What is the latest on citizens or media filing to enable monitoring local encrypted channels?

[N4DES]

Single key ÆS has been more of the norm than the exception for years from the manufacturers, especially with procurement of the radios using Federal grant dollars that require encryption. It's then a zero effort for an agency to keyload the radios while dropping in the codeplug and using it full time for its operations. My former team and I assisted numerous departments in my County to secure their internal comms and at the same time never lost interoperability after we rolled out P25 in 2017.

 

[MTS2000des]

Yep, when we rolled out our new system, all subscribers were ordered with both AES and ADP hardware multi-key. We use a shared key with other agencies for I/O. None of this banter about "loss of range" or audio quality degradation occurred. Almost a decade later, the system is rocking solid sound and comsec is applied where needed (currently all talkgroups that are tactical) but at the end of the day, decision to encrypt is up to the stakeholders who pay the cost of being on the network.

 

[N4DES]

Contrary to popular belief, going encrypted on P25 doesn't result in loss of range or DAQ. I did drive testing on my system during final acceptance in both clear and coded, both ADP and AES, and no loss of fidelity or range. Modern P25 subscribers and FNE don't suffer range loss or audio quality like old school DES/DVP using CVSD modulation on legacy FM systems.

We did 3 DAQ tests when we field tested, TDMA+encryption, FDMA+encryption, and FDMA in the clear. All identical results from the 4 teams for over 2500 square miles.

 

[jasonk]

Delays don't solve the CJI/PII issues.

But it's a good option for agencies with multiple channels.

The DOJ and FBI do not write laws nor they have any authority to tell the Local Jurisdiction how to operate. They released an opinion and alot of governmental agencies used that opinion to add encryption - right or wrong - in their communities. Each agency can manage the transmission of perceived publicly protected data in their own way - and 100% encryption is a little bit overboard. Calling 911 does not give someone the right to privacy - and even with encryption the data is available through a public information request.

 

[mmckenna]

The DOJ and FBI do not write laws nor they have any authority to tell the Local Jurisdiction how to operate. They released an opinion and alot of governmental agencies used that opinion to add encryption - right or wrong - in their communities. Each agency can manage the transmission of perceived publicly protected data in their own way - and 100% encryption is a little bit overboard. Calling 911 does not give someone the right to privacy - and even with encryption the data is available through a public information request.

You haven't read the FBI/DOJ documents.

What the FBI/DOJ says is that any and all CJI/PII that sources from their systems MUST be protected at all times and in all forms. Zero exceptions. Interstate CJI passes through the FBI systems, so that would be impacted by this requirement.

What an individual state decides to do with their PII/CJI is up to them.
However, since running license plates and ID's often involves pulling data from other states -through- the FBI systems, encrypting it would be required per FBI/DOJ rules. If the CJI/PII that passes through/sources from FBI is not protected, they have the option of disconnecting the state from the system.

This isn't me making this up, this is well documented and I've linked to it several times over on the other thread.

 

[N4DES]

You haven't read the FBI/DOJ documents.

What the FBI/DOJ says is that any and all CJI/PII that sources from their systems MUST be protected at all times and in all forms. Zero exceptions. Interstate CJI passes through the FBI systems, so that would be impacted by this requirement.

What an individual state decides to do with their PII/CJI is up to them.
However, since running license plates and ID's often involves pulling data from other states -through- the FBI systems, encrypting it would be required per FBI/DOJ rules. If the CJI/PII that passes through/sources from FBI is not protected, they have the option of disconnecting the state from the system.

This isn't me making this up, this is well documented and I've linked to it several times over on the other thread.

Yup if it runs through NCIC/NLETS not only does it require an encrypted platform, it also requires a minimum dual authentication for the keyboard operator. All of this is tightly controlled and audited by the FBI/DOJ for conformance.

 

[StoliRaz]

While I enjoy the hobby of listening, I also agree with a lot of what is being said and understand why it is happening. In many cases the agencies say "safety" reasons, and that gets interrupted into "officer safety". But it's bigger than that, it also involves citizen safety as well.

There is always that one guy that needs to rush out to the scene and tries to play amateur reporter/photographer/looky loo. This puts the bystander in danger and takes PS people away from the situation to provide crowd control or make sure these people aren't getting in the way. You'd be surprised how many scanner listeners don't have common sense and try to get as close as they can or stand around with the scanner at full volume, rather than use earphones.

Yup, between Broadcastify putting a free scanner in everyone's pockets (sorry but it's true), to the morons who think it's a great idea to post crap "live" on social media, to the 2020 riots and the terrorists who caused havoc in the streets for an entire year, I really don't blame agencies for wanting to go encrypted. Can't stop progress as society spirals out of control. At the end of the day, great for police, sucks for us. Just don't ask for my help with anything anymore. I'm encrypted myself too. Oh well.

I'd love to hear perspective from UK folks.

I'd love to ask them why they speak with accents, are obsessed about soccer and drive on the wrong side of the road too.... but how they live is completely irrelevant to how we live in our country.

 

[mmckenna]

Yup if it runs through NCIC/NLETS not only does it require an encrypted platform, it also requires a minimum dual authentication for the keyboard operator. All of this is tightly controlled and audited by the FBI/DOJ for conformance.

For me to be working on equipment in our PSAP, where I may hear/see PII/CJI, the chief required me to go through the same background check as our 911 operators. That was so they could answer all the right questions on the PSAP accreditation/state DOJ documents. Background check, financial check, finger prints, criminal history, college/high school transcripts, sergeant visited and talked to all my neighbors, family, friends, etc. I have to go through periodic training, which pretty much states that if I see or hear anything, I'm to immediately forget it, not share it, not tell anyone about it, etc. All the applicants that apply for 911 dispatcher positions have to go through it. Most (~70%) cannot pass it.

No reason scanner listeners shouldn't have to go through the same thing if they want access to this sort of radio traffic.
It's not a cheap process, so I'm sure scanner listeners will be happy to foot the bill, you know, so the taxpayers don't have to pay for it.

 

[W8KIC]

For me to be working on equipment in our PSAP, where I may hear/see PII/CJI, the chief required me to go through the same background check as our 911 operators. That was so they could answer all the right questions on the PSAP accreditation/state DOJ documents. Background check, financial check, finger prints, criminal history, college/high school transcripts, sergeant visited and talked to all my neighbors, family, friends, etc. I have to go through periodic training, which pretty much states that if I see or hear anything, I'm to immediately forget it, not share it, not tell anyone about it, etc. All the applicants that apply for 911 dispatcher positions have to go through it. Most (~70%) cannot pass it.

No reason scanner listeners shouldn't have to go through the same thing if they want access to this sort of radio traffic.
It's not a cheap process, so I'm sure scanner listeners will be happy to foot the bill, you know, so the taxpayers don't have to pay for it.

Sounds good to me. Let me know what the cost of that background check is and if it's in any way reasonable, I'll be happy to pay for the one that law enforcement authorities conduct on me. And I'm quite sure a sizable number of fellow scanner hobbyist are likely to follow suit. Just out of curiosity, what did it cost you out of pocket for authorities to conduct a background check on you back then?

 

[N4DES]

For me to be working on equipment in our PSAP, where I may hear/see PII/CJI, the chief required me to go through the same background check as our 911 operators. That was so they could answer all the right questions on the PSAP accreditation/state DOJ documents. Background check, financial check, finger prints, criminal history, college/high school transcripts, sergeant visited and talked to all my neighbors, family, friends, etc. I have to go through periodic training, which pretty much states that if I see or hear anything, I'm to immediately forget it, not share it, not tell anyone about it, etc. All the applicants that apply for 911 dispatcher positions have to go through it. Most (~70%) cannot pass it.

No reason scanner listeners shouldn't have to go through the same thing if they want access to this sort of radio traffic.
It's not a cheap process, so I'm sure scanner listeners will be happy to foot the bill, you know, so the taxpayers don't have to pay for it.

Yes sir totally aware of that and your correct on the background requirements. For our division we had the CJIS fingerprint background, 24/7 fingerprint monitoring done by FDLE, and annual training just to have access into the IT closets where NCIC runs through and to have access to the PSAP's. They didn't make it like we were a new employee and basically re-apply and do the neighbor interviews, etc.

Our Facility Management staff (yes the guys that unclog toilets, change lightbulbs and air filters, etc.) had to go through the same for unescorted access into any of the areas where CJIS information might be present that includes the PSAP's, D-Bureau, Crime Labs, Jails, the courthouses, plainclothes investigative suites, just to name a few. They had only about a 60% passing rate initially and had people just outright quit when they started the CJI policy.

 

[ScanRafael]

24/7 fingerprint monitoring done by FDLE

What's that?

 

[MTS2000des]

Sounds good to me. Let me know what the cost of that background check is and if it's in any way reasonable, I'll be happy to pay for the one that law enforcement authorities conduct on me. And I'm quite sure a sizable number of fellow scanner hobbyist are likely to follow suit. Just out of curiosity, what did it cost you out of pocket for authorities to conduct a background check on you back then?

A proper CJIS eye level background investigation is time consuming and could cost several hundred dollars, not to mention the polygraph examination, psychological interviews, and all the sign offs one has to have. As public safety employees with regular access to CJIS data, it is done because our positions require it. Usually the agency covers the cost of a new hire.

The biggest problem with this is someone who isn't employed or contracted by said agency has no business reason to be near CJIS data. In the rare cases that those who do misuse it, at least in this state, they go from public safety professional to inmate, with a Grady Judd showing their mugshot at a press conference.

 

[N4DES]

What's that?

It means if you are fingerprinted by any outside agency post initial CJIS background FDLE (in Florida) and the originating agency get notified. We had about 500 County employees monitored at the time I retired and the FBI is the clearinghouse for the information.

 

[KevinC]

I think 4 pages of this is enough. Closing.