[Scan-DC] Phoenix to shield police radio traffic

[Eric C. Carlson]

It seems that most police departments (with some exceptions) have
wanted to be encrypted from the beginning of time.  How long has
Frederick City been encrypted?  There more convenient excuses than
ever but I have yet to see actual evidence of the supposed crime
sprees (or terrorist attacks) happening because criminals can listen
to police traffic and never get caught.

It's important to keep in mind the economics at play.  The marginal
cost of an encrypted radio vs. a non-encrypted radio is quickly
approaching $0.  The Houston Fire Department will be encrypted on all
of their fire tactical channels when their new system goes live in the
next few months.  When given the choice, most people will probably
choose privacy even if the content being disclosed is benign.  It's
much harder for an agency to justify millions of dollars in their
budget to add encrypted radios but if it's part of the price of entry
(or the price tag is so big already) then no one pays any attention.
Government at all levels throws mind boggling amounts of money at
public safety for radio systems (and other things) these days and no
lawmakers have the guts to say a thing; just say "9/11" and the
wallets open.

It's interesting to note that many agencies in the public safety space
are going with "insecure" encryption (e.g., Motorola's 40-bit ADP
software encryption, which last I heard was less than $8 per radio
depending on model, but I'm sure there are more knowledgeable people
than me reading this).  40-bit encryption is considered obsolete due
to its vulnerability to brute force attacks but unfortunately it is
enough to lock out law abiding scanner users.

Furthermore, it seems that some radio shops are quite lazy and have
all radios on large multi-agency systems set to the same key; this
just further reduces the realistic security being achieved if we're
really protecting ourselves from terrorists and rouge nations.
There's a lot more to achieving "security" than just enabling
encryption.

-Eric

On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 1:27 PM, Joel Kahn <jrkahn at att.net> wrote:
> I totally agree with you, Alan.  The whole encryption thing started when the
> smart phone apps started to get popular.  RR had the feeds in place for a long
> time before somebody realized they could link to it not only from the desktp,
> but from their phone, and then ZINGO! somebody started to get rich $0.99 at a
> time by creating an app to do the same thing.  A certain local Police Chief has
> said she had less of a problem with legitimate scanner enthusiasts than with
> criminals or terrorists who had throw-away smart phones.
>
> The departments say it is because they would not get their Federal grants unless
> they insured against terrorist eavesdropping, so they get encrypted systems paid
> for by you and me, and we cannot even listen to them.
>
> Most terrorist groups like the taliban have enough money that if they really
> wanted to listen to MPDC, they could buy a black market radio and get the talk
> groups and encryption key encoded.
> Joel
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Alan Henney <alan at henney.com>
> To: Rick Hansen <rick.hansen at apsglobal.com>
> Cc: Scan DC <Scan-DC at mailman.qth.net>
> Sent: Sat, March 16, 2013 2:41:23 AM
> Subject: Re: [Scan-DC] Phoenix to shield police radio traffic
>
>
> I suspect the big picture here is the 1st Amendment.  Telling people who and
> what they can listen to -- or repeat to others -- is a prior restraint. Those
> tow truck drivers might have been able to win if they took it to court, but
> those guys were stealing other driver's jobs, right?  Those are local laws.  In
> some cities that is how they conduct business -- monitoring scanners for wrecks.
>
> If the awkwardly worded statutes in the Communications Act prohibiting
> "commercial gain" and divulging communication had broad legal implications, a
> prosecutor would have used it by now... especially against smart phone apps
> which I hold responsible for the rash of agencies encrypting.
>
> In reading court discussions involving the Act, I think these restrictions were
> intended for employees of common carriers such as Verizon to protect customers
> -- not the general public who monitor readily accessible communication.
>
> Alan
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rick Hansen" <rick.hansen at apsglobal.com>
> To: "Alan Henney" <alan at henney.com>
> Cc: "Scan DC" <Scan-DC at mailman.qth.net>
> Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 9:52 AM
> Subject: Re: [Scan-DC] Phoenix to shield police radio traffic
>
>
> Does anyone know if making commercial use of what you hear is still a crime?
> When I was young the tow truck drivers would get busted and fined for making
> commercial use of what they heard!
>
> This comes down to lax enforcement and stupid news crews. And guess what, in
> many cases the media who caused the problem will be given radios later. Sigh...
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Scan-DC mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/scan-dc
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Scan-DC at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> ______________________________________________________________
> Scan-DC mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/scan-dc
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Scan-DC at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html