nowadays have a computer. Same to be said for the cell phones. Sensitive comms could go any of those avenues. Even a secure talk group. End rant.

Sent from my LG-H343 using Tapatalk

 

[chaycock]

I have what may be considered a dumb question....keep in mind I'm not advocating encryption at all....but what is keeping agencies from just doing it? For example, my police department has a couple of TGs they encrypt (vice operations), so obviously they have the equipment and capability....so why don't they just encrypt everything? Obviously, I do not want them to do this and I am glad they haven't, but in reality, what is holding them back? From their perspective, what would be the downside of just turning encryption on for all talkgroups?

 

[N9NRA]

I have what may be considered a dumb question....keep in mind I'm not advocating encryption at all....but what is keeping agencies from just doing it? For example, my police department has a couple of TGs they encrypt (vice operations), so obviously they have the equipment and capability....so why don't they just encrypt everything? Obviously, I do not want them to do this and I am glad they haven't, but in reality, what is holding them back? From their perspective, what would be the downside of just turning encryption on for all talkgroups?

Hey there. I could give you one answer streight away, let`s say you have two agencies that want/need to talk to each other for a big/major incident, one encryipted, one in the clear. Well...with one of `em now encryiped the agency that`s in the clear can`t talk to the other one, or even monitor their traffic without the keys to un-encryipt that traffic, and if you`re in need if help and no one can hear ya, then you have a problem, get me ?. N9NRA

 

[Mars_P25]

Hey there. I could give you one answer streight away, let`s say you have two agencies that want/need to talk to each other for a big/major incident, one encryipted, one in the clear. Well...with one of `em now encryiped the agency that`s in the clear can`t talk to the other one, or even monitor their traffic without the keys to un-encryipt that traffic, and if you`re in need if help and no one can hear ya, then you have a problem, get me ?. N9NRA

I notice in all of your posts', you spell encrypt, encryipt. Please at least spell the word properly. It's not a typo when it's the exact same mistake, constantly.

Encryption isn't as big of an issue as you may think. So long as key-management and provisioning are done properly, there are rarely any issues. The radios can hold dozens of keys, not just one. Sharing a common key for mutual aid is not a new concept.

Thousands of agencies are encrypted and have no problems with day-to-day operations or safety. And that number is going to keep growing at a rapid pace, so long as outsiders continue to abuse the privilege of monitoring.

 

[chaycock]

Hey there. I could give you one answer streight away, let`s say you have two agencies that want/need to talk to each other for a big/major incident, one encryipted, one in the clear. Well...with one of `em now encryiped the agency that`s in the clear can`t talk to the other one, or even monitor their traffic without the keys to un-encryipt that traffic, and if you`re in need if help and no one can hear ya, then you have a problem, get me ?. N9NRA

I agree, in general, however, at least with most trunked systems, the agencies would still have to share system ids and other configuration to be able to interoperate, so if they can share that, it should be simple enough to share the encryption keys as well....?

 

[kayn1n32008]

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

The media playing the audio, that's on the media.

No it is not on the Media. If there was no live feed, Cst Styles dying words would NOT have been recorded for the media to access. BTW, LCB3 was paid by the media to access that archive... He made money and publicity off that dying officers last words.

Everyone here is using one isolated incident that happened many moon ago and saying that one thing is the reason agencies are going encrypted.

How many news stories do you need put in your face that agencies are saying RR/Broadcastify are the reason we are encrypting?

Hogwash!

Are you sane?

If the public safety sector was more discretionary with what they put over the radio, there would be no need for encryption. Most, if not all, law enforcement vehicles nowadays have a computer. Same to be said for the cell phones. Sensitive comms could go any of those avenues. Even a secure talk group. End rant.

So let me get this straight... Cst Styles should have, while pinned and dying, used a cell phone, secure channel or MDT to direct officers to him? Because some idiot thought it was a good idea to stream and have those comms archived?

Can you please share the dope you are smoking, it sounds like it is some really good stuff.

Sent from my LG-H343 using Tapatalk[/QUOTE]





Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[blantonl]

No it is not on the Media. If there was no live feed, Cst Styles dying words would NOT have been recorded for the media to access. BTW, LCB3 was paid by the media to access that archive... He made money and publicity off that dying officers last words.

Right. Yea, that was all my fault. Media wasn't culpable at all in making the decision to air that archive. Right. Got it.

 

[N9NRA]

I notice in all of your posts', you spell encrypt, encryipt. Please at least spell the word properly. It's not a typo when it's the exact same mistake, constantly.

Encryption isn't as big of an issue as you may think. So long as key-management and provisioning are done properly, there are rarely any issues. The radios can hold dozens of keys, not just one. Sharing a common key for mutual aid is not a new concept.

Thousands of agencies are encrypted and have no problems with day-to-day operations or safety. And that number is going to keep growing at a rapid pace, so long as outsiders continue to abuse the privilege of monitoring.

First off sorry for the misspellings, not intentional . Now that said, i`ve been thinking on this encryption thingy a bit more. And i`ve come to this, it`s not only the Public Service doing it that we need to worry about, any of y`all listen to the now-and-then Skywarn net? Or mabey you want to get your license and listen to hams doing the odd bike race, parade, or other public service event. Imagine if you will how it would be if you could no longer hear that traffic, you`d not like it, right? Reason i even metion this is this, there have been (that i`m aware of) two petitions filed with the FCC to allow hams to encrypt, both that i`m aware of were easily turned asside by the FCC. BUT, i have the sneaky feeling that "the third time`s the charm" here, mabey not in the close near feuture, but think...oh...five years down the line mabey, and another one will be filed, and that one will get through and the FCC will say, "Okay, you hams can encrypt now, as everyone else is doing it." Another thing here, if you`ve ever listened to a weather net (which i happen to still like doing even though i don`t check in anymore), you know that after the event, wether it be a tornado, storm, or flood, the spotters usually report any damage, these usually include (but not always) what was damaged, where the damage happened, and who owned what was damaged, the last one is important, as the "who owned what was damaged" bit usually will include name, address, and in some cases phone number. Right now that stuff is sent in the clear without much problem, but all it would take is one person CLAIMING (emphassis added) saying that because someone heard that on an open channel they had their identity stolen and watch folks (hams & perhaps a few others too) screamming to the ARRL "WE NEED ENCRYPTION!" And then see what happens when the FCC says "okay". Seem like a farfetched thought? Mabey, but if the streamming isn`t at the very least "hauled up" a bit this is just what i could see happening, and frankly i don`t like it. Just my two cents. N9NRA P.S. And if that person were a ham, i`d be all-in on another petition being filed...and that one would be the one that makes it to the end of the line and gets made rule.

 

[N9NRA]

Just to expand on my post #510 a bit more, here`s my predictions for how this encryption thingy will end up shaking out by service (in no real order),

CB, can`t (and probably won`t encrypt).
FRS, cant (likely by rule).
MURS, mabey if they were to go digital.
Amateru radio, already going digital, probably would encrypt if FCC were to back down and allow it, been tried twice, buth attempts turned back easily.
buisness users, once the digital thingy gets hold with them, it`s a shoo-in for encryption.
aircraft, same as for CB/FRS (kinda), probably might not, but one never knows.
public service, already doing it for PD`s, could see FD`s doing it next once they go digital.

This is just a prediction, but given the climate of things, i`m starting to wonder. As a ham & a scanner listener, i would hate to see this play out, but if we don`t fix things now it will. N9NRA

 

[PiccoIntegra]

It takes a decade or more for Public Safety communications to catch up with the times. There is most definitely a trend with the newer P25 Phase 2 systems coming online. Five years ago there wasn't many departments in the DFW area that utilized encryption. With each new system, the list is growing, and will continue to do so.

Wait until system admins start locking down the control channels, because that is coming too. They will not need new site controllers to flip that switch...

 

[kayn1n32008]

Right. Yea, that was all my fault. Media wasn't culpable at all in making the decision to air that archive. Right. Got it.

While the media is culpable, YOU provided the service that made it possible for them to access the archived audio.

Had Broadcastify not existed, then the audio would not have existed, therefore it would not have been archived, and the media would not have played it..

Keep your head in the sand Lindsay. You are good at it.

 

[MaximusTheGreat]

I'm a betting man, I'm putting my money that the "Ban Hammer" will be deployed soon!!! I say this because people are actually speaking the truth. The truth that streamers ruined and continue to destroy our hobby.

Although, I have to agree. If these streaming services didn't exist, we, scanner hobbyists, would still be able to listen to comms from various agencies. As a result of streamers and these websites popping up, we are screwed thanks to ENCRYPTION.

KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK STREAMERS OF PUBLIC SERVICE!

 

[sfd119]

The truth that streamers ruined and continue to destroy our hobby

...says the guy with the "Audio Feed Provider" badge on his profile.

 

[krokus]

Had Broadcastify not existed, then the audio would not have existed, therefore it would not have been archived, and the media would not have played it..

To be fair, if not for this site, it is very likely some other site, or person, would have had the audio archieved.

Sent via Tapatalk

 

[krokus]

The thing I have not seen, is a reasonable answer to why delays are not allowed on the feeds. Giving "Because that is the rules." as an answer is not giving an explanation.

Bringing this back up, as it was not addressed. (More details are in the original post.)

Sent via Tapatalk

 

[MaximusTheGreat]

...says the guy with the "Audio Feed Provider" badge on his profile.

Learn the facts before you post information that is irrelevant to this topic...

I'm streaming and have streamed HAM BANDS..... I'm not endangering our public service agencies on any way by streaming Joe Blow talking on a repeater about how his day went.

 

[krokus]

An article on this very topic, which I found linked in another thread.

http://www.npr.org/2016/03/28/472176266/police-radio-chatter-is-open-to-all-ears-but-should-it-be

Sent via Tapatalk

 

[Citywide173]

I'm a betting man, I'm putting my money that the "Ban Hammer" will be deployed soon!!! I say this because people are actually speaking the truth.

I will say that Lindsay has been very fair in that respect. He created this thread in the rants section to keep the discussion here, and there has not been a lot of (if any) censoring of the topic.