Re: P25 for Cheap
Teton Amateur Radio Repeater Association (TARRA)
I believe there have been some court challenges against
encryption based on law enforcement wanting to hide from the
public what they are doing and not staying above board with it.
Broadcastify and some of the others are probably some of the
bigger reasons why agencies would go to encryption. One time I
read about a guy who had several scanners and would make
recordings and whatever else, and then type out all the traffic as
fast as he could and publishing it on a web page. Again, a reason
for agencies to encrypt. A big way to stop encrypting is to stop
abusing what you hear. It even gets into some FCC rule violations.
More than once I have seen in our local newspaper "such and such
was going on and happened according to scanner traffic".
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Lassman via Groups.Io"
Sent: Friday, November 08, 2019 09:11:51 PM
Subject: Re: [Uniden] P25 for Cheap
> I can’t see ANY logical reason why ANY normal or routine radio traffic can’t be sent over the air as normal communications and not scrambled or encrypted. With the possible exceptions of narcotics, gang, vice and other “sensitive” types of operations, the great majority of law enforcement communications does not — in my opinion — meet the criteria that would benefit from being encrypted.
> It’s also about “transparency”. The people have a right to know what the police departments are doing. To a point, that is. If there is “law enforcement activity” in my neighborhood, I would like, at the very least, to know what’s going on. I don’t want the police to justify their use of encryption by saying, essentially, “it’s on a need-to-know basis and you don’t need to know.”. Uhhhhh, yes, I do. Its my town, my city, I want to know.
> “Sensitive” information such as identifies of victims and suspects and anything else that the public should not be privy to, can be sent over encrypted channels. By encrypting EVERYTHING, departments are saying, essentially, “we can’t tell you! Ha ha ha ha!”.
> I know that some Fire departments have encrypted and there’s absolutely NO reason to do THAT. Especially when different departments are going to be working together in a mutual aid situation. Fortunately, encryption by Fire departments has not been a very large movement.
> > On Nov 8, 2019, at 6:26 PM, Thomas Rafferty Jr. wrote:
> > When I was working, the CAD system, computers in car were used to give back dispositions on calls, and when you wanted to give Dispatch info that shouldn't be heard by the public. Everything else was in the clear.
> > From: main@Uniden.groups.io > on behalf of Jim Walls >
> > Sent: Friday, Novembegive i fo that shouldn't be heard by the public.r 8, 2019 7:13 PM
> > To: 'main@Uniden.groups.io ' >
> > Subject: Re: [Uniden] P25 for Cheap
> > Steve T said:
> > > There are a lot of law enforcement agencies here in Ohio that have went to in-cruiser laptops for most communications.
> > > Scanner traffic on their freqs are virtually silent.
> > Yes, and no. Yes, lots of agencies use mobile data terminals or computers in vehicles. They work very well for dispatches and things like license and registration checks. What they don’t work well for is tactical traffic, and obviously not for anything when the officer is out of the vehicle. If you are hearing nothing on the radio channels, most likely they moved to new channels or systems. I can’t give any specifics about Ohio since I am not there.
> > To give you an idea how true this is, I run a regional trunked radio system that is used by several dozen cities. Some cities have all city services on the system and some are just public safety. Almost all of the police agencies have mobile data terminals of one sort or another in their vehicles. I just ran a report of the busiest 50 talkgroups for the past 24 hours. Here is a summary of the results:
> > #1 – #8 were all police dispatch talkgroups (all different agencies),
> > #9 was a police tac talkgroup,
> > #10 was a police dispatch talkgroup,
> > #11 was a regional fire dispatch talkgroup (dispatches for 12 cities plus one airport fire),
> > #12 – #19 were all police dispatch talkgroups,
> > #20 was a police tac talkgroup,
> > #21 was the first non-public safety talkgroup – it was trash collectors for one of the cities.
> > Total radio time for the top 20 was 551 minutes for #1 down to 125 minutes for #20 (out of 1440 minutes for a full day). So the least busy of those still talked for just over two hours out of the last 24. Hardly what I would call silent.
> > BTW, almost universally, even though dispatches are sent out via data terminal, they are also sent out by voice (sometimes a summary version). The reason for this is situational awareness, It lets other units in the area know what’s going on. I can’t tell you how many times that I heard a dispatch, and it was almost immediately followed by another unit (who is closer, but already on a call) say something like “I’ll be clear in a minute and can take that call on xxx street”. Happens all the time.
> > Jim Walls - K6CCC ? City of Glendale
> > Information Services ? Wireless Communications
> > 120 N. Isabel St. ? Glendale, CA 91206 ? (818) 548-4804
> > jwalls@...