No just a Motorola tech who has been brainwashed. Think he's just trying to get a rise out of you while work is slow around cow town.
Voice scramble
- Thread starter plus
- Start date
- Status
You expect a certain level of privacy when using your phone, reading your mail, on-line banking, surfing the web, etc. Why do you deny the police the same?
georgesharpe
Member
"Beep!, Beep!, my b---" B.B.
E-mails, cell phones, etc. are NOT the same as a publicly funded radio system. There are a LOT of people in law enforcement I have met over the years that are in favour of the average citizen being in the know about accidents, road conditons, crime patterns, etc., in REAL time, not hours or days, later.
If Beeper Boy wishes to besmirch responsible hobbyists and law abiding citizens, fine! Free speech is free speech, but I wish he would get the point that some in law enforcement do see the public at large as part of the crime fighting effort and NOT in an adverserial light! There are some law enforcement agencies that undersatand an informed public can be their best ally. They can easily encrypt sensitive and personal traffic as required and none of us have any issue with that.
E-mails, cell phones, etc. are NOT the same as a publicly funded radio system. There are a LOT of people in law enforcement I have met over the years that are in favour of the average citizen being in the know about accidents, road conditons, crime patterns, etc., in REAL time, not hours or days, later.
If Beeper Boy wishes to besmirch responsible hobbyists and law abiding citizens, fine! Free speech is free speech, but I wish he would get the point that some in law enforcement do see the public at large as part of the crime fighting effort and NOT in an adverserial light! There are some law enforcement agencies that undersatand an informed public can be their best ally. They can easily encrypt sensitive and personal traffic as required and none of us have any issue with that.
abear27
Member
Regarding police communications in particular…
How can police go encrypted, and then turn around and give media outlets a radio that allows them to hear communications? I don’t know if the RCMP do this, but for sure some of the major metropolitan police forces in Saskatchewan (that are otherwise fully encrypted) do.
If the media is allowed to monitor these communications, I feel that the general public should be able to as well.
How can police go encrypted, and then turn around and give media outlets a radio that allows them to hear communications? I don’t know if the RCMP do this, but for sure some of the major metropolitan police forces in Saskatchewan (that are otherwise fully encrypted) do.
If the media is allowed to monitor these communications, I feel that the general public should be able to as well.
Encryption on PPSTN
There will always be something to listen to on this network ! Your new scanner is not going to be a "boat anchor", Ok. EMS/Fire SKPower and many others did not want to spend the extra cash for the optional encryption. The government users like SERM are spending our tax $ so they can get anything they want but for most this was not possible. When there is a major incident the open unencrypted interoperable talkgroups are to be used by all so you will hear everything. We must post facts and not fiction in these forums that are read my many.
There will always be something to listen to on this network ! Your new scanner is not going to be a "boat anchor", Ok. EMS/Fire SKPower and many others did not want to spend the extra cash for the optional encryption. The government users like SERM are spending our tax $ so they can get anything they want but for most this was not possible. When there is a major incident the open unencrypted interoperable talkgroups are to be used by all so you will hear everything. We must post facts and not fiction in these forums that are read my many.
So I guess their computer traffic should be out in the open as well, because it is publicly funded?
The reality is that eventually ALL comms are going to be encrypted, the question isn't "IF", the question is "WHEN". Streaming online isn't helping anything...it'll be the death of this hobby - as it already is in many places.
Bottom line - if you stream content from your scanner, and that agency encrypts, you've got nobody except yourself to blame.
kayn1n32008
ØÆSØ Say it, say 'ENCRYPTION'
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (BlackBerry; U; BlackBerry 9780; en-US) AppleWebKit/534.8+ (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/6.0.0.600 Mobile Safari/534.8+)
That is the most true statement yet!
Lindsay, rdale and the rest of RR can live in Denial but you are absolutely correct.
exkalibur said:
That is the most true statement yet!
Lindsay, rdale and the rest of RR can live in Denial but you are absolutely correct.
Last edited:
Exactly ... and most of the time the people doing it are just clueless. Slowly we are losing our hobby.
JoeyC
Senior Member
The real truth about what?
The last couple posters are right on the money with their thoughts.
Lindsey has realized it too. Why do you think he is splitting off the streaming business to one of its own. Would you want your bread and butter linked to a practice that is contributing to the demise of a hobby it is supposedly supporting? Do you think Uniden or GRE would host a streaming platform?
JoeyC
Senior Member
Robert there is no one reason for encryption. There are MANY threads on this site with many of the reasons outlined.
XTS3000
Member
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2005
- Messages
- 1,098
- Reaction score
- 48
Encrypting prevents online streaming. Nuf said.
It also prevents criminals from using information they hear on the radio for nefarious purposes. Not sure why that seems so hard to grasp on this forum.
I don't think that anyone is debating that point. That is obvious.
kayn1n32008
ØÆSØ Say it, say 'ENCRYPTION'
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (BlackBerry; U; BlackBerry 9780; en-US) AppleWebKit/534.8+ (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/6.0.0.600 Mobile Safari/534.8+)
Yet for DECADES there was very little encryption. In fact with trunking and digital modulation it has become MUCH more complex to monitor. Yet only in the last 10 to 15 years has encryption even become really used out side of specialized divisions. I am going out on a limb but really has there been any DOCUMENTED cases of criminals actually evading capture with an actual scanner. Finding a scanner in a bust does NOT qualify, as it was not used to SUCESSFULLY evade capture.
Someone stated that most crime fighting usually takes place OFF air or utilizing other means of communication.
Does encryption have its place? Definatly gang/drug/orginized crime units, day to day dispatch? no. If the police encrypt, they are reinforcing the perception of "us vs. Them" mentality. If the two largest cities in north america do not need to encrypt, then why does po-dunk hick-ville feel so insecure they need encrypt?
Yet for DECADES there was very little encryption. In fact with trunking and digital modulation it has become MUCH more complex to monitor. Yet only in the last 10 to 15 years has encryption even become really used out side of specialized divisions. I am going out on a limb but really has there been any DOCUMENTED cases of criminals actually evading capture with an actual scanner. Finding a scanner in a bust does NOT qualify, as it was not used to SUCESSFULLY evade capture.
Someone stated that most crime fighting usually takes place OFF air or utilizing other means of communication.
Does encryption have its place? Definatly gang/drug/orginized crime units, day to day dispatch? no. If the police encrypt, they are reinforcing the perception of "us vs. Them" mentality. If the two largest cities in north america do not need to encrypt, then why does po-dunk hick-ville feel so insecure they need encrypt?
James Roszko | Murderpedia, the encyclopedia of murderers
[SIZE=1.5][SIZE=1.5][SIZE=1.5]Roszko reportedly used a scanner to monitor police radio traffic wherever he went. Back at home, he set up his property so that he could see all comings and goings.[/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE]
There was another case in B.C. a few years ago where the suspect was alerted to an ERT raid, and ambushed the RCMP members. I can't find a link to it right now.
The two largest cities you describe have dozens of backup with minutes. Po-dunk hick-ville may have back-up three hours away by aircraft. Think about it. Also, encryption is expensive, which is probably why they don't use it.
You guys keep talking about securing sensitive comms, but running in clear so that Radio Reference members can snoop and enjoy their god given hobby.
How would this work exactly? Joe Officer would run clear so you can hear him going to Tim Hortons. Then he does a traffic stop, has to turn ENC on so he can run the plate. (All CPIC messages must be ENC). Finishes the traffic stop, and remembers to turn ENC off so you can hear him chatting with another member about how stupid the drivers are today. Then an armed robbery comes in, and he has to take his eyes off the road and turn ENC on at 220 km/h while driving to the scene, so that the bad guys don't intercept. Then 30 minutes later, has to remember to turn ENC off so that Radio Reference can hear him calling a tow truck.
I'm sure that will happen. :roll: Can you see how ridiculous that is? They aren't hiding anything, they're just doing their jobs. Why do you think they call each other 50 times as day on their cell phones? So scanner listeners can't hear them. If they ran ENC 100% of the time, they could chat freely about active cases without having to take their attention off the road to dial their cellphones. Unless you guys have a better solution?
Stop being paranoid already.
BB
So far this has been a very interesting thread, hopefully I can add something to it.
First, I should say I think dispatch channels should be in the clear, but only because there are ongoing costs to encryption which are never taken in consideration when the decision is made, such as proper key management. Also the majority of communication on dispatch channels are not overly sensitive. This being said, I am also a realist, aware that the day of listening in to local emergency services is approaching its end.
The first thing we should address is the misconception of the nature of policing. I get the impression some think encryption will allow for the police to get up to nefarious activities. By the very nature of the job, the fact we give to police the right to detain and arrest, they should be judged by a higher standard. I get that, but realistically do we honestly suspect by encryption, there will be a higher incidence of 'tunings' or other illegal activities? Let us step back, and exam a typical police shift in an urban environment. A platoon will comprise of how many people? How many NCO's? 30 to 40? How many of this group may be bad apples. (Yes, policing as anywhere has bad apples, no matter how they try to weed them out) But for argument sake, lets say three of the thirty. To continue, let us say one has detained an individual, who needs in their eyes an attitude adjustment. Do you think he will broadcast his intend on the dispatch channel to get his buddies over to help, where the supervisors, other members platoon, the dispatcher and any other member of the service can overhear? Do not forget, everything received at a dispatcher console will be recorded, and there is no way one can do a Rose Mary Woods. Even if he does do the broadcast, do you think the others on the above list would want to be complicit. Do you think the 20 year service Sgt. with two kids, ex-wife, mortgage, coming up to his pension, wants to throw it all away? No, PC Badapple will use his cell phone to coordinate.
Will an agency which encrypts provide media radios. Some do, some don't. The agencies with forward looking command structure will, in my opinion. Will they program, John Q. Public's radio. Probably not, never heard of an agency which would. Some concerns the system managers would have is if said radio will be compliant to the system they use. I know one can source 'surplus' radios on E-Bay and such, but since a fair percentage seem to be of dubious background, would these cause more trouble to the system? Is it a risk the agency wants to take? In life, we are try to mitigate risk, so I would assume, if they do not know the radio can directly from the manufacture, it would be a no go.
The point, of how many times police have arrested someone during the commission of a crime with a scanner, is a good point. Probably has happened, but them the flip side is, how many times has a scanner listener stopped an illegal police activity by hearing over the scanner?? I don't know the answer to either question.
I believe CPIC has two policies regarding computer systems and voice comms. Computer systems must be encrypted, but voice comms do not. I suspect there may be a working group on it, and the requirement may be written, but I am not sure if it now a requirement. The provincial police in Ontario do checks in the clear, as the area to patrol is large and coverage for the MWS is not as vast. One will hear warrants, CNI, CC and CPIC flags being broadcast, but with the current renegotiation between their service provider and the government, encryption is on the agenda.
As for it is the taxpayers money providing this service, therefore it is our right to know what they are doing. Yes, it is. This is why there is civilian oversight of police agencies. Why most provinces have independent investigators for when harm occurs to civilians. Why most police services have a public compliant process. But to morph this into an argument for listening to comms, where will it stop. Most agencies, with the advent of cheap computing power and storage, have a lot of data. One can run a street and see EVERY interaction with police over a period of years, be it reporting a found cellphone to the most heinous crimes. If I was looking to buy a dwelling on the street, should I have the right to ask for the past of my future neighbours? The data was acquired and administered on the public dime? While it might be a stretch, it holds the same argument.
As for why the reason for the quicken pace of encryption, as it seems a new agency is discussing it everyday. Streaming is not the major cause, most of the command types are not aware of it. The number one reason, was the rebroadcast by the media, of PC Stiles of York Regional Police. This has been mentioned by the Canadian Chief Association, Police Associations throughout the country. Guarantee that every vendor when making the sales pitch brings it up. Follow this with the relative inexpensive cost of the equipment, and it becomes a no brainer.
Regards to all.
First, I should say I think dispatch channels should be in the clear, but only because there are ongoing costs to encryption which are never taken in consideration when the decision is made, such as proper key management. Also the majority of communication on dispatch channels are not overly sensitive. This being said, I am also a realist, aware that the day of listening in to local emergency services is approaching its end.
The first thing we should address is the misconception of the nature of policing. I get the impression some think encryption will allow for the police to get up to nefarious activities. By the very nature of the job, the fact we give to police the right to detain and arrest, they should be judged by a higher standard. I get that, but realistically do we honestly suspect by encryption, there will be a higher incidence of 'tunings' or other illegal activities? Let us step back, and exam a typical police shift in an urban environment. A platoon will comprise of how many people? How many NCO's? 30 to 40? How many of this group may be bad apples. (Yes, policing as anywhere has bad apples, no matter how they try to weed them out) But for argument sake, lets say three of the thirty. To continue, let us say one has detained an individual, who needs in their eyes an attitude adjustment. Do you think he will broadcast his intend on the dispatch channel to get his buddies over to help, where the supervisors, other members platoon, the dispatcher and any other member of the service can overhear? Do not forget, everything received at a dispatcher console will be recorded, and there is no way one can do a Rose Mary Woods. Even if he does do the broadcast, do you think the others on the above list would want to be complicit. Do you think the 20 year service Sgt. with two kids, ex-wife, mortgage, coming up to his pension, wants to throw it all away? No, PC Badapple will use his cell phone to coordinate.
Will an agency which encrypts provide media radios. Some do, some don't. The agencies with forward looking command structure will, in my opinion. Will they program, John Q. Public's radio. Probably not, never heard of an agency which would. Some concerns the system managers would have is if said radio will be compliant to the system they use. I know one can source 'surplus' radios on E-Bay and such, but since a fair percentage seem to be of dubious background, would these cause more trouble to the system? Is it a risk the agency wants to take? In life, we are try to mitigate risk, so I would assume, if they do not know the radio can directly from the manufacture, it would be a no go.
The point, of how many times police have arrested someone during the commission of a crime with a scanner, is a good point. Probably has happened, but them the flip side is, how many times has a scanner listener stopped an illegal police activity by hearing over the scanner?? I don't know the answer to either question.
I believe CPIC has two policies regarding computer systems and voice comms. Computer systems must be encrypted, but voice comms do not. I suspect there may be a working group on it, and the requirement may be written, but I am not sure if it now a requirement. The provincial police in Ontario do checks in the clear, as the area to patrol is large and coverage for the MWS is not as vast. One will hear warrants, CNI, CC and CPIC flags being broadcast, but with the current renegotiation between their service provider and the government, encryption is on the agenda.
As for it is the taxpayers money providing this service, therefore it is our right to know what they are doing. Yes, it is. This is why there is civilian oversight of police agencies. Why most provinces have independent investigators for when harm occurs to civilians. Why most police services have a public compliant process. But to morph this into an argument for listening to comms, where will it stop. Most agencies, with the advent of cheap computing power and storage, have a lot of data. One can run a street and see EVERY interaction with police over a period of years, be it reporting a found cellphone to the most heinous crimes. If I was looking to buy a dwelling on the street, should I have the right to ask for the past of my future neighbours? The data was acquired and administered on the public dime? While it might be a stretch, it holds the same argument.
As for why the reason for the quicken pace of encryption, as it seems a new agency is discussing it everyday. Streaming is not the major cause, most of the command types are not aware of it. The number one reason, was the rebroadcast by the media, of PC Stiles of York Regional Police. This has been mentioned by the Canadian Chief Association, Police Associations throughout the country. Guarantee that every vendor when making the sales pitch brings it up. Follow this with the relative inexpensive cost of the equipment, and it becomes a no brainer.
Regards to all.
- Status
Similar threads
- Sticky
