What comes after encryption?

[KB7MIB]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; U; en-US) Gecko/20081217 Vision-Browser/8.1 301x200 LG VN530)

trace1, I think one of the points that maplebear is trying to make is, if an agency goes to 100% encryption, then the only info the media, and therefore the public will get, is whatever the PIO deems important enough to release. And if an agency head...

 

[KB7MIB]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; U; en-US) Gecko/20081217 Vision-Browser/8.1 301x200 LG VN530)

...decides that the media and the public don't have a need to know, then that agency in effect becomes a secret police. It has happened, where a chief/sheriff ends up in a feud with the local media, so they impose a media blackout. Encryption adds to that

 

[KB7MIB]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; U; en-US) Gecko/20081217 Vision-Browser/8.1 301x200 LG VN530)

Prior to digital scanners, when Maricopa County, AZ went to a mixed analog/digital system with the Sheriff's Office on the digital TG's, Sheriff Joe had no intention of loaning an SO radio to the media so they could listen.

 

[tampabaynews]

Exactly, coming from experience in both the media and law enforcement... agencies do lie and omit pertinent information given to the media.

News departments are overworked, getting smaller, and even disappearing in some places. Facts are not checked and questions aren't asked as much as they used to. Media budgets are also smaller and less public records are requested. A television station I've worked with in my area, copies and pastes press releases into the script/website.

Anything said by a PIO is taken as the truth. In all of the larger agencies in my market, the PIO is a completely separate civilian position and 80% of the time, they are not on scene and send releases from their office or home. Most of the time, information gets reported to the PIO from the on-scene units, who in turn, parrots the information to the media (leaving out facts that might cause negative light of the department). If you are lucky enough to get a sound bite from a uniformed shift commander... your usual response to a question is "those details will be released at a later time pending further investigation."

Media dealing with encrypted agencies are almost completely at mercy to the PIO. Public records requests are very time consuming and at times, very expensive. I requested a personnel file of an officer and his E-mails for a week and the fee was over $200. Frankly, I don't think the gatekeeper of the information given to the media should be a person who's employed with the department. It's almost a conflict of interest, and more so when the media can't easily check the facts.

Even the best PIO's will never be able to provide timely and impartial information like a scanner can.

 

[tampabaynews]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; U; en-US) Gecko/20081217 Vision-Browser/8.1 301x200 LG VN530)It has happened, where a chief/sheriff ends up in a feud with the local media, so they impose a media blackout. Encryption adds to that

Indeed it has. A local sheriff's department in my area banned one station from attending press conferences because the investigative reporter was airing negative stories about the department. The station gave in and toned it down...

 

[tampabaynews]

My question is if law enforcement is suppose to ID with call sign every hour or so how can they prove they are doing it on an encrypted Freq?

For a trunked system at least... analog Morse code will be heard every hour on every frequency in the system (alternating times). If your scanner is in trunked mode, you won't hear it because it doesn't come up as a talkgroup. If you listen to it as a conventional channel, you'll hear it.

My department stopped saying "KIB459" after we switched from conventional to trunked.

 

[KB7MIB]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; U; en-US) Gecko/20081217 Vision-Browser/8.1 301x200 LG VN530)

Granted, a media outlet shouldn't air certain info they hear over the scanner without getting confirmation of it from a PIO first, but if they can hear it, they can at least ask questions about it, instead of being left in the dark altogether.

 

[K3HY]

With all the doom and gloom of encryption everywhere, how did people find out what law enforcement was doing before scanners?
Could they actually go out into the neighborhood or talk with someone who actually saw something bad happening way back then?
Those times must have been way before people were spoon fed info via tv and radio.
Compared to how people can physically share info by using the internet or exposing corruption by phone cams etc, encryption doesn't really matter.
The encrypted can talk in code or use hand signals etc. Would people want them to publish a copy of their hand signal code?
Bless the people and neighbors who actually go out and physically observe and report what is going on.
The only people in the dark are those who get their spoon fed information solely by news media or scanners etc.
The freedom of information act already guarantees the public's right to request access to police records, recordings etc.
There is no law or constitutional right that guarantees that access in real time and/or without requesting it.

 

[rwier]

What comes after encryption? Brain damage if you don't wear protection. I just checked my cupboards and I'm running very low on tin foil. Sam's club tomorrow, for the giant role!

 

[zz0468]

For a trunked system at least... analog Morse code will be heard every hour on every frequency in the system (alternating times). If your scanner is in trunked mode, you won't hear it because it doesn't come up as a talkgroup. If you listen to it as a conventional channel, you'll hear it.

My department stopped saying "KIB459" after we switched from conventional to trunked.

Waivers are also available for public safety agencies to identify by agency name, and not call sign. So, in some systems, no call sign is EVER given out, and it's perfectly legal. This is frequently granted in multisite systems where each site has it's own callsign, and it's impossible for a dispatcher to identify all transmitters, and CW IDs are not desired.

There seems to be no concern on the part of the FCC as to whether that voice ID is made in encrypted mode or not. There are several ways of identifying the licensee of a transmitter, even if the audio is encrypted.

 

[mrkevin02]

well so much for that idea!

 

[firerick100]

Listen to aircraft, listen to railroads, listen to boats, listen to commercial traffic, listen to public safety that won't or can't go encrypted, listen to hams, listen to utilities, listen to press services i.e. tv and radio station news gathering. Etcetera. Etcetera. Etcetera.

and fast food resturaunt headsets

 

[kruser]

What comes after encryption...

an all out ban on the manufacture and sale of all radios capable of recieving any public service frequency except to those in law enforcement or other governent of course.
Much like the ECPA but much more restrictive.

Let's hope it never goes this way but then again, nothing surprises me since 9/11.

 

[grogan]

Local police in south Jersey still use analog radio systems for the most part.When they need to talk Privately or maby have something to say car to car that is to be off the record they use cell phones. The other 98% of the time communications are brodcast for all to hear.I would think encription on a radio system leads to the wrong thing being said and also recorded.

 

[donny612]

Encryption??

Your arguments against encryption are weak, uninformed, and not based on reality. The fact is, hobbyists are against it because they can't listen. Agencies that use it, use it because they perceive that they will be safer against the threats they feel they face. Their perception of safety trumps your desire to listen.

That's the usual response... We're doing this in the name of safety... How many times have you EVER heard of, a LEO was harmed by someone with a scanner?
I think it's more along the lines of these agencies don't want or are afraid of the public's "oversight". If there is truly sensitive information that needs to go over the airwaves then by all means use an encrypted channel. But routine traffic?? There's no need for that!!
Just my $.02.

 

[RolnCode3]

If you want to listen you could always work for the agency.

Mobile computing is far more useful to securely moving information than an encrypted radio system is (my opinion).

 

[zz0468]

That's the usual response... We're doing this in the name of safety... How many times have you EVER heard of, a LEO was harmed by someone with a scanner?

Actually harmed? Never. Interfered with, or threatened with harm, as in an ambush type thing? I couldn't count how many times.

 

[840quadra]

If you want to listen you could always work for the agency.

Mobile computing is far more useful to securely moving information than an encrypted radio system is (my opinion).

I am hoping my local agencies stick to this method. There are a few encrypted talk groups in the Twin Cities, however, most agencies send sensitive information in Text message form, over cell phone, or directly to the officer's computer.

I personally hope they don't go fully encrypted in my area, I know of a few local HAM radio operators who have actually called in tips (over the phone obviously) to local PD or fire in response to something they have been tipped off to on their scanner.

 

[bfperez]

Should they go fully encrypted, it's a good reason to forbid them from using cell phones in their vehicles just the same as the rest of us. It should also eliminate the need for department issued cell phones (if applicable).

They'll be no need to use a cell phone to communicate sensitive details if they can just switch to another encrypted talk group and communicate that way.

Since most companies don't allow cell phones while working, a police department could be required to forbid officers from using cell phones anytime while on duty. Combine that with recording all radio traffic, and it could add a nice measure of accountability.

 

[Randy575]

I can see at least the volunteer fire departments not going to scramble. At least many use too of these people monitored their frequency and other departments using scanners. They would then have to go to using very expensive equipment to monitor their frequencies. Even trying to scramble the fire ground? A lot of these fire departments do not have anywhere near that kind of money.