N9EXR66
Senior Member OMIK
Uh, you're a day LATE and a dollar short!!!!
The Official Thread: Live audio feeds, scanners, and... wait for it.. ENCRYPTION!
- Thread starter blantonl
- Start date
Personally I really like listening to my local agencies. I used to listen to them with my father when I was in high school and still listen to them now. Pickens County Emergency Services in Pickens County SC! I support them. I always will. But there's been a rumor going around that they plan to go from analog to digital. Which means you guessed it " Encryption" ! I can sorta understand they're reasons for this but at the same time I like knowing if something bad is happening close to my house. That way I can be prepared. Plus I can be really fun listening to them when chases are happening.Why fight over something you have no control over?
We see LE using scanner and RR loaded cell phone toting bad guys as an argument for encryption, yet how often do they shut down high-speed chases, letting the perpetrator go so no one's put in harms way? I've heard it happen twice this week alone. Wonder how they plan on fixing that with encryption?
Does anyone have access to statistics for agencies that have gone encrypted to see if it's actually made any difference in terms of catching the bad guy and enhancing officer safety? My guess is if it had, our scanners would be silent already. (Of course, there has to be money for it) Otherwise, I agree 100% with GG's last comment in post #84 of the original thread. That's how it is in my area and seems to be working pretty well.
This site will be here long after the feeds are gone and encryption has taken over. My measley 2c.
I guess I wouldn't know who the right or wrong person was. I haven't heard of any politician, local, state, or federal, running on an anti-encryption platform.
California had some state level legislation I’m not educated on.
Marion County Ohio had a sheriff de-encrypt.
It’s a major issue in the Akron Mayor’s race due to the police, Fire and EMS seemingly hiding things. ENC is just one issue in a hornets nest of other transparency concerns.
Baby steps.
mmckenna
I ♥ Ø
There was a bill. It failed. It did not become law.
They submitted another bill, with some of the gaping holes filled in. It isn't dead, but it's been pushed to next year.
Neither of the bills outlawed encryption.
This glosses over the FBI/DOJ requirements to not transmit PII/CJI in the clear. Local politicians can say all they want, but it won't change the federal rules.
That's fine, if it was elected officials who made the decision. In our county, it was suggested to the police chiefs/sheriff by the city's Emergency Manager, who pushed really hard for it. In the end, it was the Emergency Manager's decision, the chiefs & the sheriff went along with it, possibly due to a lack of technical knowledge. The sheriff was the only elected official in that group. There really wasn't anything the public could do about it, except complain about it after the fact. That was in 2006, none of those officials are still in office, and we're still encrypted.
An off the wall question: Why haven't LE agencies turned cases of people using LE radio transmissions to the federal government for trial in federal court? Isn't it still a violation to use LE transmissions to aid you in the commission of a crime? Several cases of these crimes with convictions and severe jail sentences would or should wake criminals up. This wouldn't exactly help getting public safety transmissions unenccrypted, but it would the scanner listener's way of thanking the criminal element for their actions in removing an enjoyable pastime from honest people.
Simple, blunt answer: U.S. Attorneys have better things to do.
paulears
Member
The trouble is simply that radio is for the complainers a hobby. Therefore it’s a leisure activity. Low on the list. The news media could make a case for their need for info maybe? All those who have a legitimate need for access, probably already get it. Leisure users can’t make a solid case, so have to try to use ancient rights, and will ultimately lose. Reverse the question. What benefit to the radio users who are encrypted would there be if they had to un-encrypt? None whatsoever!
There was a candidate for Mayor of Indianapolis who included an anti-encryption plank in her platform. She lost the primary election.
Candidate for Indianapolis Mayor calls for no encryption on radio system
Interesting to see a candidate mention radio encryption: Mayoral Candidate Robin Shackleford Unveils Public Safety Plan Plan will REBUILD IMPD, RESTORE trust and accountability, and SECURE families Indianapolis – Democratic candidate for Indianapolis Mayor, State Representative Robin...
My county had a talkgroup that was encrypted and officers were instructed to use it whenever they had PII to transmit over the air, such as records checks. There were also SWAT and drug task force talkgroups that were encrypted. A new sheriff came into office and he convinced the other police chiefs to encrypt all law enforcement traffic.
In my state, and in many other states, using information gleaned from LE radio transmissions in the commission of a crime is, in itself, a crime which can be prosecuted under state law.
Last edited:
I'm NOT calling you a liar, but I sure would like to see proof. We have several local agencies that transmit personally identifiable information over analog in the clear.
mmckenna
I ♥ Ø
USDOJ/FBI Criminal Justice Information Services Division
Criminal Justice Information Services Security Policy, Version 5.9.1 document
Section 5.10.1.2.1, "Encryption of CJI in Transit"
The DOJ/FBI requirements are for sharing any information from the USDOJ/FBI systems. Doesn't matter which state you are in, if agencies are transmitting this information in the clear, then they are in violation of this section. You state DOJ may not be enforcing this YET, but it's probably coming.
As in the state of California, they recognize that not all agencies have a solution in place, so it is not enforced, but all agencies had to acknowledge this and provide a plan to the State as to how they were going to address transmitting CJI/PII over the radio in the clear. It's taking agencies a while to get caught up.
California is out in front of this, and eventually the USDOJ/FBI will start forcing other states to follow if they want to keep their connections to the USDOJ/FBI databases.
belvdr
No longer interested in living
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2013
- Messages
- 2,567
Interesting stuff. The document can be found here (page 58 or Adobe page 68):
One thing I'm curious about is the scope:
(emphasis mine) - is there any law enforcement entity this doesn't apply to, that you know of?
Actually, a newer version came out earlier this year, but it might not be available online yet.
And yes, it applies to all law enforcement agencies.
belvdr
No longer interested in living
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2013
- Messages
- 2,567
I found version 5.9.2 from Dec 2022:
mmckenna
I ♥ Ø
Thanks for adding the link. Didn't have time to go looking for it myself.
I don't know, but I'd expect it would be pretty rare.
My understanding of the way things work is that the FBI/USDOJ act as the clearing house for all interstate records. So while an individual state can not have such wording in their rules, if they provide data from any other state via the federal system, it must be encrypted.
Obviously this hasn't been pushed by the feds very hard, but with California doing it, I expect that the feds will start pushing on other states to start enforcing the rules.
Not trying to stir up the encryption debate any more than it already is. Just trying to point out these requirements. If one wants to argue against encryption, it's best to have all the facts in front of them. (but I think it's going to be pretty dang hard to fight the USDOJ/FBI requirements.)
It's always been interpreted as referring to the phone line/internet/network connections that allow the NCIC terminals at law enforcement agencies to communicate with the FBI's system/database and with each other. But a reasonable person could read it and come to the conclusion that it refers to radio waves as well. The FBI goes around and conducts audits on this stuff, and they don't take it lightly. I've never experienced an FBI audit during my career (only a few by the state), but it's been likened to a prostate exam.
mmckenna
I ♥ Ø
It does specifically call out LMR, as well as cellular, bluetooth, WiFi, etc.
As for the FBI audits, I don't think we've had one from them, but the state has visited. And it's enough of a pain that the agency I work with goes out of their way to make sure everything is done correctly before they show up.
ecps92
Member
Only the (UN)lucky few, get chosen for the true NCIC Audit, those are usually agencies with a multitude of records.
All others are handled thru the State Control Terminal Agency (CTA)
I recently had found an FBI.gov web site (now can't find it) that does allow the sharing of PII/CHRI over the two-way (CLR) as long as Officer Safety is invovled and there is no need to READ the entire RAP sheet, brevity was stressed
Last edited:
Similar threads
