mmckenna
I ♥ Ø
This may be what you are looking for:
The Official Thread: Live audio feeds, scanners, and... wait for it.. ENCRYPTION!
- Thread starter blantonl
- Start date
This may be what you are looking for:
mmckenna
I ♥ Ø
Not encrypted: No.
Encrypted: Yes, it comes down to "readily accessible". The definition of that is:
readily accessible to the general public
(16) “readily accessible to the general public” means, with respect to a radio communication, that such communication is not— (A) scrambled or encrypted; (B) transmitted using modulation techniques whose essential parameters have been withheld from the public with the intention of preserving the privacy of such communication; (C) carried on a subcarrier or other signal subsidiary to a radio transmission; (D) transmitted over a communication system provided by a common carrier, unless the communication is a tone only paging system communication; or (E) transmitted on frequencies allocated under part 25, subpart D, E, or F of part 74, or part 94 of the Rules of the Federal Communications Commission, unless, in the case of a communication transmitted on a frequency allocated under part 74 that is not exclusively allocated to broadcast auxiliary services, the communication is a two-way voice communication by radio;
Thank you! I wonder how many people have been convicted for merely listening to encrypted public service...
mmckenna
I ♥ Ø
I don't know.
My guess, not many. They'd have to be dumb enough to share what they heard in such a way that it would be obvious they'd done it.
Modern encryption (AES256) makes it impossible(*) to accidentally intercept. The ability to intercept it would usually indicate that they had illegal access to equipment or keys.
* impossible, someone will no doubt want to argue that.
I would make the argument that it would have to be accidental if it were to actually happen given the odds of intentionally breaking it.
mmckenna
I ♥ Ø
Possibly.
I was thinking that someone would comment about how they read on the internet about some guys brothers gardener who knew a guy who had some magic box that would decode AES256 and make waffles.
Google got sued over it.
Joffe v. Google, Inc., No. 11-17483 (9th Cir. 2013)
Plaintiffs filed suit against Google under the Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. 2511, after the antennas and software installed in Google's Street View cars collected basic identifying information transmitted by Wi-Fi networks, as well as gathered and stored "payload data" that was sent and received over...
law.justia.com
Hmmm...not really the same thing. They were collecting unencrypted wi-fi traffic. I was talking about listening to encrypted LEA traffic.Google got sued over it.
Joffe v. Google, Inc., No. 11-17483 (9th Cir. 2013)
Plaintiffs filed suit against Google under the Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. 2511, after the antennas and software installed in Google's Street View cars collected basic identifying information transmitted by Wi-Fi networks, as well as gathered and stored "payload data" that was sent and received over...
Once the Government gets a fast enough computer with enough Teraflops, they might be able to brute force it, sometime in the next millenium....
slicerwizard
Member
No, still impossible.
Actually it is, at least as far as the statute viewing it as being the same thing. The statute prohibits interception of communications not “readily accessible to the general public”. Encryption is only one example of meeting that criteria. The 9th circuit ruled that the wifi data in question met the same standard of not readily accessible to the general public that encryption does. So encryption is not the legal standard. It's just one example of it.
18 U.S. Code § 2510 - Definitions
Virginia Beach Police Department encrypts its radio scanners
In 2018, Virginia Beach City Council members approved the nearly $5 million encryption project. The goal is to stop information from getting into the wrong hands.
www.13newsnow.com
From the attached PDF:
The Virginia Beach Police Department (VBPD) explored the implementation of replacement portable radios with encrypted transmissions several years ago. The funding was approved in Fiscal Year 2018, actualized in Fiscal Year 2021, and has now been implemented as of July 28, 2022.
The need to secure police communications is of critical importance. Officers routinely transmit citizens’ sensitive, personal identifying information (PII) during encounters to verify identity and warrant status, among other law enforcement functions. This open-air transmission puts our citizens at risk for identity theft and similar economic-related crimes.
The VBPD remains committed to public transparency and accountability. Secure, encrypted communications do not supersede or lessen our responsibility to provide copies of radio transmissions as required by the public records laws of Virginia. The publicretains the ability to stay informed of police department actions and responses; however, much like incidents captured on body-worn cameras, it is just not in real-time for the protection of officers and the community.
The Virginia Beach Police Department (VBPD) explored the implementation of replacement portable radios with encrypted transmissions several years ago. The funding was approved in Fiscal Year 2018, actualized in Fiscal Year 2021, and has now been implemented as of July 28, 2022.
The need to secure police communications is of critical importance. Officers routinely transmit citizens’ sensitive, personal identifying information (PII) during encounters to verify identity and warrant status, among other law enforcement functions. This open-air transmission puts our citizens at risk for identity theft and similar economic-related crimes.
- The California Department of Justice recently mandated that California police agencies no longer broadcast any PII over open airways. This requirement has led to approximately 120 departments in their state adopting radio encryption as of May 2022.
- In Virginia, state code mandates law enforcement to protect/restrict the identity of victims of sexual assault and juveniles who are victims of crime or who are subject to arrest.
- On February 08, 2022, VBPD apprehended two individuals, breaking in through the roof of a local Food Lion store to steal a safe. Officers were in the immediate vicinity when the call was dispatched and were able to contain the suspects on the roof. Upon arrest, officers discovered the suspects had been monitoring police response to their location through unencrypted radio transmissions on a scanner application. Had these suspects been armed, this arrest could have ended in tragedy.
- Many dispatch centers, including the Virginia Beach Emergency Communications Center, no longer utilize coded language regarding tracking devices, such as those deployed by most banks, some cell phone stores, and pharmacies, during robbery offenses. Previously, coded language would allow authorities to follow the offender and make a traffic stop or arrest when it wastactically advantageous for officer and community safety. National best practice is to use plain language in all first respondercommunications. Therefore, the use of radio encryption would prevent a bank robber, for example, the ability to listen to policecommunications and realizing they are being tracked.
The VBPD remains committed to public transparency and accountability. Secure, encrypted communications do not supersede or lessen our responsibility to provide copies of radio transmissions as required by the public records laws of Virginia. The publicretains the ability to stay informed of police department actions and responses; however, much like incidents captured on body-worn cameras, it is just not in real-time for the protection of officers and the community.
Last edited:
The two examples citied by VBPD Chief Neuidigate are pretty huge stretches in my opinion.
First:
Since this mandate went out in the State of California, which by the way, is not the State of Virginia, the state of California received tens of thousands of clarification requests from agencies given the significant cost to procure encrypting equipment, in addition to some agencies afraid they were breaking the law in California because they simply didn't have the funding necessary to comply with the mandate.
Additionally, California provided clarification that other mediums, such as mobile data terminals, cell phone, telephones and fax, were more than sufficient to comply with the mandate, or simply just encrypting radio channels that carried PII and leaving general, routine dispatch operations in the clear and not encrypted.
Furthermore, some agencies in California, made the switch, only to realize that senior law enforcement leadership might regret the move:
2nd issue from VBPD Chief Neuidigate press reelease:
The involvement of police scanners (or applications, which inherently already hav a delay built into them) in this reported incident is completely non sequitur. First, the suspects where apprehended and it is responsible to conclude that since officers were already in the immediate vicinity when the call went out, if the subjects were armed and intended to use their weapons, the use of a police scanner in the commission of this crime would have had absolutely no effect as to the outcome of the incident, and never would have in the first place.
The City of Virginia Beach and Chief Neuidigate cherry picked reasons to reduce transparency to the cities of Virginia Beach by citing mandates that went into affect in completely different states, and citing an incident example in their own city that was complete irrelevant to the use of a police scanner in the commission of a crime. I doubt the chief can provide the general public in Virginia Beach a single example of where officer safety was an issue with regards to the use of a police scanner.
Virginia Beach should leave their general routine dispatch channels in the clear FOR officer safety, accountability to the public, and to provide complete real time transparency to the media and citizens of Virginia Beach.
Finally, the City of San Fransicsco took the correct, balanced, and proper approach to this nuanced issue: their plan is to only encrypt channels dedicated to transmitting PIII info, tactical, and non-routine dispatch related activities on their radio system, in a coordinated approach with the State of California who is in agreement with their decision. The Berkeley Police Department is considering a similar approach.
First:
Since this mandate went out in the State of California, which by the way, is not the State of Virginia, the state of California received tens of thousands of clarification requests from agencies given the significant cost to procure encrypting equipment, in addition to some agencies afraid they were breaking the law in California because they simply didn't have the funding necessary to comply with the mandate.
Additionally, California provided clarification that other mediums, such as mobile data terminals, cell phone, telephones and fax, were more than sufficient to comply with the mandate, or simply just encrypting radio channels that carried PII and leaving general, routine dispatch operations in the clear and not encrypted.
Furthermore, some agencies in California, made the switch, only to realize that senior law enforcement leadership might regret the move:
2nd issue from VBPD Chief Neuidigate press reelease:
The involvement of police scanners (or applications, which inherently already hav a delay built into them) in this reported incident is completely non sequitur. First, the suspects where apprehended and it is responsible to conclude that since officers were already in the immediate vicinity when the call went out, if the subjects were armed and intended to use their weapons, the use of a police scanner in the commission of this crime would have had absolutely no effect as to the outcome of the incident, and never would have in the first place.
The City of Virginia Beach and Chief Neuidigate cherry picked reasons to reduce transparency to the cities of Virginia Beach by citing mandates that went into affect in completely different states, and citing an incident example in their own city that was complete irrelevant to the use of a police scanner in the commission of a crime. I doubt the chief can provide the general public in Virginia Beach a single example of where officer safety was an issue with regards to the use of a police scanner.
Virginia Beach should leave their general routine dispatch channels in the clear FOR officer safety, accountability to the public, and to provide complete real time transparency to the media and citizens of Virginia Beach.
Finally, the City of San Fransicsco took the correct, balanced, and proper approach to this nuanced issue: their plan is to only encrypt channels dedicated to transmitting PIII info, tactical, and non-routine dispatch related activities on their radio system, in a coordinated approach with the State of California who is in agreement with their decision. The Berkeley Police Department is considering a similar approach.
Last edited:
See my response here to the Press Release:
forums.radioreference.com
The Official Thread: Live audio feeds, scanners, and... wait for it.. ENCRYPTION!
Can anyone point me to an official resource/link that says listening to encrypted radio communications is illegal? All I was able to find was this from the FCC: This may be what you are looking for: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2511
I cannot get behind this argument, I’m sorry.
So the real reason is a scanner app on a cell phone. Got it. Also the reason for E in use on certain TG's in IN, MS, NC, SC, TX, etc... This is not my reasoning, it is the stated reasons for PD's, and yes FD's going to E. EMS going to E is stuck on STUPID using failed logic of HIPAA rules... In any case it is an actual reason being used for E. Yes we DO "pay the salaries" but that means jack and ****e without the right voices in offices do to the RIGHT VOTES.... Elections have consequences.... Make consequences happen before they happen to us all by being silent. If enough voices by ballots shout out, amazing things happen. We are living in times where if you let the WRONG voices make your choices you get to PAY for them. Literally. (Inflation plus recession means what to you guys?) Think about things for a minute and remember its a big turn around midterms if you want to make changes. Even bigger in 2 years. Just take it to heart folks.
chrismol1
P25 TruCking!
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 1,321
He's really going to cite another state as the reason for encryption? Really? Well in Alabama, it's illegal for a person to walk down the street with an ice cream cone in their back pocket. Protecting the identities of potential juvenile suspects. wow. Then dispatchers used to use coded language when following bank robbery suspects with tracking devices? What? huh? Maybe police nationwide included those unencrypted should go back to "coded language" if its as much as a liability as he admits
Ahh the real reason finally comes out
Last edited:
Ah yes, the old classic "I pay your salary!"
NOT to be confused with letting all law enforcement and all elected officials operate completely “in the dark” and “behind close doors” without ANY transparency and accountability to their constituents that they ACTUALLY work for and NOT the other way around.
Similar threads
