Winnipeg Police going encrypted

[SCPD]

From a good source. The City of Winnipeg PD is planing too encrypt most radio communications by the second quarter of 2009.

Winnipeg city is ordering a boat load of XTS2500 model 3's handhelds and XTL2500 mobiles with UCM encryption with DES/DES-OFB and multikey installed.
To accomdate the new encryption scheme, Motorola ASTRO repeaters will be upgraded or added.

 

[masonb]

Thanks all too one man....

 

[Jay911]

Not even close, masonb. Departments just plain won't make a knee-jerk reaction like that. As brechtd alluded to, there are costs to this for a department not already set up to run encryption. These aren't nickels and dimes, either.

Besides, it was the RCMP who were involved in the bus incident, not WPS.

RCMP on the new Alberta provincial system are going to be somewhere between partial and full-time encryption as well - either their special services will be full-time encryption, all channels will have selectable encryptability, or everything will be encrypted by default. This is just the new reality we live in, and its roots lie in September 11, 2001, or even earlier than that.

Just for the sake of a competing viewpoint, let me contribute this too: There is a community near me where everybody (and this is no exaggeration) has a scanner and listens to the RCMP. And the RCMP take advantage of that on a daily basis. It's not uncommon to hear an officer come on the radio and say "If anybody out there knows where Billy (name) is, tell him his horses are loose on Highway 1A again". So there are RCMP and others out there that acknowledge scanners are listening, and use it to their benefit.

IMO, the solution should be to have select encrypted channels for truly sensitive communications - tactical comms (for safety's sake), records/wants checks, etc., and the stuff that the FOIPP laws protect. I do find myself disappointed if police agencies (and others) choose to go full encryption to keep even the everyday patrol comms under wraps. I'm not one of those who says that it's my civil right to monitor the police, or that we deserve to hear what our taxes pay for etc. I just think it's a waste of money and resources to encrypt things like "Anyone up for Tango Hotel?" or "Request that you attend 123 Main St for a noise complaint - neighbor says that the occupant has been running his motor boat in the backyard for the past hour".

 

[SCPD]

Thanks all too one man....

This has been in the planning stages for months now, has nothing to do with Hannibal LI

 

[nec208]

From a good source. The City of Winnipeg PD is planing too encrypt most radio communications by the second quarter of 2009 .

I thought some of the detective/Intelligence talkgroups are encrypted??

RCMP on the new Alberta provincial system are going to be somewhere between partial and full-time encryption as well - either their special services will be full-time encryption, all channels will have selectable encryptability, or everything will be encrypted by default. This is just the new reality we live in, and its roots lie in September 11, 2001, or even earlier than that.

It is harder to encrypted analog than digital, Scrambling communication is not has good has encryped digital.

 

[Jay911]

It is harder to encrypted analog than digital

What? No. Encryption is encryption, the hardware/software doesn't care what form the incoming audio is in.

 

[AlexC]

What? No. Encryption is encryption, the hardware/software doesn't care what form the incoming audio is in.

It's harder to do in Analog since you actually decrypt the audio at the station, and then re-encrypt the traffic. That's how it is typically done if you want to repeat secure voice (aka SecureNET). If you don't want to decrypt the traffic and just build a transparent repeater, you have to do more modifications to the audio path from the receiver to the transmitter to ensure that the full range of data can be heard and re-transmitted. This really wasn't how SecureNET was meant to work, but nothing says it doesn't work in this configuration.

Digital is much easier since a DSP is typically involved, and your already doing a Analog->Digital conversion in the codec. At that point it's already in bits, and there's no need to decode the bits and re-encode them like in SecureNET on the repeater side. It can go "i heard a 1..." spit a 1 back out.

Digital encryption is thus "easier" to manage and setup (IMHO) than SecureNET. It sounds better as well since there's nothing done to the audio, just the data is passed through the module which allows the encryption/decryption and then hits the D->A converter.

-Alex

 

[nec208]

It explain it hear.
http://computer.howstuffworks.com/encryption1.htm

 

[Jay911]

It might take more work, but is it "harder" to do, as in more difficult? Not really.

It's like saying that it's "harder" for a tape recorder to record Japanese instead of English.

But never mind all that - nec208, what does this have to do with anything being discussed in this thread?

 

[nec208]

It might take more work, but is it "harder" to do, as in more difficult? Not really.

It's like saying that it's "harder" for a tape recorder to record Japanese instead of English.

But never mind all that - nec208, what does this have to do with anything being discussed in this thread?

Most PD did not care for encryption other than Intelligence Agency.But cost coming down and going to digital the encryption batter than voice scrambling used on Analog .

The encryption is fashion norm.Just like the use of MDT and cell phones use more and more than radio use.The PD use to have car to car channels for that reason.

A call used to go like this in the old days.

-Before : 410 and 420 to 4 street for 2 man fighting and seem drunk and have beer botters
-Now : 410 can you back 420 on the fight call .

-Before 410 I'm out with 2 guys at 4 street and 3 street .. 420 3 blocks away
-Now MDT use.

-Before 420 for 410 go channel 3A.Talking to guy across the street the guy in yellow shirt is arrestable for a assault.He was yelling and through a beer botter at him.
-Now 420 for 410 give me a call on my cell phone.

-Before 420 show me going in to station for one under arrest
-Now MDT

-Before 410 show me 10-8
-Now MDT

Many PD do not need car to car channels or Tac channels for this reason.There was a police standoff a barricaded suspect that was dispatch on MDT and not radio , a 10-3 on so no cop can talk if it is not urgent , to clear the dispatch channel.

The standoff that gone on for hours was on the dispatch channel and would not move it to other channel .The standoff that gone on for hours yes hours no calls on the radio or radio talk but the guys at the standoff .Any cop that did talk the dispatch would say 10-3.

This goes to show that calls can be sent to MDT and not the radio.PRP does this time to time.

 

[Jay911]

I still don't know how you're tying MDT usage to encrypting a radio channel, nor how you plan to tie all this in to the discussion about WPS going encrypted.

WPS, according to the info in the database, has nearly 50 talkgroups, and some of them are certainly "car to car" as you put it.

 

[Have_Teeth]

WPS won't be going encrypted anytime soon. The OP of this thread doesn't live in Manitoba and isn't familiar with what is going on in this city.

The XTS2500 radio purchases were to replace the AGING LTS2000 portables which have been in use since 1998.

The WPS still uses LCS2000s for mobile radios. Do you not think if they were going to "encrypt", that the mobiles would need to support digital too?

Please post just the facts next time and do not add your own assumptions.

 

[SCPD]

Please post just the facts next time and do not add your own assumptions.

Nice !!!!

 

[Jay911]

I can see the unedited version of the above post and let me say that it's a good thing you edited it before I got here...

Everyone keep their snide comments and opinions of other posters to themselves. Keep it civil or keep it off RR.