RSO gone digital :-(

[N6AJB]

I can't speak for the reasoning behind PSEC deciding to encrypt all LE traffic, but overall I think the "live feeds" have contributed significantly to this trend. Before, someone had to have a scanner with them and be technically savoy enough to operate it. Now, any old common crook can download an "app" to their smartphone and hear if they triggered an alarm during a burglary or got the police called on them while casing someplace. If someone wants to lead police on a pursuit, they don't even need access to a scanner to hear where police are setting up spike strips, etc., they are just a couple clicks away on their cellphone. No system administrator really wants mission critical stuff like this streamed on the internet and the only way to stop it is to prevent access to the audio to be streamed.

[cvrules90]

I can't speak for the reasoning behind PSEC deciding to encrypt all LE traffic, but overall I think the "live feeds" have contributed significantly to this trend. Before, someone had to have a scanner with them and be technically savoy enough to operate it. Now, any old common crook can download an "app" to their smartphone and hear if they triggered an alarm during a burglary or got the police called on them while casing someplace. If someone wants to lead police on a pursuit, they don't even need access to a scanner to hear where police are setting up spike strips, etc., they are just a couple clicks away on their cellphone. No system administrator really wants mission critical stuff like this streamed on the internet and the only way to stop it is to prevent access to the audio to be streamed.

Encryption is really everybody's heartbreaker. If you remember the Pasadena scandal when they chose to encrypt all their content. Eventually, they cut a deal that let the public hear the initial calls as they go out to know what's going on.

Encryption also is a heartache for our media officers. If you remember, when the ERICA system came up, all police-related content was encrypted, but they let the media get portables with the police channels programmed in so the media could still do the reporting. Hopefully, they'll do something like that for the PSEC.

[zz0468]

I can't speak for the reasoning behind PSEC deciding to encrypt all LE traffic, but overall I think the "live feeds" have contributed significantly to this trend...

The ripples cause by live streaming of the Christopher Dorner incident run deep. That, and previous incidents have left LE with the perception that their communications are vulnerable. It was believed at the time that Dorner had either a scanner, or a streaming ap on his phone.

So, encryption is coming because LE perceives that it will enhance their, and the public, safety. There will be times when that perception is actually true.

[zz0468]

Encryption also is a heartache for our media officers. If you remember, when the ERICA system came up, all police-related content was encrypted, but they let the media get portables with the police channels programmed in so the media could still do the reporting. Hopefully, they'll do something like that for the PSEC.

RSO, for years, provided EDACS portables to local media outlets. I've not heard that the practice would stop when PSEC went on line. It would be easy to provide access to encrypted dispatch talk groups, but not to tactical or similar tg's.

[cvrules90]

Aw that's probably why radio reference doesn't let anything but police dispatch channels to be broadcast.

Encryption itself is something I could talk about till the new year. It is contraversial how much to encrypt. Sure, encrypting it all might be the answer, but think about a morning commuter who wants to know why X Street is clsoed. There should always be a way for the public to find about an incident as it happens.

Even by doing this, however, it still leads to problems because crooks will use everything to their advantage to start that getaway ride.

There just needs to be a balance somehow.

[CQPSK]

The Radio Reference rule doesn't seem to make much sense to me. It's the main dispatch channels that the burglars and bank robbers would want to listen to in order to hear if the police are on their way. Who cares about streaming a car to car or tactical channel? If it's a tactical situation the guy is probably already surrounded anyway and if it's car to car it's likely idle babble anyway. If the burglars or bank robbers hear the police coming they can either take the opportunity to escape or set an ambush.

[cvrules90]

The Radio Reference rule doesn't seem to make much sense to me. It's the main dispatch channels that the burglars and bank robbers would want to listen to in order to hear if the police are on their way. Who cares about streaming a car to car or tactical channel? If it's a tactical situation the guy is probably already surrounded anyway and if it's car to car it's likely idle babble anyway. If the burglars or bank robbers hear the police coming they can either take the opportunity to escape or set an ambush.

Right on. RR has become so restrictive. In the past, they didn't let you broadcast SWAT team and narcotics and stuff. Now for police only the dispatch and special events channels are allowed, and fire only dispatch and tactical channels are allowed. No ambulances to hospital comms.

[CQPSK]

I suppose my point is what do they think they are protecting with this restriction in the law enforcement context? Law enforcement can be compromised just as much by broadcasting a dispatch channel as a "tactical" or car to car one and probably even more likely so. People's personal information is routinely broadcast on main dispatch channels all the time (name, date of birth, driver's license number, criminal past, phone numbers and address.) I have never heard anyone's personal information broadcast on a "SWAT" or surveillance channel. Furthermore, most "tactiacl" operations (like a hot pursuit of someone who barricaded themselves in a house) are conducted on the main dispatch channels becasue the incident dynamically unfolded on that channel and it requires a dispatcher (i.e. Dorner).

Additionally, you can't have responding units fumbling with radios trying to find another channel as the incident unfolds. Dispatchers aren't sitting around monitoring a tactical channel waiting for these type of incidents that unfold dynamically. In a "planned" raid, there really isn't even the need for much radio comms at all, other than to say they are in and say whether or not a guy takes off running.

The dispatch channels carry the traffic for incidents like " a guy just robbed a bank, we just chased him into the house, and we need more guys over here." The call came out on the dispatch channel, someone sees the guy, the guy takes off and it unfolds. In that situation, the police can't be trying to find a dispatcher to work a new channel, fumbling with radios to find the "tactical" channel and trying to chase the guy all at the same time, AND let people responding to help know there is a new channel the incident is working on that they need to switch to it.

Most burglaries and robberies are "planned" and the criminals will be prepared with scanners or phone apps listening for the call on the DISPATCH channel. In most cases where SWAT teams bust in a guy's door, he's screwed whether he has a scanner or not and a scanner or feed won't help him escape. These raids are pre-planned and they usually don't broadcast on the SWAT channel "we're going to this address to raid a house". The only comms are that they are inside the house and "Code 4", or the guy has taken off. If the bad guy is "planning" to get raided he probably would have left before the police even arrived. A feed monitoring a tactical channel probably wouldn't have helped the bad guy much but a feed of the main dispatch channel will help the burglar, bank robber or creep watching kids in a park.

In a surveillance context, if the bad guys think they are being followed, they think they are being followed whether or not they can hear the communications of whoever is following them. If they DON'T think they are being followed, they probably won't be listening in to see if they are since they don't think they are.

I agree the MedNet channels probably don't need to be streamed, but I really don't see what good listening to someone's medical problems would be to a criminal. Listening to a dispatch channel to see if the cops are coming to the house you are breaking into, or the park the pervert is watching the kids in, or the bank a robber is robbing would be a huge advantage to the criminals. Hearing the SWAT team say he's running out the back door or that they are "in and Code 4" when they hit his house would not benefit the criminal much. Hearing whether or not the guy being taken to the hospital in the ambulance has Hepatitus C probably wouldn't benefit the crinimal much either.

The only channels RR allows is "the main dispatch channel" and my point is that the "main dispatch channel" is the MOST important one for a bad guy to monitor while out doing bad guy stuff...so what or who do they think they are protecting with this rule? I see it as maybe a noble attempt to prevent expliotation fo their feeds by criminals but the logic really isn't there if you sit down and think about it. The only thing they may be protecting with this rule is preventing crinimals from monitoring dedicated records check channels to do I.D. theft, but other than that..it's that main dispatch channel that is really going to offer the criminal the greatest advantage, not he car to car and "tactical" ones.

[cvrules90]

Good call except that not everyone is a criminal and so us hobbyists would like to hear full details. Car-to-car comms are private, that is true, but sometimes some incidents may happen on a tactical channel (like when multiple stations are cooperating). I've noticed that some people break the rules and just put the Tac channels anyway.

RR also reserves the right to take down feeds that don't follow their rules. In fact, there was an LAPD feed from someone some moons ago that I like listening to. That feed was taken off by RR because the person was broadcasting ALL LAPD channels (including tactical, talk, etc...)

You've to be able to enforce rules if you want to have them.

[CQPSK]

"Good call except that not everyone is a criminal and so us hobbyists would like to hear full details. Car-to-car comms are private"


Well of course not everyone is a criminal, but the problem is if the hobbyists have access to the information, the criminals do too. It's a fine balance for system administrators. The goal is not to deny hobbyists from enjoying their hobby, but to prevent misuse of the information being transmitted on the system. It does seem more reasonable to unfortunately have to deny the hobbyists their enjoyment but not have to worry that someone was hurt or killed because you as an administrator could have prevented the criminals from using the information on your system to their advantage that resulted in someone getting hurt or killed and you didn't.

I'd also give my opinion that car to car comms are not private, as most talkgroups and channels that are repeated are all recorded and anyone can go down to the dispatch center and request a copy of the conversation. Car-to Car comms are usually boring anyway, it's just deputies or officers talking about exchanging calls with each other or where to go eat, nothing that needs to be restricted there.