mmckenna
I ♥ Ø
#1 pinned topic right here: Off Topic Wireless
Where I usually see the moderators step in is when the ranting starts. Adult discussions usually don't get the smack down.
What is the latest on citizens or media filing to enable monitoring local encrypted channels?
- Thread starter PorscheEMB
- Start date
- Status
#1 pinned topic right here: Off Topic Wireless
Where I usually see the moderators step in is when the ranting starts. Adult discussions usually don't get the smack down.
I've said it umpteen times before on various threads regarding the topic and I'll say it again: Agencies who encrypt don't give a fraction of a damn about the scanner hobbyist, their perceived "rights to be informed", taxes they pay, "transparency", etc. Once they make the move there's no turning back. We the radio hobbyists a scourge upon this planet in their eyes and we can blame incident pages on social media giving up to the minute play-by-play on major incidents, various streaming platforms providing little to no rebroadcast delay among other reasons why agencies decide to encrypt. The radio hobbyist just needs to accept and adapt to change and find other things to listen to, simply put
lenk911
Member
I have a friend who is a policeman in the Twin Cities. During the George Floyd riots he arrested an organizer/suspect to crimes when from under her jacket he heard, all his talk group's transmissions slightly delayed. A search of the suspect discovered a smart phone with a streaming app.
In the middle of riots and blocks of buildings burning what do you think law enforcement thought of our hobby? Law biding citizens sitting at home listening may be one thing; broadcasting to the world is another. Under FCC rules, sitting at home listing to a clear voice part 90 system on your scanner and not repeating what you heard is legal under FCC rules. Re-broadcasting to the world is not.
The genie is out of the bottle. Recreating the world as you knew it before 2019 is not possible because all public safety personnel believe removing encryption will bring back the vision of someone's jacket pocket short circuiting their enforcement efforts. It is not a law biding scanner aficionado listening at home. Too bad the FCC didn't shut down the streaming of public safety traffic on the web before the agencies took matters in their own hands.
In the middle of riots and blocks of buildings burning what do you think law enforcement thought of our hobby? Law biding citizens sitting at home listening may be one thing; broadcasting to the world is another. Under FCC rules, sitting at home listing to a clear voice part 90 system on your scanner and not repeating what you heard is legal under FCC rules. Re-broadcasting to the world is not.
The genie is out of the bottle. Recreating the world as you knew it before 2019 is not possible because all public safety personnel believe removing encryption will bring back the vision of someone's jacket pocket short circuiting their enforcement efforts. It is not a law biding scanner aficionado listening at home. Too bad the FCC didn't shut down the streaming of public safety traffic on the web before the agencies took matters in their own hands.
mmckenna
I ♥ Ø
Many years ago our PD was working a large protest. The officers discovered that between scanners and streaming, the protesters knew every move the PD was going to make.
Chief called me and said "why are -we- streaming this to the internet?"
Me: "We're not, someone out there with a scanner is."
Chief: "How do we stop them?"
Me: "Right now, we can't. Use your cell phones."
So, even without encryption, law enforcement is going to find a way.
I believe I posted this before, but during the "unrest" locally protestors were walking beside officers, listening to their radio traffic (encrypted) and relaying it to others. Many times it was announced to "use your earpiece", but unfortunately not all officers had one. So yes, criminals find a way also.
mmckenna
I ♥ Ø
Yeah, there are no easy solutions to all this. Anyone who claims there is, isn't well informed.
BinaryMode
Blondie Once Said To Call Her But Never Answerd
To answer the OP's question. There was a a Colorado representative (public servant) that tried and failed to make public safety Comms transparent.
In my opinion, and to be very concise, in the interest of the tax paying public and the media, all dispatch channels pertaining to local and state public safety should be unencrypted by legal mandate. Everything else can be encrypted at the discretion of the departments or cities as needed.
It's gotten so bad that some cities decide to encrypt the fire department. And I think it's safe to say there is a lot of ignorance with how these policymakers think, too. I'm one that can make a consensus and say that not all channels should be blanket unencrypted for obvious reasons. We can't allow SWAT to be unencrypted. Or internal affairs, gang task force Comms, drug task force Comms, etc. But encrypting the whole enchilada up to and including the fire department is taking it a step too far in my opinion. Last I read, Orange county, California used to be full on encrypted. Now they have since reversed their decision and good on them, too!
The real corker is that the government doesn't want YOU, the tax paying citizen to use any encryption. Or they want to severely water it down. Like a messenger or FDE (Full Disk Encryption) on a computer, etc. Last year I think it was the whole of India has banned the use of encrypted messaging. It goes without saying that many governments have this "Machiavellian" attitude and how it seems we ALL are part of a messed up 21st century, high tech Feudal system and are nothing but Serfs and Peasants. In other words, the government (chosen by us I may add) is getting waaaay out of hand and it's showing by drips and drabs.
So how do we fix it? How do we insure public safety has access to secure Comms and while at the same time is transparent to the public and the Press? Well, lets look at how what was an illicit drug known as marijuana is now becoming legal in one state at a time with one election at a time. How was this even possible? Because of a lawyer and his persist PAC to make it happen one state at a time. With that being said the same can be done when it comes to full on blanket encryption at the local and state level. One way is to pay a company (they exist) to collect signatures to put a measure on your state's ballot for the public's voting. You also need to combine that with public awareness of the issue with advertisements and whatnot.
Again, I'm not saying all Comms need to be unencrypted. That's NOT what I'm saying. But dispatch for the love of god does. Especially the fire department. My simple case as to why this must be done goes beyond the transparency issue and the need for the Press to listen issue. It's also a matter of public safety for the public. There has been many times where I was able to avoid an area or take the next freeway exit due to an accident or some other incident because of my awareness of what was happening over the radio. Never mind the tremendous benefits to the public when there's a natural disaster. Earthquakes, hurricanes, tornados, fires, take your pick.
When everything went digital (because new and expensive tech is cool) it was all that was needed to flip on that "switch" and cough up excuses vomited by public safety and cities alike. Even after decades, DECADES of full on openness over the air without hardly ever it being an issue. What year did law enforcement first use radio in the car? The 1920s? Now all of a sudden it's somehow a massive "officer safety issue? Or a "fire fighter safety issue?" Well, I guess Epstein hung himself, the two Bills, and lots of others have nothing to hide, and the FBI, IRS, CIA, NSA, etc ,etc are your bestest friends...
I'll close by saying it won't stop there. Your government will one day have all the secrecy and you will be afforded none. Even food and the air you breath... and you WILL have to continue to pay your stipend to the king and his court.
I yield back the balance of my time.
In my opinion, and to be very concise, in the interest of the tax paying public and the media, all dispatch channels pertaining to local and state public safety should be unencrypted by legal mandate. Everything else can be encrypted at the discretion of the departments or cities as needed.
It's gotten so bad that some cities decide to encrypt the fire department. And I think it's safe to say there is a lot of ignorance with how these policymakers think, too. I'm one that can make a consensus and say that not all channels should be blanket unencrypted for obvious reasons. We can't allow SWAT to be unencrypted. Or internal affairs, gang task force Comms, drug task force Comms, etc. But encrypting the whole enchilada up to and including the fire department is taking it a step too far in my opinion. Last I read, Orange county, California used to be full on encrypted. Now they have since reversed their decision and good on them, too!
The real corker is that the government doesn't want YOU, the tax paying citizen to use any encryption. Or they want to severely water it down. Like a messenger or FDE (Full Disk Encryption) on a computer, etc. Last year I think it was the whole of India has banned the use of encrypted messaging. It goes without saying that many governments have this "Machiavellian" attitude and how it seems we ALL are part of a messed up 21st century, high tech Feudal system and are nothing but Serfs and Peasants. In other words, the government (chosen by us I may add) is getting waaaay out of hand and it's showing by drips and drabs.
So how do we fix it? How do we insure public safety has access to secure Comms and while at the same time is transparent to the public and the Press? Well, lets look at how what was an illicit drug known as marijuana is now becoming legal in one state at a time with one election at a time. How was this even possible? Because of a lawyer and his persist PAC to make it happen one state at a time. With that being said the same can be done when it comes to full on blanket encryption at the local and state level. One way is to pay a company (they exist) to collect signatures to put a measure on your state's ballot for the public's voting. You also need to combine that with public awareness of the issue with advertisements and whatnot.
Again, I'm not saying all Comms need to be unencrypted. That's NOT what I'm saying. But dispatch for the love of god does. Especially the fire department. My simple case as to why this must be done goes beyond the transparency issue and the need for the Press to listen issue. It's also a matter of public safety for the public. There has been many times where I was able to avoid an area or take the next freeway exit due to an accident or some other incident because of my awareness of what was happening over the radio. Never mind the tremendous benefits to the public when there's a natural disaster. Earthquakes, hurricanes, tornados, fires, take your pick.
When everything went digital (because new and expensive tech is cool) it was all that was needed to flip on that "switch" and cough up excuses vomited by public safety and cities alike. Even after decades, DECADES of full on openness over the air without hardly ever it being an issue. What year did law enforcement first use radio in the car? The 1920s? Now all of a sudden it's somehow a massive "officer safety issue? Or a "fire fighter safety issue?" Well, I guess Epstein hung himself, the two Bills, and lots of others have nothing to hide, and the FBI, IRS, CIA, NSA, etc ,etc are your bestest friends...
I'll close by saying it won't stop there. Your government will one day have all the secrecy and you will be afforded none. Even food and the air you breath... and you WILL have to continue to pay your stipend to the king and his court.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BinaryMode
Blondie Once Said To Call Her But Never Answerd
We already "understand" where you stand on the issue since it's been plastered all over this AWS Chinazon fed website...
so the jest is you suggest nothing be done and accept it, i think thats where we have the disconnect, also having discussions with the powers that be generally accomplish nothing, only thing to do is change those who are in charge, that can be accomplished with some work but its not easy, so again my position is to be an irritant, as John McClane puts it a monkey in the wrench, politically speaking, and we are not speaking of personal information which a teletype or NCIC channel should be locked down as well as tactical channels and SWAT Ops,
its 100% control of information and is 100% political
exactly of course if i was a criminal operation i could pay for multiple lookouts and equip them with AES strapped radios and keyload them with their own key, im pretty sure we experienced that with the cartels already and all those secure milcom radios left behind in Kabul now popping up on Ebay
You are 100% correct its coming, and in the scheme of things when I was in the business Type 1 was still the norm, then type 2, then Phase 1 P25, same technology effectively killed shortwave, if the agencies are open to allow broadcast streaming like you advised its better than nothing.
My town does not encrypt, my county is not encrypted, and the State is not encrypted. I never heard any of that info passed over the air other than a license plate number that is on the back of their car for anyone to see. The few articles I read about encryption this was never mentioned by the Chief, or at least never put in the article I read.
Situations like this I heard of many times. A totally legit reason to encrypt. I would see the PD moves being placed on social media. That kind of destroys any strategy LE might be formulating to regain control of a situation. In my opinion the PII argument does not work even if the DOJ requires it. It seems pretty easy to comply with. And as far as addresses go, the local news publishes the police blotter with PD calls and addresses.
mmckenna
I ♥ Ø
You make some good points, as most do, however you ignore something important:
What about small law enforcement agencies that have small single channel systems?
I'm 100% good with primary dispatch being in the clear. Doesn't bother me at all. Some agencies have done that. But it's not the single solution that fixes it for everyone.
As for fire departments, that's pretty easy. That comes back to individuals that have zero common sense:
Local fire agency here is looking at encryption because all it took was an individual posting information about a death on social media before the family could be properly notified. Victims and victims families have rights, too.
Again, a good point that often gets brought up. But deciding who the "press" is becomes a challenge. Many agencies have issued/sold a radio set up with encryption and RX only to legit news media.
Not really, that's convenience. Agencies have better ways to get information to the public without relying on scanner listeners.
mmckenna
I ♥ Ø
My reason for posting here isn't to be an irritant, it's to provide information that hobbyists aren't seeing. The irritant is the information. Remember, I'm not the guy who writes these rules. I simply point out that they exist, and in the other discussion about this, I've shared the sources.
The DOJ/FBI requirements have been on the books for a very long time. It just hasn't impacted the hobby world until recently. If people don't like it, then they should speak up. But they should speak up with some knowledge about why encryption is used, not just complaints about how it inconveniences them, or how it blocks their form of entertainment. Those arguments are not going to get them very far.
One should also not assume that because they have an opinion, everyone else is required to agree with them.
Giving access to an encrypted channel to anyone outside the agency that went encrypted defeats the encryption. Why would anyone think that would happen?
no one is asking for that, the best solution it seems is to by legal means force agencies to unencrypt non tactical/NCIC or change the political environment so there is more transparency, if managment is unwillling, fire them and get better management
I disagree and think you're off-topic. The "enable monitoring local encrypted channels" in the thread does imply that and we've seen many other posts here by people looking for the same thing.
Nitpicks one sentence, I absolutely think i am on topic, the topic is legally filing for access to secure comms, weve discussed the finer points of trying to achieve some compromise on what comms are allowed to be monitored and which are not, then we agreed the discussion was really not going to achieve the intended results, so my stand is to try removing unneccesary encryption legislatively and failing that replace the people who are responsible and resistant to any compromise.
anywho, this thread goes nowhere as usual, we definitely know where we all stand on this, no one is gonna change their minds so carry on
I don't post often and I will admit up front to mmckenna that his reference to a couple of abbreviations that the Feds use elude me. But here the Feds have been encrypted since before P25 existed, on analog frequencies using DES, and yet they didn't use it all the time. In fact knowing links we were able to listen to "tails" from the Oregon/Cali border nearly to Canada. Heck, the techs were Hams and used to discuss their days on amateur frequencies on their way from transmitter sites. I've been listening for 50 years. In the beginning the locals had "VPA" which was easily cracked. But they also were smart and didn''t discuss things over the air. With the advent of cell phones they simply began doing smart police work and using phones to relay confidential information. Now of course it's the age of in vehicle computers where much of even dispatching is done, much less NCIC, etc. Indeed the total end-to-end encryption argument seems to be admitting that they are getting poor training now compared with ages past. Apparently smart policing is a thing of the past because they rely completely on technology.
Now I am not saying there is not a place for encryption. No one advocates for Tac/Information Nets (NCIC/LETS/ETC) to be in the clear. But dispatch and car-to-car channels need not be. The local robo dispatch for Fire for example will refer to their computers for specific confidential information and this works just fine. And having lived through the "summer of love" in Portland with the ANTIFA/BLM Riots, it was entirely justifiable to switch to the Tac Encrypted TGs. That said for Four counties (including our own) surrounding Portland to go full time encryption is over-kill. When they did that locally, I posted on FB my feelings and made a challenge to have any law enforcement post a verifiable case where an individual with a scanner was arrested for attacking/assaulting a police/LE officer or especially anyone who had been killed and especially where they were targeted and/or been stalked by such a case. Crickets... In fact the only answer was one of the local PD who indicated some reference on the radio endangered one of their CIs. Seriously that smacks of poor training and police work for anyone to ever make any reference. In fact that smacks of someone trying to either set that individual up or extorting them to be a CI in the first place. Now I am certainly not discounting the LEOs and Feds who were assaulted by rioters but by that time they knew where they were and they were random things thrown at the officers. And we know how the Portland/Mult. County DAs met that challenge by not prosecuting any of the miscreants at all, so they faced no consequences for attacking them. I guess what I am saying is that good police work and utilizing technology which is not available to the average person anyway, like vehicle computers and phones not to mention the aforementioned FirstNet and even simple codes would be substitutes for full time end-to-end encryption. Again, not discounting the use or need for some or conceivably even most communications to be encrypted, but not all. While it certainly is a different age then when we grew up, even the 60s had riots, look what happened in LA in Watts. But today you do not see the LAPD system encrypted, and it's one of the largest Metropolitan areas in the country, fighting a war with the cartels who have unlimited funds for R and D.
And yes, I will say it. There is most certainly the issue with transparency. Corruption exists and does run rampant in many areas.
One interesting note here in the Portland area; one of the rationales for encryption is HIPPA on their system, yet on the information net (called "Service Net") they have no encryption, one of the few. There is politics at work here as well. Budgets and money for departments which needs to be used to be justified.
Just food for thought.
Now I am not saying there is not a place for encryption. No one advocates for Tac/Information Nets (NCIC/LETS/ETC) to be in the clear. But dispatch and car-to-car channels need not be. The local robo dispatch for Fire for example will refer to their computers for specific confidential information and this works just fine. And having lived through the "summer of love" in Portland with the ANTIFA/BLM Riots, it was entirely justifiable to switch to the Tac Encrypted TGs. That said for Four counties (including our own) surrounding Portland to go full time encryption is over-kill. When they did that locally, I posted on FB my feelings and made a challenge to have any law enforcement post a verifiable case where an individual with a scanner was arrested for attacking/assaulting a police/LE officer or especially anyone who had been killed and especially where they were targeted and/or been stalked by such a case. Crickets... In fact the only answer was one of the local PD who indicated some reference on the radio endangered one of their CIs. Seriously that smacks of poor training and police work for anyone to ever make any reference. In fact that smacks of someone trying to either set that individual up or extorting them to be a CI in the first place. Now I am certainly not discounting the LEOs and Feds who were assaulted by rioters but by that time they knew where they were and they were random things thrown at the officers. And we know how the Portland/Mult. County DAs met that challenge by not prosecuting any of the miscreants at all, so they faced no consequences for attacking them. I guess what I am saying is that good police work and utilizing technology which is not available to the average person anyway, like vehicle computers and phones not to mention the aforementioned FirstNet and even simple codes would be substitutes for full time end-to-end encryption. Again, not discounting the use or need for some or conceivably even most communications to be encrypted, but not all. While it certainly is a different age then when we grew up, even the 60s had riots, look what happened in LA in Watts. But today you do not see the LAPD system encrypted, and it's one of the largest Metropolitan areas in the country, fighting a war with the cartels who have unlimited funds for R and D.
And yes, I will say it. There is most certainly the issue with transparency. Corruption exists and does run rampant in many areas.
One interesting note here in the Portland area; one of the rationales for encryption is HIPPA on their system, yet on the information net (called "Service Net") they have no encryption, one of the few. There is politics at work here as well. Budgets and money for departments which needs to be used to be justified.
Just food for thought.
- Status
