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

[Citywide173]

You're absolutely right. The advent of streaming has accelerated (not always been the primary) the excuse for departments to encrypt, but it is usually one of two things that are the real cause. The salesman has used it as a selling point (most radios are capable from the time of sale now) or the department doesn't want people listening.

The two most common claims made when throwing the "E" switch are "our officer's safety is jeopardized by streaming" or "the criminals can hear us on their cell phones" Both are pure BS. There have been departments that threw the switch years ago and if these claims were true, I guarantee that either the department or the company that sold them the equipment would be screaming about the changes from rooftops. No department to date has produced records that indicate that worker's comp claims decreased or that crime rates went down after the introduction of encryption-and these are public records.

I am sympathetic to the need for confidentiality but I also believe in transparency. There is no reason to encrypt day to day traffic, but the department should have the ability to encrypt if the situation dictates on a one channel system or they should have access to encrypted tactical channels if they need them.

 

[jparks29]

Encryption flies in the face of gov't being 'for the people, by the people', and exposes the fact that they feel the need to hide what they do/say.

Rememeber when that DC cop was fired for saying bad stuff over his MDC, because the media could decode the MDCs? They fired the cop, then IMMEDIATELY encrypted all their MDC traffic..

Yup... 'officer safety'... rrrriiiiiggghhhttttt....

 

[mmckenna]

Encryption flies in the face of gov't being 'for the people, by the people', and exposes the fact that they feel the need to hide what they do/say.

This is an overly simplistic statement that has been debunked time and time again.

 

[jparks29]

This is an overly simplistic statement that has been debunked time and time again.

What's that cops say, when they wanna search your car without a warrant, or demand ID when it's not required?

Oh.. right..

'If you have nothing to hide.....then why not let us look at it?'

How many dash cams, body cams, surveillance cameras, magically disappear, or are edited, when it comes to proving corruption and brutality?

Tell me how a journalist from a major news network gets pulled over by 12 cop cars, as she's following a story on corruption of a county official, gets detained, and injured, and magically, all of the dash cams were 'off, not turned on, or malfunctioned'?

The argument of 'officer safety' is also bull. This position is that officer safety is more important than the ability of the people to keep an eye on their government. Further, there's no evidence to support that listening to the police is both an issue with criminals, and that information is useful in the crime they're committing.

Even if there was evidence that said 'scanners are used in crimes', that's what LAWS are for, to prosecute people with. Further, I'd gladly take an extra armed robbery, or even a murder, every couple of months.... The risk of a tyrannical gov't far outweighs any 'officer safety/public safety' argument.

and before you call me a nutjob, I'd like to remind you that gov't across the globe have killed hundreds of millions OF THEIR OWN CITIZENS in the past century, China is 'disappearing' dissidents, and their is a current insurrectionist movement in this country wishing to implement communism 'by any means necessary'.....

 

[mmckenna]

and before you call me a nutjob,

I haven't called you a nutjob.

and their is a current insurrectionist movement in this country wishing to implement communism 'by any means necessary'.....

But, then again….

Maybe it's time to switch off whatever version of the news you happen to subscribe to.

I work on radios for an agency. There are no secret communists hiding there. Really, I've checked. I've been places in that building that officers don't get to. In fact, I was there a couple of times this week. Nope, no communists.

The reasons agencies are going encrypted are varied. Making sweeping assumptions about how they are trying to hide from you lacks any level of logic or thought. This horse has been beat until it's a greasy spot on the road.

But let us hit that horse a few more times, shall we:

-The agencies that run the criminal justice data systems have a requirement to keep that information secure. That's documented fact, not conspiracy theory. The data kept on those systems is not for public access.
-The agencies that run those systems require a certain amount of data security. That means passwords, access only by authorized people, secured work stations, etc.
-Part of those security requirements say that information cannot be shared with the general public. Law enforcement agencies sign agreements that they'll abide by those rules. If they don't, they can have their access pulled.
-Having that access pulled means that an officer has no idea who they are facing. Could be a regular Joe like you or I that wishes them no harm, or it could be someone with a ton of outstanding warrants. The officers need to know that stuff, so the agencies abide by the rules.
-To keep the general public from accessing said information, it needs to be secure in all forms. That includes not transmitting it in the clear, not printing it out and leaving copies sitting in the public library, and not posting it on the internet. Very basic IT security standards. Stuff that any person working at any level of IT would understand.
-The agencies that run the databases that hold said criminal justice information are starting to hold agencies to the agreements that were signed. Again, the agreements say that they will not release the information to the general public. You, as a scanner listener, are the general public that isn't supposed to have access to that info. You can argue that all you want, it doesn't change anything.
-The agencies that run the databases are starting to crack down and specifically saying that unless the information is properly secured from end to end (yes, including over the radio), that access to the databases will be pulled until compliance is reached.
-So, officer safety. A law enforcement agency doesn't abide by the agreement and keeps transmitting information in the clear against the signed agreement. The agency that controls the database pulls the plug. Now the officers out doing their job no longer know anything about the person they are interfacing with. That is an officer safety issue. Deny it if you want, but no officer will take you seriously if you try and convince them otherwise.

You can blame this on communists if you want, but any adult that is intelligent enough to ignore conspiracy theories is not going to take you seriously. No law enforcement agency is going to take you seriously. No judge is going to take you seriously. Hobbyists, on the other hand, will probably agree with you, buy you a cup of coffee and gladly sit around and discuss communism with you.

 

[jparks29]

I haven't called you a nutjob.



But, then again….

Maybe it's time to switch off whatever version of the news you happen to subscribe to.

I work on radios for an agency. There are no secret communists hiding there. Really, I've checked. I've been places in that building that officers don't get to. In fact, I was there a couple of times this week. Nope, no communists.

The reasons agencies are going encrypted are varied. Making sweeping assumptions about how they are trying to hide from you lacks any level of logic or thought. This horse has been beat until it's a greasy spot on the road.

But let us hit that horse a few more times, shall we:

-The agencies that run the criminal justice data systems have a requirement to keep that information secure. That's documented fact, not conspiracy theory. The data kept on those systems is not for public access.
-The agencies that run those systems require a certain amount of data security. That means passwords, access only by authorized people, secured work stations, etc.
-Part of those security requirements say that information cannot be shared with the general public. Law enforcement agencies sign agreements that they'll abide by those rules. If they don't, they can have their access pulled.
-Having that access pulled means that an officer has no idea who they are facing. Could be a regular Joe like you or I that wishes them no harm, or it could be someone with a ton of outstanding warrants. The officers need to know that stuff, so the agencies abide by the rules.
-To keep the general public from accessing said information, it needs to be secure in all forms. That includes not transmitting it in the clear, not printing it out and leaving copies sitting in the public library, and not posting it on the internet. Very basic IT security standards. Stuff that any person working at any level of IT would understand.
-The agencies that run the databases that hold said criminal justice information are starting to hold agencies to the agreements that were signed. Again, the agreements say that they will not release the information to the general public. You, as a scanner listener, are the general public that isn't supposed to have access to that info. You can argue that all you want, it doesn't change anything.
-The agencies that run the databases are starting to crack down and specifically saying that unless the information is properly secured from end to end (yes, including over the radio), that access to the databases will be pulled until compliance is reached.
-So, officer safety. A law enforcement agency doesn't abide by the agreement and keeps transmitting information in the clear against the signed agreement. The agency that controls the database pulls the plug. Now the officers out doing their job no longer know anything about the person they are interfacing with. That is an officer safety issue. Deny it if you want, but no officer will take you seriously if you try and convince them otherwise.

You can blame this on communists if you want, but any adult that is intelligent enough to ignore conspiracy theories is not going to take you seriously. No law enforcement agency is going to take you seriously. No judge is going to take you seriously. Hobbyists, on the other hand, will probably agree with you, buy you a cup of coffee and gladly sit around and discuss communism with you.

Ummm....WTF are you talking about?

You're trying to twist my words and say "OMGZ encryption is communist!'..

That's not what I said.

I said, encryption hides corruption, and allows it to fester. It's an issue that impacts freedom.

History has proven that hiding what police do, is a pretty good indication that something untoward is happening...

What do you have to hide?

What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right?

You wanna search my car, saying I shouldn't care if I don't have anything to hide. But I wanna listen to what you're saying, and you shouldn't care if you don't have anything to hide.

Cops wanna say I'm hiding something or being 'uncooperative' if I don't want to relinquish my rights, but I can't say cops are hiding something if they wanna prevent me from looking?

You got a single Data channel for running names/socials?Sure, go for it. Wanna encrypt ERT/SWAT? Sure. I can see that.

Seeing 100+ talkgroups, all encrypted? WTF are you hiding?

 

[mmckenna]

I said, encryption hides corruption, and allows it to fester. It's an issue that impacts freedom.

And sometimes corruption is right out in the open and nearly half the population will gladly turn a blind eye to it if they think it's somehow benefiting them.

Encryption isn't the cause of corruption, and just because any agency choses to use encryption doesn't mean they are corrupt. Like I said earlier, there's a lot of reasons to use encryption.

What do you have to hide?...What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right?...You wanna search my car, saying I shouldn't care if I don't have anything to hide. But I wanna listen to what you're saying, and you shouldn't care if you don't have anything to hide….Cops wanna say I'm hiding something or being 'uncooperative' if I don't want to relinquish my rights, but I can't say cops are hiding something if they wanna prevent me from looking?

Sounds like you've either had some really bad experiences with the police, or there's something else besides encryption eating at you. I hope you get it sorted out.

Corrupt police need to be dealt with, not giving free reign. But assuming encryption means corruption is really taking a huge leap with reality.

If you want to listen to what police are saying, then request the recordings. There are ways to do that. If you reply with "they won't give them to me", then there's some issues with the agency that need to be dealt with. There's nothing in the constitution or anywhere else that says you have a right to free/real time access to everything.

You got a single Data channel for running names/socials?Sure, go for it. Wanna encrypt ERT/SWAT? Sure. I can see that.

I can agree with you there. That's the approach I'm working towards on the new system we're designing.

Seeing 100+ talkgroups, all encrypted? WTF are you hiding?

Maybe nothing?

 

[jparks29]

Corruption existed long before encryption, obviously.

Encryption does allow the corruption to hide, however.

You know what says we the people have the right? 'Consent of the governed'.. We make the rules, not the gov't.... People just need to realize that.


I'll say it for the 3rd time. If someone is gonna argue 'If you have nothing to hide, let us look', then that argument works both ways.

Most cops are good people, but those that aren't, will use those tools to further hide their activities. A guy working at burger king has a bad day and you get a 9 piece nugget instead of a 10 piece.. A cop has a bad day and someone is dead.... HUGE difference.

You can't prove something doesn't exist, which is why time and time again agencies have said that records have been deleted, destroyed, or never existed. Reports get modified/changed, etc. Much harder to do that with recording and recordkeeping being done by an individual.

 

[mmckenna]

Encryption does allow the corruption to hide, however.

It can allow encryption to go undetected by hobbyists, but it does not guarantee it will go undetected by everyone. There's other people involved here other than scanner hobbyists.

Yes, there is corruption in the world. Taking away encryption won't resolve that. Officers carry cell phones, they have mobile terminals, there's other ways to communicate that doesn't involve what scanners can hear. Our PD has several encrypted talkgroups on the system I run. I have the encryption keys, I can hear all their traffic. There are no secret shenanigans happening on the encrypted talkgroups. I've made sure the officers know the channels are encrypted, but they don't really care (read: they're not secretly looking for some place for shenanigans).

You know what says we the people have the right? 'Consent of the governed'.. We make the rules, not the gov't.... People just need to realize that.

And we do. Things like protecting personal information is something we the people want. One of the ways to achieve that is by secure communications.

 

[4436time]

We're all subject to assaults and being shot anywhere at any given time, not just the police, and neither their safety nor public records should trump our ability to know what's happening around us.

 

[mmckenna]

We're all subject to assaults and being shot anywhere at any given time, not just the police, and neither their safety nor public records should trump our ability to know what's happening around us.

Public safety radio systems are not built for scanner listeners. I've built a few systems, and at no point in the process did anyone ever utter the phrase "But what about the scanner listeners?".

The ease of reception of these system that you have enjoyed is pure convenience. It's not a service that public safety agencies supply to the general public. For a long time hobbyists have been complaining about public safety agencies making changes to radio systems. It happened when agencies moved off the spectrum just above the AM broadcast band. Back then anyone with an AM radio could tune to the top of the dial and hear dispatches. Then they moved to higher frequencies. Then higher than that. Then came scrambling. Then came trunking. Then came P25. Each time scanner listeners have complained. Now comes encryption, and it won't be overcome by scanner technology.

Since scanner listeners account for a very small segment of the population, you are not going to get many agencies that are going to cater to your needs. There are ways for agencies to reach a much larger segment of the population if they want to alert you to something. Your battle against encryption isn't likely to gain much. What you should be focusing on is pushing these agencies to push information out to the general public via other means. The more people they can reach, the better. Reaching more of the public means using platforms that work better on smartphones.

 

[Citywide173]

There are ways for agencies to reach a much larger segment of the population if they want to alert you to something.

emphasis added

Those are the key words. If they don't you get nothing, a complete control of information by a government agency. I have said it before, being able to monitor Boston Police has kept me from driving into an active shooting scene and has allowed me to assist more than one officer in an OT. If (and that's a big if) they were to encrypt, they would be shutting out EMS in their own city, and the result would be less proactiveness (if that's a word) and a resultant increase in deaths that we save because we get there quicker because we hear it on the scanner.

Of course, the defense will be that they can just give us the keys for our radios...not gonna happen, the three public safety agencies each maintain their own radio systems and without control over the radios, no one is sharing their keys. My question is how many police departments have already shut out their public safety partners and don't care? The PD field unit to PD dispatcher to EMS dispatcher to EMS field unit is too slow in non-rural environments.

It's not just hobbyists getting shut out. There are many places where other responders that can benefit from scanning the PD could be put at risk. The prime example is anyplace that contracts private EMS.

 

[mmckenna]

There are many places where other responders that can benefit from scanning the PD could be put at risk. The prime example is anyplace that contracts private EMS.

There are ways around that. Agencies failing to cooperate is the issue, not encryption. If more agencies cooperated, or used consolidated dispatch, we'd have less issues all together.

Unfortunately many dispatch centers have become money making operations where agencies are charged for dispatch. Dispatch agencies don't want to cooperate since it might cut into their bottom line.

 

[Citywide173]

There are ways around that. Agencies failing to cooperate is the issue, not encryption. If more agencies cooperated, or used consolidated dispatch, we'd have less issues all together.

Absolutely, but encryption is one thing that can embolden and enable non-cooperation.

 

[4436time]

You're in a unique situation that most aren't and I suspect you'd be singing a whole different tune if you were on the outside looking in.

Public safety radio systems are not built for scanner listeners. I've built a few systems, and at no point in the process did anyone ever utter the phrase "But what about the scanner listeners?".

The ease of reception of these system that you have enjoyed is pure convenience. It's not a service that public safety agencies supply to the general public. For a long time hobbyists have been complaining about public safety agencies making changes to radio systems. It happened when agencies moved off the spectrum just above the AM broadcast band. Back then anyone with an AM radio could tune to the top of the dial and hear dispatches. Then they moved to higher frequencies. Then higher than that. Then came scrambling. Then came trunking. Then came P25. Each time scanner listeners have complained. Now comes encryption, and it won't be overcome by scanner technology.

Since scanner listeners account for a very small segment of the population, you are not going to get many agencies that are going to cater to your needs. There are ways for agencies to reach a much larger segment of the population if they want to alert you to something. Your battle against encryption isn't likely to gain much. What you should be focusing on is pushing these agencies to push information out to the general public via other means. The more people they can reach, the better. Reaching more of the public means using platforms that work better on smartphones.

 

[mmckenna]

I suspect you'd be singing a whole different tune if you were on the outside looking in.

Yes, I'm on the inside looking out, and I'm trying to help others understand where this stuff is coming from and where it's going. Unfortunately we have some that are under the impression that agencies are going to encryption for the sole purpose of upsetting scanner hobbyists, or so lots of evil stuff can go on behind the scenes. Some of the complaints and claims I see here are so far off base and so out of touch with reality that it's hard not to laugh. Some bring up very good points, and I've attempted to shed some light on it. Like most things, there isn't one answer that fits every single application.

And again, I'm totally for keeping primary dispatch in the clear and making other channels full time encrypted.

 

[trentbob]

I was sorry to see my post somewhere around 2,226 was censored but I think it got caught up in an exchange that's gone now and I did make a quote, however that quote has stayed so... It was meant to be funny, a joke. Didn't mean to offend anybody.

Back on subject, my County has been predominantly encrypted except for dispatch zones which were partially encrypted at will. We went to full-time encryption with the riots in Philadelphia even though we didn't have any in our County.

The backlash from fire and EMS about situational awareness was fierce, there was even rumors that Fire & EMS would stage on founded calls until they had assurance the scene was secure and we are back to partial encryption at will.

The Board of Supervisors voted last week post haste to allocate 1.2 million dollars to enable Fire & EMS officers and some equipment to receive encryption. The reason used was so the police go to full encryption for the purpose and reason of covid-19.

This is a county of 650000 people, last week 17 people were hospitalized in the entire County and all but two were over 80 and from long-term facilities. We had two people on ventilators both over 80 and we had two deaths, over 80. So with vaccines rapidly coming and the virus eradicated in my County it's hard to see how they justify full-time encryption of police because of covid-19 which is never spoken of over the police radio because it's pretty much gone. By the way, last time I looked live streaming of police calls has resumed on cell phones.

Just saying.

 

[4436time]

I don't think upsetting scanner hobbyists has anything to do with it, but perhaps you can shed light on why some departments encrypt completely, others only partially, many not at all, while some even host their own feeds? If not for any reason other than "we do it because we can", aside from officer safety, corruption, etc., how would you explain the inconsistency?

Yes, I'm on the inside looking out, and I'm trying to help others understand where this stuff is coming from and where it's going. Unfortunately we have some that are under the impression that agencies are going to encryption for the sole purpose of upsetting scanner hobbyists, or so lots of evil stuff can go on behind the scenes. Some of the complaints and claims I see here are so far off base and so out of touch with reality that it's hard not to laugh. Some bring up very good points, and I've attempted to shed some light on it. Like most things, there isn't one answer that fits every single application.

And again, I'm totally for keeping primary dispatch in the clear and making other channels full time encrypted.

 

[mmckenna]

I don't think upsetting scanner hobbyists has anything to do with it, but perhaps you can shed light on why some departments encrypt completely, others only partially, many not at all, while some even host their own feeds? If not for any reason other than "we do it because we can", aside from officer safety, corruption, etc., how would you explain the inconsistency?

Some don't encrypt because they are running older analog equipment and cannot do it. (budget)
Some don't encrypt because interoperability hasn't been addressed yet in their area. (some agencies just can get along)
Some don't encrypt because they don't have an on staff radio person to tell them what they need to do. (basically run everything until it breaks then get sold all new stuff by the local dealer)
Some don't encrypt because they see value in not encrypting.


Some encrypt fully because they can.
Some encrypt fully so officers don't need to change channels to pass PII. <— that's a big one. Training officers to change channels can be difficult. Since there is no requirement that any communications be in the clear, some see it as just easier to encrypt everything and get on with life.
Some encrypt fully because the system they are subscribers on requires it.
Some encrypt fully because they see value in it.

Some only do partial encryption because they see a value in keeping some traffic in the clear.
Some only do partial encryption to maintain interoperability with adjacent agencies that may not have radios capable of encryption.
Some only do partial encryption to allow older radios to be used on the system.

And there's probably a few hundred other reasons. Like I've said before, each agency is going to do what they think is right, until forced to do otherwise. The agency I work with is fully analog right now, but I'm working on building a new system for them that will be partially encrypted. The county we are in is likely going to move most law enforcement to full encryption. A local city is going to have one encrypted channel, one in the clear.
Next county over is almost 100% on a 700MHz trunked system and all law enforcement is encrypted.
The state has reminded us recently that agreements that were signed said that all criminal justice personal info is protected and can't be transmitted in the clear. In the short term they are using cell phones or mobile terminals, but the chief wants at least one encrypted channel on the system. That chief is retiring from this agency and going to another where he'll probably ask for the same thing. Our new incoming chief may want to make everything encrypted.

As for some hosting their own feeds:
That gives them control. They can pull the plug if they need to. They can run a delay. I think it's a good solution and I wish more agencies would do it.

 

[jparks29]

The reason used was so the police go to full encryption for the purpose and reason of covid-19.

Never let a good crisis go to waste.....