toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
These poor guy are scrutinized for everything by a bunch of arm chair lawyers. They are damned no matter what they do.
On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 11:20 AM Joe M. <mch@...
If people show up and interfere, arrest them. That's why those laws
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