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

[tdave365]

I just noticed that there are over a half a million of us on this web site! 500K+! Would that be enough to start a campagine to fight police encryption of routine pricinct level comms? If we could some how fund the legal expence to get this issue heard by someone who could resolve it, at least then we can say that an effort was made. Whether it's "yes, cops have a good reason to encrypt", or "no, cops must let the public have a real time ear on their routine comms", it can be said that someone made the effort to settle things. Let's not let this issue die 'cause no one cared enough. Just ranting about it woun't change anything. I for one would give $10 in hopes that all of us would match that. $5 million would give us a chance to see which way this issue and this country's liberties will go.

This website also owns Broadcastify, and many agencies see that service as the compromise for broadcasting openly. I don't know if Broadcastify charges them directly for that but I guarantee you that whether directly or indirectly, that makes this website a benefactor of agencies encrypting. I seriously doubt this website is capable of leading that charge - remember, even conversation of it is relegated to the "rants" forum or something.

 

[mmckenna]

That’s NOT what is about and if you would only get off your arrogant, conceited high horse for minute so you can listen to common sense before YOU and all of us are under the full thumb of a police state… In many cities we’re already at the mercy of whatever the local government and law enforcement decides to release to the public that’s not deemed by ONLY them, a “national security issue”. But go ahead with your arrogant BS that wouldn’t last for a minute face to face with a real person on the street while you’re under the protection of the gatekeeping of most “compliant and subservient” websites and online sources…

You have never met me, and you are judging based on what you've extrapolated from a few posts. That will never give you an accurate understanding of who I am, just as I wouldn't assume that I know anything at all about you from your posts.

I started off as a scanner listener, short wave, and CB a very long time ago. I was a hobbyist before it turned into a job, and I do remember my roots, wether you think so or not.

Since I now work in the industry and deal with this stuff all the time, I try really hard to share what I know with other hobbyists. There's a lot that hobbyists do not understand. There's a lot of demands, foot stomping, and temper tantrums that happen here based on feelings rather than actual understanding of what is happening.

I've tried to lay it all out in ways that others can understand. Many don't like it and choose to shoot the messenger. That's fine with me.

If you don't like what I post, feel free to use the "block user" feature on this website. It won't hurt my feelings at all.

 

[BinaryMode]

This in of its self tell me everything. But hey! We (the majority) know nothing and are just outsiders...

Why does my avatar use the same symbol? Because I'm a dork. Nothing more.

To those that may not know. XTS5000 secure symbols on display

 

[jthorpe]

We encrypted during the riots of 2020 because we knew they were actively listening and trying to flank the public order squads. It was clear that as soon as we said something, the rioters were making moves of their own to counter it. Then it happened again during another protest. That was the end of that. Big E forever. You can like it or not but it's not going to change. Also like it or not, agencies time and again have been going E because of broadcastify. It's done. It'll never change.

 

[BinaryMode]

It's what a TAC channel is for!

 

[jthorpe]

It's what a TAC channel is for!

🤷🏼‍♂️

 

[drdispatch]

It's what a TAC channel is for!

 

[kayn1n32008]

That's an awesome meme. It is being yoinked for redistribution

 

[BinaryMode]

Bottom line is this:

When there is a major incident a TAC channel is generally requested by the officer. In my town that is the Norm. This TAC channel would more than likely be encrypted, and with good reason. This not only frees up the dispatcher working the dispatch channel, but allows another dispatcher to work that TAC channel that needs to be monitored.


Make sense? Or do I need to make a Power Point presentation on the bill I have in mind for the transparency of dispatch at the state and local level?

It's really become a matter of just because you can doesn't mean you should. Especially for fire.

By the way, to this observer the movie Despicable Me has Communist overtones. And on that subject, we really all are just "Minions" in this Feudal system that is MASSIVELY Machiavellian.

I yield back the balance of my time.

 

[AB5ID]

When there is a major incident a TAC channel is generally requested by the officer. In my town that is the Norm.

The opposite occurs here. During an incident, all officers not involved switch to an alternate channel. I guess It depends on the size of the department. Departments will encrypt simply because they can; there's nothing stopping them, and the cost of encryption is likely becoming negligible.

 

[Citywide173]

The opposite occurs here. During an incident, all officers not involved switch to an alternate channel. I guess It depends on the size of the department. Departments will encrypt simply because they can; there's nothing stopping them, and the cost of encryption is likely becoming negligible.

Both have their place. If it is feasible to switch the units involved to a seperate channel, it should be done. This leaves everyone else in their normal operating mode with the least interruption. If the event is critical, the other units should be moved and the event left on the main channel to allow for the least number of distractions to the units operating at the incident. If the event is scheduled, there is no reason to ever have the units operating at the event on the main channel to begin with.

 

[BinaryMode]

HAHA I like your redo of Edmund Burke's quote.

I have a magnet on the side of my computer with that quote. It came from a charity I donate to called Stronghold Rescue and Relief.

 

[ecps92]

Both have their place. If it is feasible to switch the units involved to a seperate channel, it should be done. This leaves everyone else in their normal operating mode with the least interruption. If the event is critical, the other units should be moved and the event left on the main channel to allow for the least number of distractions to the units operating at the incident. If the event is scheduled, there is no reason to ever have the units operating at the event on the main channel to begin with.

Sounds like you have done this a couple of times or more

 

[fawalley]

The California State Senate passed a new bill that would require police agencies to restore public access to radio communications.

In late 2018, valley law enforcement agencies encrypted their radio signals, blocking the public from hearing real-time updates on crimes, crashes and other matters of safety.

"We believe that there's a critical need for both the public and the press to be able to listen to certain information that comes across police airwaves," said Lt. William Hutchinson with Palm Springs Police Department.

Hutchinson said PSPD is committed to balancing the public's right to transparency with the need to encrypt some private police communications. He said the signals were initially encrypted to comply with privacy laws after a mandate from the Department of Justice.

"Driver's licenses, vehicle information, local criminal history, things of that nature," Hutchinson said.

State Senator Josh Becker just got Senate Bill 1000 to pass the California Senate, giving law enforcement agencies until January 1, 2024, to find ways to protect that confidential information while restoring public access to radio
traffic.

"Law enforcement can in fact protect that kind of personally identifiable information without putting the public in the dark," Becker said on the Senate floor.

Officer Ben Guitron with Indio Police said his department supports the bill. "We obviously are going to comply with the state law as it's read in the bill," he said.

At PSPD, Hutchinson said the bill could mean operational changes since their dispatch team is smaller than most.

"We're looking at a very busy dispatch center with only a few dispatchers who have to do everything," Hutchinson said. "Some of those challenges are that we can't necessarily switch channels in order to get that privacy information that the officers need at a moment's notice and on the fly."

Re-Opening Police Radio Communications To The Press & Public

Bill Text - SB-719 Law enforcement agencies: radio communications.

 

[mmckenna]

The California State Senate passed a new bill that would require police agencies to restore public access to radio communications.

SB1000 died. It wasn't acted upon and it just died. It was poorly written and eventually ended up with gaping holes that would have done very little to accomplish what the original bill set out to do.

SB719, submitted more recently, hasn't gone anywhere either. It was "refused passage" in January of this year. It's not "dead", but it not going anywhere. A slightly better written version of SB1000, but again, left gaping holes that would have done little to prevent encryption.

 

[jthorpe]

Itll never happen. What's done is done

 

[chrismol1]

I remember the clinging to 2020 and hope PDs will get politically motivated to unencrypt. Or that they'd all see the light and some sort of buddy in broadcastify for official feeds. Only a few of the most politically inclined for transparency attempted to do that. Sadly only 237 official feeds out of 7,000 feeds. It only got worse the more they realized their streams were on every phone. Even a 5 minute delay would have gone far to show some charity but if I recall any delay other than official is a no-go. Why would they care to partner with the problem that did nothing to try and ease concerns if only a little

 

[chrismol1]

Some talk about fire encrypting

I think first time I've heard this in my area- house in "upscale" area ended up burning, called red cross got them a hotel. 2AM rolls around and neighbors called for flashlights and cars. Looters from another city rolled up and went to work

 

[ki4hyf]

Some talk about fire encrypting

I think first time I've heard this in my area- house in "upscale" area ended up burning, called red cross got them a hotel. 2AM rolls around and neighbors called for flashlights and cars. Looters from another city rolled up and went to work

I seriously doubt the looters heard about it on the fire department's radio. It's much more likely that they learned of it from the news or social media. It's pretty much impossible to keep a working fire secret, especially in a populated area. Encryption (in this case) wouldn't prevent looting, in my opinion.

 

[sonm10]

Does anyone have a sample letter they could share that you have written to the local authorities about encryption concerns. I really need to send a letter to my local law enforcement, but not sure what it should say!

Also, is there any benefits of writing to county commissioners vs law enforcement?