One individual is easy to control....multiple individuals, already in an agitated anti-police crowd, not so much.
The Official Thread: Live audio feeds, scanners, and... wait for it.. ENCRYPTION!
- Thread starter blantonl
- Start date
mmckenna
I ♥ Ø
Radios can be set up so talkgroups/channels are "strapped", in other words, it's full time encryption and not selectable by the users.
Others set them up so there's one of the buttons/switches that turns encryption on/off.
If an agency only had one channel, and other local agencies may use it, leaving radios unencrypted makes sense. Allowing the officer to temporarily enable encryption for a specific use would solve some issues.
But, yeah, simple press of a button or flip of a switch on many radios.
mmckenna
I ♥ Ø
I could be, in some situations.
The drawback to it is that the radio user needs to remember to switch the radio to encryption, and back. There are ways to make the radio beep, etc. when encrypted.
"Whoops, accidentally sent private data over an unencrypted channel." doesn't sit well with those in charge.
On the other hand,
"Whoops, sent routine radio traffic encrypted." isn't a big deal.
If someone doesn't think that is an issue, feel free to post your SSN/charge card numbers here.
Anyone who's worked with law enforcement radio users will tell you that getting them to do much more than turn the radio on is a stretch. Officers usually like to just stay on their dispatch channel, and that is it. Adding a step to activate encryption is a -huge- jump in effort.
On the other hand, fire users tend to be more accustomed to changing channels frequently.
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2007
- Messages
- 5,638
I agree with McKenna. Most of our talk groups are fully encrypted such as data, detectives, SWAT, and each dispatch Zone has a full-time encrypted Ops Channel they can switch to as a group for Special Operations when they want to be Secret squirrels. I think those Ops channels have been used only a handful of times. The capability to do that for the average officer is a complicated and overwhelming task that interferes with their response to the emergency and only half of them would do it anyway or even get the memo.
A compromise was made to have partial encryption which means that if an officer has something that he feels is sensitive that he doesn't want criminals listening to on a cell phone he can throw a slide switch on his apx7000 and encrypt his transmission. The policy is when the sensitive content is finished he puts it back unencrypted. They never do and the dispatcher has to remind them that they're on encryption.
This year we had two episodes of weeks of full encryption, the excuse was riots which my County never had any of and the new excuse is the China virus. The county could care less about the media or hobbyist, they care about potential criminals listening on cell phones and the biggest obstacle for them going full-time encrypted is situational awareness for EMS and Fire who do not have the capability of receiving police transmissions while they are in full encryption. There have even been cases where ambulances and firetrucks have threatened to stage and not respond on founded calls until they have assurance that they will be safe.
The Board of Supervisors has just approved the money and EMS and fire supervisors will be equipped to receive encrypted transmissions setting up a way for the police to go to full-time encryption on dispatch channels. We don't have a timetable. Just assurance it's going to happen.
Our county has a financial problem and has a 10 million dollar deficit but the amount of money they allotted was 1.2 million dollars. Officers could encrypt their transmissions anytime they want if they feel it is of a sensitive nature. It involves a slide switch on the radio and then returning it to normal when they are through.
I will admit they are very good at turning the radio on and turning it off but that's pretty much the expertise they have. Otherwise we could stay on partial encryption and save 1.2 million dollars.
A compromise was made to have partial encryption which means that if an officer has something that he feels is sensitive that he doesn't want criminals listening to on a cell phone he can throw a slide switch on his apx7000 and encrypt his transmission. The policy is when the sensitive content is finished he puts it back unencrypted. They never do and the dispatcher has to remind them that they're on encryption.
This year we had two episodes of weeks of full encryption, the excuse was riots which my County never had any of and the new excuse is the China virus. The county could care less about the media or hobbyist, they care about potential criminals listening on cell phones and the biggest obstacle for them going full-time encrypted is situational awareness for EMS and Fire who do not have the capability of receiving police transmissions while they are in full encryption. There have even been cases where ambulances and firetrucks have threatened to stage and not respond on founded calls until they have assurance that they will be safe.
The Board of Supervisors has just approved the money and EMS and fire supervisors will be equipped to receive encrypted transmissions setting up a way for the police to go to full-time encryption on dispatch channels. We don't have a timetable. Just assurance it's going to happen.
Our county has a financial problem and has a 10 million dollar deficit but the amount of money they allotted was 1.2 million dollars. Officers could encrypt their transmissions anytime they want if they feel it is of a sensitive nature. It involves a slide switch on the radio and then returning it to normal when they are through.
I will admit they are very good at turning the radio on and turning it off but that's pretty much the expertise they have. Otherwise we could stay on partial encryption and save 1.2 million dollars.
MStep
Member
JERSEY CITY FIRE DEPARTMENT POSSIBLE ENCRYPTION:
( I hope I found the write forum to post this. )
This relates to comments found in this thread:
forums.radioreference.com
My Own Comments:
Regarding the Jersey City Fire Department (JCFD) and other fire departments that are considering encryption on voice channels. What a terrible waste of money and resources. I've never heard a good reason for any fire department to hide behind their radios. Having worked close up and personal in the dispatch arena, there was rarely (and I do mean RARELY) an incident that required such action. Especially these days, when everyone has access to cell phone service, any sensitive information regarding stuff like injured members or other such sensitive events, can easily be transmitted to the appropriate dispatch centers via cell phone, and then relayed to any off-duty chief officers the same way. Many department also have ways of relaying text information over more secure computer dispatch equipment mounted in many apparatus.
As far as police departments and other law enforcement agencies are concerned, I don't necessarily agree that all channels have to be encrypted. I can see some police departments, or specialized units within a department, encrypting some of their "sensitive" communications.
But for fire departments, I have to imagine that any money spent on new radios which many have been required, the re-tweaking of the involved communications infrastructure, and any other related expenses, could be better spent on improved gear for firefighters, new apparatus, and building new firehouses or modernization of existing ones.
Encryption is useful if you don't want the criminals to know that they are being watched by picking up related communications. A fire is not monitoring a scanner to see if it is being watched.
Let's hope that fire departments are not being sold a possible bill of goods by radio distributors looking to profit from the sale of questionable, possibly useless technology, which also can lead to temptation and criminal misappropriation of funds.
And this does not even gloss over the often mentioned public's and press right to know.
( I hope I found the write forum to post this. )
This relates to comments found in this thread:
Jersey City Fire Department switching over today
JCFD companies are responding to Bishop St, Fire Dispatch this morning to pick up new radios that are encryption capable. I'm told as of today, any communications on the JCFD TRS "Dispatch 1" channel will be encrypted. It's unknown if all TG's in the JC TRS will be full time encryption. I guess...
My Own Comments:
Regarding the Jersey City Fire Department (JCFD) and other fire departments that are considering encryption on voice channels. What a terrible waste of money and resources. I've never heard a good reason for any fire department to hide behind their radios. Having worked close up and personal in the dispatch arena, there was rarely (and I do mean RARELY) an incident that required such action. Especially these days, when everyone has access to cell phone service, any sensitive information regarding stuff like injured members or other such sensitive events, can easily be transmitted to the appropriate dispatch centers via cell phone, and then relayed to any off-duty chief officers the same way. Many department also have ways of relaying text information over more secure computer dispatch equipment mounted in many apparatus.
As far as police departments and other law enforcement agencies are concerned, I don't necessarily agree that all channels have to be encrypted. I can see some police departments, or specialized units within a department, encrypting some of their "sensitive" communications.
But for fire departments, I have to imagine that any money spent on new radios which many have been required, the re-tweaking of the involved communications infrastructure, and any other related expenses, could be better spent on improved gear for firefighters, new apparatus, and building new firehouses or modernization of existing ones.
Encryption is useful if you don't want the criminals to know that they are being watched by picking up related communications. A fire is not monitoring a scanner to see if it is being watched.
Let's hope that fire departments are not being sold a possible bill of goods by radio distributors looking to profit from the sale of questionable, possibly useless technology, which also can lead to temptation and criminal misappropriation of funds.
And this does not even gloss over the often mentioned public's and press right to know.
Last edited:
I agree and I share your frustration. My county's road department upgraded their radio system a while back, switching to an NXDN system with full encryption. 'Cuz you know that those snowplow drivers often discuss sensitive information that they wouldn't want to fall into the wrong hands. God forbid that an average citizen might figure out where they are plowing, and plan something nefarious.JERSEY CITY FIRE DEPARTMENT POSSIBLE ENCRYPTION:
( I hope I found the write forum to post this. )
This relates to comments found in this thread:
Jersey City Fire Department switching over today
JCFD companies are responding to Bishop St, Fire Dispatch this morning to pick up new radios that are encryption capable. I'm told as of today, any communications on the JCFD TRS "Dispatch 1" channel will be encrypted. It's unknown if all TG's in the JC TRS will be full time encryption. I guess...
My Own Comments:
Regarding the Jersey City Fire Department (JCFD and other fire departments that are considering encryption on voice channels. What a terrible waste of money and resources. I've never heard a good reason for any fire department to hide behind their radios. Having worked close up and personal in the dispatch arena, there was rarely (and I do mean RARELY) an incident that required such action. Especially these days, when everyone has access to cell phone service, any sensitive information regarding stuff like injured members or other such sensitive events, can easily be transmitted to the appropriate dispatch centers via cell phone, and then relayed to any off-duty chief officers the same way. Many department also have ways of relaying text information over more secure computer dispatch equipment mounted in many apparatus.
As far as police departments and other law enforcement agencies are concerned, I don't necessarily agree that all channels have to be encrypted. I can see some police departments, or specialized units within a department, encrypting some of their "sensitive" communications.
But for fire departments, I have to imagine that any money spent on new radios which many have been required, the re-tweaking of the involved communications infrastructure, and any other related expenses, could be better spent on improved gear for firefighters, new apparatus, and building new firehouses or modernization of existing ones.
Encryption is useful if you don't want the criminals to know that they are being watched by picking up related communications. A fire is not monitoring a scanner to see if it is being watched.
Let's hope that fire departments are not being sold a possible bill of goods by radio distributors looking to profit from the sale of questionable, possibly useless technology, which also can lead to temptation and criminal misappropriation of funds.
And this does not even gloss over the often mentioned public's and press right to know.
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2012
- Messages
- 400
Exactly why Broadcastify and other streaming apps should be shut down. If people want to listen so bad then buy a scanner.
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2016
- Messages
- 850
Or delayed by like 30 minutes.
mmckenna
I ♥ Ø
Truth is, it costs precisely zero dollars to enable encryption on NXDN radios.
Yeah, snow plow drivers do not need encryption, but what else happens on that frequency when it's not snowing? Sometimes small cities will license a couple of frequencies, give one or two to the fire or PD, and one to public works. In situations, PD or Fire can utilize the public works frequencies if they need an additional channel. Turning on 'free' encryption is easy to do and solves some other situations, like people with CCR's wanting to interfere.
But, yeah, fire ground doesn't need to be encrypted in most cases, neither do most public works channels.
The road department won't let anybody else use that system. They wouldn't even give a radio to the sheriff's department.
mmckenna
I ♥ Ø
Secret Squirrel Snow Plow Operations.
San Diego County California encryption per CLETS...agencies telling us they are small and have limited talkgroups available so they must encrypt every channel...said agencies have dedicated inquiry talkgroups I should add...same agency that specified that wouldn't answer the phone or tell us (news station) what was happening when we got wind of a shoot-out gunbattle "245 664 187" in their city that we heard a broadcast on a neighborign agency. When you encrypt and refuse the media the possibility of even eventually (after the fact!) being able to report an incident, that is just plain wrong.
Paul
Paul
Encryption is illegal? Ummmm. Not it’s not.
Easy fix. I strap them. The officers have no choice. They stay encrypted
mmckenna
I ♥ Ø
Exactly. I don't make it an option on any of our radios. The appropriate talk groups are encrypted.
paulears
Member
In this day and age, everything we do is sensitive - everyone wants to know everything and there is this idea that nobody has a right to privacy, yet everyone also wants it. If we want a Police service that works, then they too need to not let the bad guys have an advantage. They also don't always want everyone to see it on TV. It's worked really well in the UK for the emergency services. All police use ear pieces in public, we used to have the question - are you 10.7 meaning here, can you be overheard? It's been important for 40 years, and now with encryption and the earpiece - nobody hears what the control room are telling them - like he's known for being a crazed axe murderer who hates the police. It's such an obvious benefit for them to encrypt.
Taxis firms don't have their fares robbed by the uber drivers listening in and getting their first. Car parking wardens no longer give their locations away - if there's a downside, I can't think of it.
Taxis firms don't have their fares robbed by the uber drivers listening in and getting their first. Car parking wardens no longer give their locations away - if there's a downside, I can't think of it.
I can't do the only job I am capable of doing when dealing with encryption, but I encrypt all my communications...would you talk on your phone knowing it was not encrypted and live streamed over the internet?
Paul
Paul
Similar threads
