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

[RRR]

I know of many occasions where "phones being able to pick up our radio traffic" has been the primary reason for an agency to decide to encrypt. They weren't worried about the locals with scanners hearing what was going on, but they were worried about a "CNN reporter 2500 miles away listening in to our radio traffic and picking it to pieces and heading down here to stir up a mess"

Can't say I blame them when they put it that way.....

 

[bubbablitz]

I'm not a forums type of person as you can see from my minuscule amounts of posts, but I think that I should chime in here because this angle hasn't appeared among all of this back and forth regarding the pros and cons of streaming. I spoke to a gentleman not to long ago from Wisconsin who told me that he listens to his son, who is a police officer, while at work at a department here in North West Arizona. What other avenue gives a father, who lives a couple of thousands miles away, the opportunity to hear his son's voice everyday and be proud of his work serving the community in which he serves? I'm sure that there are plenty of examples such as this. Thank you for your time.

 

[KK4JUG]

I'm not a forums type of person as you can see from my minuscule amounts of posts, but I think that I should chime in here because this angle hasn't appeared among all of this back and forth regarding the pros and cons of streaming. I spoke to a gentleman not to long ago from Wisconsin who told me that he listens to his son, who is a police officer, while at work at a department here in North West Arizona. What other avenue gives a father, who lives a couple of thousands miles away, the opportunity to hear his son's voice everyday and be proud of his work serving the community in which he serves? I'm sure that there are plenty of examples such as this. Thank you for your time.

He doesn't have to hear his son in action to appreciate what the son is doing. Otherwise, a telephone would work just fine.

 

[mmckenna]

I'm not a forums type of person as you can see from my minuscule amounts of posts, but I think that I should chime in here because this angle hasn't appeared among all of this back and forth regarding the pros and cons of streaming. I spoke to a gentleman not to long ago from Wisconsin who told me that he listens to his son, who is a police officer, while at work at a department here in North West Arizona. What other avenue gives a father, who lives a couple of thousands miles away, the opportunity to hear his son's voice everyday and be proud of his work serving the community in which he serves? I'm sure that there are plenty of examples such as this. Thank you for your time.

I can agree with this.
My grandfather would listen to the local PD on a scanner to hear his son/my uncle at work.

but, as stated, that isn't the only way, and it shouldn't overrule the reasons encryption is happening. A phone call is a lot cheaper than a scanner.

Like it or not, encryption is happening, and scanner/feed listeners never had a say in the decision.

 

[gjhamilton]

Like it or not, encryption is happening, and scanner/feed listeners never had a say in the decision.

Yes they did/do by supporting and/or patronizing services and sites that stream it over the Internet.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mule1075]

Yes they did/do by supporting and/or patronizing services and sites that stream it over the Internet.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well that makes you one also. Reason being is you post here on radioreference.

 

[mmckenna]

Yes they did/do by supporting and/or patronizing services and sites that stream it over the Internet.

To the people that make the decisions about encryption, it doesn't matter if it's a scanner or someone streaming their scanner over the internet, the issue is identical.

 

[KK4JUG]

I think the effect of streaming on a department's decision to encrypt is negligible.

 

[RRR]

I think the effect of streaming on a department's decision to encrypt is negligible.

You can claim that all you want to, but I have heard it on many occasions, from dept heads and radio techs who were asked to do so, because of it.

There are also many sources available with a search on the internet that will prove this is correct in many instances as well.

But, believe what you want to.

 

[Citywide173]

You can claim that all you want to, but I have heard it on many occasions, from dept heads and radio techs who were asked to do so, because of it.

There are also many sources available with a search on the internet that will prove this is correct in many instances as well.

But, believe what you want to.

The claim and the actual reasons are usually two different things.....

 

[KK4JUG]

I stand by my original statement. There are no statistics available to indicate in any way, shape or form, that either streaming or scanners have any impact on any department's effectiveness. Those incidents happen so infrequently that they're even not tracked.

I'm not saying it hasn't happened because I'm sure it has but all that information is anecdotal and can't be backed with numbers which would indicate questionable credibility.

 

[mmckenna]

I stand by my original statement. There are no statistics available to indicate in any way, shape or form, that either streaming or scanners have any impact on any department's effectiveness. Those incidents happen so infrequently that they're even not tracked.

This is truth.

I can say, however, that I've sat in talks at APCO meetings where scanners and streamed feeds are mentioned as a reason for going to encryption.
Wether the risk is real or not, it's not up to hobbyists to decide.

 

[RRR]

Y'all are completely contradictory....

 

[mmckenna]

Y'all are completely contradictory....

How so?

KK4JUG is saying their is no quantitative proof that scanner listeners or streamers are triggering the move to encryption.

I'm saying, that even without that quantitative proof, agencies are choosing to go encrypted at least partially because of it.

He's probably correct, without digging through hundreds of thousands of crime reports, there's no way to prove there is a link between unencrypted traffic and crime.

Doesn't stop the decision makers from thinking it's an issue and acting on it.

Discussions I've heard are not necessarily about someone breaking the law having access to agency traffic. The concerns I've heard are more about scene security and controlling the release of information.

 

[gjhamilton]

https://apnews.com/1a35310fb6aa440a81fe8ae3da5afbed

Examples of agencies wanting to encrypt because of online streamers/apps are all over the Internet.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Citywide173]

controlling the release of information.

And there is the real reason right there. The public has been listening for as long as the police have had radios. What's changed? The way information is disseminated. You don't have to wait for the next newscast to find out what's happening. That also means that if something isn't what you want portrayed to the public, tough luck. There's no lead time to get out ahead of a bad story and have contacts at the station delay or crush the story.

Every department that encrypts points to officer safety, well, those departments that first used that excuse haven't seen a decrease in crime OR a decrease in officer injuries and it's been years. If they did (both are public record) they would be screaming it on every news broadcast that they got the chance to.

It's all about finding a way to keep the public from looking into the public servant's job. Departments that have nothing to hide haven't encrypted. I'll let you make your own decision on those that have. I am all for encrypted tactical channels, but everyday dispatch should be in the clear unless you have something to hide.

 

[zz0468]

Discussions I've heard are not necessarily about someone breaking the law having access to agency traffic. The concerns I've heard are more about scene security and controlling the release of information.

I've participated in numerous discussions with various agencies regarding encryption. Yeah, the streaming audio gets mentioned, but for the most part, I've noticed, it's merely fuel to add to the fire, not the original source of concern.

The source of the concern is things like in the "Dorner incident" in Southern California, where there was both suspicion he was listening, and suspicion he had "helpers" listening. Things like drug cartels and street gangs who are downloading apps and buying scanners and listening. And things like various intelligence sources indicating that radical extremist groups are constantly probing our vulnerabilities for the next 9/11 level attack, and day to day police operations are a target to be exploited.

I could tell some hairy stories where encryption would have saved the day, but NDA's and professional courtesy demand I keep my yap shut. For now. I've had direct involvement in several VERY high profile events where unsecured communications played a negative roll in the final outcome.

The bottom line for everyone is, there is a variety of reasons that encryption is gaining on us. Not all of them involve streaming. Some of the threats are real, some are "perceived". But perceived threats are just as real, to the decision makers. You won't talk them out of it.

These systems aren't intended for the general population's consumption, and frankly, the decision makers really don't care one way or the other about hobbyists.

 

[Citywide173]

These systems aren't intended for the general population's consumption, and frankly, the decision makers really don't care one way or the other about hobbyists.

The hobbyists aren't the issue, we all know that. A good department realizes that their radio traffic can be a great PR tool. My recruits are taught the transmitter locations, output power of the mobile relays and shown a coverage map of where they can be heard (well in excess of our service area). It is then impressed upon them that every time they key the mic, they are broadcasting a commercial for the department and that they are expected to uphold the integrity that others established.

 

[zz0468]

My recruits are taught the transmitter locations...

... It is then impressed upon them that every time they key the mic, they are broadcasting a commercial...

You and your recruits are an anomaly, not the rule of the day. I applaud your efforts, but also point out that many, many departments simply do not care about (or for) hobbyists, one way or the other.

And to clarify, by "one way or another", I mean they do not care IF they're being listened to, and they do not care THAT they are being listened to. It's simply not a factor to be considered.

In a professional sense, I consider myself to be in that category. Go ahead and listen, but there are higher priorities that will determine whether or not I support encryption for my customers (not that it's MY decision to make. LOL!).

 

[KK4JUG]

How so?

KK4JUG is saying their is no quantitative proof that scanner listeners or streamers are triggering the move to encryption.

I'm saying, that even without that quantitative proof, agencies are choosing to go encrypted at least partially because of it.

He's probably correct, without digging through hundreds of thousands of crime reports, there's no way to prove there is a link between unencrypted traffic and crime.

Doesn't stop the decision makers from thinking it's an issue and acting on it.

Discussions I've heard are not necessarily about someone breaking the law having access to agency traffic. The concerns I've heard are more about scene security and controlling the release of information.

Yep. They use it as one of their excuses because no one can prove or disprove it.