Re: crypto comm
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Every storm the reporters go to the local beach to show the oceans fury. Some idiots go to the beach and soak their cars in brine to see the breaking waves. Should we encrypt the news also to protect the cars from their owners. Steve kb1chu
Sent from the smartphone I said I'd never get.
If people show up and interfere, arrest them. That's why those laws
-------- Original message --------
From: "Joe M." <mch@...>
Date: 11/12/19 11:19 AM (GMT-05:00)
Subject: Re: [Uniden] crypto comm
exist. Poor judgement by a few does not justify full encryption.
Most of those against spectators don't want their actions
on camera. It's the same mentality that demands encryption.
Personally I could care less. If I'm doing my job correctly,
there is no reason to protest being on camera.
On 11/12/2019 9:38 AM, William Barrett, KW1B wrote:
> In recent years, "interoperability" has become a vital buzz-word in
> communication circles at all levels.
> One argument against encryption is that since the systems are complex and
> very largely computer-dependent, or even (God forbid) internet-dependent,
> many additional Critical Fault Points come into being. It usually takes
> technical people to restore normal operation. Long delays when one of these
> systems blows a gut happen. Complete loss of integrated call-center
> points, and integrated computer-aided dispatch and trunked systems have
> happened more often than the poropnents of these systems will happily admit.
> These things can be delicate. Great and efficient when they're working,
> and all
> is normal; nightmarish in the extreme when something pops.
> Software failures, hardware failures, programming failures, "sour" uodates,'
> and other weaknesses not present in simpler repeater or simplex systems.,
> have all happened more often than any of us would like.
> I lived for many years in a small Connecticut town. The F.D. was on
> simplex. 100 watt base, 100 watt mobiles, a small tower on top of the
> and in this hilly little town, it all worked fine. There were a very few
> but these were well known, and a Fire Police car was placed "just
> outside of the
> crater" to relay in the very few times it became a problem -- maybe
> three times
> in over thirty years. It was simple, robust, and many firemen knew
> enough from
> their CB activites to troubleshoot and fix simple faults.
> Yes, the Contracted Radio Man would also come when called, and work his
> magic, but that was always a several hour delay -- and in more than a few
> hurricanes, ice storms and other widespread "problems," those delays were
> very long because the bigger cities with much bigger populations deserved
> priority service. In a few cases, travel was extremely difficult for
> the techs.
> One police chief in my state once jokingly said he would put the Contracted
> Radio Maintenence guy under protective arrest, and keep him in town till
> any emergency passed. (He WAS joking -- he insisted.)
> Then, my little hilly town was sold the Great Idea of a modern, digital,
> and encrypted system for all Public Safety Agencies. Well, the road guys,
> and the building inspector guys and even the dog guy all wanted a piece of
> the new system, too -- because it would be */_so_/* much better than
> their old-fashioned
> mix of low-band and high band simplex and repeaters.
> A couple of *_years_* later, they finished ironing out all the many
> cramps and problems
> and lawsuits (folks didn't like the numerous ugly necessary towers, the
> enviros didn't
> like the destruction of habitat, and others feared the system would give
> them cancer,
> and they ALL had lawyers).
> Millions of bux and years later, it was all humming just fine -- and
> then it had a
> couple of Serious Problems in coincidental quick succession, and the
> and accusations, and recriminations were amazing and expensive.
> */My point:/* to me (an old-fashioned guy raised on vacuum tubes) the
> systems are
> delicate, and failures are more universal (the */entire/* thing fails)
> and hard to quickly
> work around and fix.
> Cops wanna be totally encrypted? Fine. Lots of good arguments for it.
> Too many "curious-seekers" show up at F.D. events -- so, F.D. wants to
> data-deny the general public? Fine. Macht nichts to me. Keep the idiots
> away. No problem.
> But accept this: the systems are delicate and take specialized folks to
> and often take longer to fix, and they don't "fail gracefully." They never
> work poorly -- they work perfectly, or not at all. Suddenly at times.
> I speak for no one other than myself.
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* main@Uniden.groups.io [mailto:main@Uniden.groups.io]*On Behalf
> Of *richardson_ed
> *Sent:* Monday, November 11, 2019 21:01
> *To:* main@Uniden.groups.io
> *Subject:* Re: [Uniden] crypto comm
> Glad everyone is entitled to their opinion. Situations may also vary
> depending on location, rural versus metropolitan.
> As a public safety communication engineer, I am sick of the
> erroneous claims that encryption causes delays and barriers to
> interoperability. Total hogwash in these days. Poor training and
> improper implementation are the culprits.
> Every officer, firefighter or paramedic needs to be thoroughly
> trained on the use of their communication equipment. Especially when
> it comes to interoperability. Not only should they be trained, they
> should drill and practise the procedures frequently.
> The system planners will designate either common channels or
> talkgroups. These can either be encrypted or clear. If the
> interoperability plan calls for accessing the encrypted talkgroup of
> another agency, then the key for that radio better be in your
> radio. The radio user should not care whether it is encrypted or
> clear, they simply switch to the designated channel/talkgroup and
> communicate as trained.
> (snip for bandwidth)
> Virus-free. www.avg.com