Utah switching to P25 phase II in 3 to 4 months.

[maus92]

The fix to this is already in place.....Most larger agencies that have "Multiple foot and bike patrols" already use a "service channel" for getting and giving out that information. The average call goes like this: Police and Dispatcher are on a geographically based channel, if they are a large enough department, or, a dispatch and response channel if they are smaller or less busy. While the officer is dispatached, enroute, and arrives, he stays on that main channel. After investigating, doing whatever needs to be done, if they need to run checks, they go to service and THAT could be encrypted. They get the information about the suspect, then go back to the main channel. It literally is already that way in SLC and Davis County and has been for years. The personally identifiable information could be encrypted on secondary channels or via MDT's 99% of the time.

This is 100% an opprotunity to keep people from being aware of what is going on in their community. Yes, it will also help with the small fraction of people who show up on calls to "Watch", and the even smaller group that are committing crimes and using this to aid them.

You are missing the point that there are critical staffing issues at 911 / communications centers that may preclude the operation of a data channel. Perhaps in a less busy department a dispatcher could hop over to another channel to manage confidential info, but that assumes this can be done without compromising officer safety.

 

[fireparamed1]

You are missing the point that there are critical staffing issues at 911 / communications centers that may preclude the operation of a data channel. Perhaps in a less busy department a dispatcher could hop over to another channel to manage confidential info, but that assumes this can be done without compromising officer safety.

No, I'm really not missing the point. The areas that have enough resources to have "Foot Patrol and Bike Teams" have equally large dispatch centers. I have worked in public safety for 30 years now, including being in charge of interfacing with the Dispatch side of house. There is literally NO reason for a department with bike patrol and foot units to not have an equally robust disptach team. I'm looking at SLCPD, Unified PD, etc. If you are talking about Payson and Santaquin, then maybe, but do you really think they have Bike Teams and foot patrols? Davis County dispatch has a service channel, Weber County has a service channel, SLC police has a service channel, Unified Police has a service channel. The list goes on and on. Most of the previously mentioned areas also allow as has been mentioned, for officers to use MDT's to get the information themselves. That is also the case in most small communites, officers get the majority of the info on their MDT's. In the smaller communiites, I don't see an issue with them being so busy (becasuse they are smaller) that you would have lots of service channel requests at the same time as a bunch of other major incidents jeopardizing officer safety. Lastly, dispatchers are fantastic at prioritizing and multitasking. They have done it for years. In many cases, running multiple channels. In my world, this is simply an unjustified excuse to allow the encryption issue to be accepted. It's low hanging fruit.

There is literally 1% of the time that the "personal information" would be broadcast in the clear that justifies not allowing the public to listen to Disptach, response and arrival information. On top of all of this, there is no federal or State law that requires encryption to begin with. This is so much more control than anything else. I would totally favor encryption of the service channel and tac/swat channels. But I still think the public has the right to hear what is on the dispatch and response channels.

 

[enosjones]

The fix to this is already in place.....Most larger agencies that have "Multiple foot and bike patrols" already use a "service channel" for getting and giving out that information. The average call goes like this: Police and Dispatcher are on a geographically based channel, if they are a large enough department, or, a dispatch and response channel if they are smaller or less busy. While the officer is dispatached, enroute, and arrives, he stays on that main channel. After investigating, doing whatever needs to be done, if they need to run checks, they go to service and THAT could be encrypted. They get the information about the suspect, then go back to the main channel. It literally is already that way in SLC and Davis County and has been for years. The personally identifiable information could be encrypted on secondary channels or via MDT's 99% of the time.

This is 100% an opprotunity to keep people from being aware of what is going on in their community. Yes, it will also help with the small fraction of people who show up on calls to "Watch", and the even smaller group that are committing crimes and using this to aid them.

wasn't this the service channels, when they had them switch to service? that was still ran through dispatch, just a different dispatcher, usually in the clear...

 

[fireparamed1]

wasn't this the service channels, when they had them switch to service? that was still ran through dispatch, just a different dispatcher, usually in the clear...

Yes, that is exactly right. That's why I have such an issue with this being the "excuse" for encryption. Most of the police departments that are talking about protecting privacy, already had service channels in place and could have simply ONLY encypted them, and their Tac/SWAT channels. Instead, most of the police departments decided to just "flip the switch" and encrypt everything. This was the best, and most lame excuse they could come up with.

Like I said, I have been in Public safety for 30 years, and scanning since I was 16. This is a very unfortunate time for us as a hobby, and for our journalists that try their best to hold police and fire accountable for their actions. Have I had scanner holding public show up on my scenes? Absolutely. Did it create an issue and worse than the people just driving by that stopped? Not really. Are there rare circumstances where people committing crimes were using scanners, (or far more likely iPhone apps) to listen to local PD while tryting to keep from getting caught? Sure, maybe it was even getting worse due to the ease of downloading an app vs. purchasing and programming a scanner. But I don't think it rises to the level of encypting everything and blamming in on broadcasting private information in the clear. If there is another issue, then be honest and share it.