[Scan-DC] Mentions Navy Yard Shooting (how much longer do we have to put up with this?)

Wed Jul 30 14:11:34 EDT 2014

Seeing how I am "a law enforcement type" and have been for 38 years my reasons against full board encryption are different then yours. I am against it because we are in a democracy and for law enforcement to work it needs the cooperation and respect of the people it serves. We lose that with full board encryption. What we get now is mistrust, and what you just posted! Unfortunately I believe that most law enforcement radio traffic in this country will be encrypted within the next five to ten years!

Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 13:52:53 -0400
Subject: Re: [Scan-DC] Mentions Navy Yard Shooting (how much longer do we have to put up with this?)
From: sean.hoyden at gmail.com
To: leonzo at hotmail.com
CC: alan at henney.com; scan-dc at mailman.qth.net

I realize that is a rhetorical question, but the truth of the matter is "No"... nobody can explain it because there's nothing to explain.  
 Law enforcement types are absolutely paranoid of the idea that their privileged position of being able to say and do what they want over the radio is being impinged upon by hobbyists.  So they concoct these stories to rationalize why they need encrypted communications in order to protect "tactical information" when in truth; it is doing little more than protecting their ability to engage in shadier activities that they know or should know aren't what their multi-million dollar communications systems were intended for in the first place.  
 Do criminals use scanners?  Yep, that hasn't changed since the 70's or maybe earlier, somehow they've always managed to keep doing their jobs.  By and far however, most of the bad guys don't know how to use a scanner or radio in the commission of a crime, few still understand what the cops are saying on the radio.  
 Cops want to be able to keep sharing "Personally Identifiable Information" (PII) over the radio, and they want to be able to exchange shop talk about whatever they want without worrying about Tom, Dick and Harry listening to them and reporting them to their elected bosses.  It's not about protecting tactically relevant information for police operations, its about protecting police and law enforcement egos.  

I've worked with literally hundreds of law enforcement professionals over the years, and I can assure you, the larger share of them think this way.  

On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 1:38 PM, Lee Williams <leonzo at hotmail.com> wrote:

I find it fascinating that the Navy Yard Shooting is being used as an example for encryption because: Metropolitan Washington DC Police were the lead agency in the Navy Yard Shooting. They are encrypted so can someone explain to me "what scanner traffic" was being broadcasted or quoted involving the Navy Yard Shooting?

> From: alan at henney.com

> To: Scan-DC at mailman.qth.net

> Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 03:37:56 -0400

> Subject: [Scan-DC] Mentions Navy Yard Shooting (how much longer do we have    to put up with this?)

>

>

> Arkansas Daily Weblog

>

> July 28, 2014 Monday 8:53 PM EST

>

> Little Rock encrypting police radio traffic

>

> BYLINE: Max Brantley

>

> LENGTH: 594 words

>

> Jul 28, 2014 (Arkansas Daily Weblog:http://www.arktimes.com/blogs/arkansasblog/ Delivered by Newstex)

> Lt. Sidney Allen, the Little Rock police information officer, distributed this message today:

>

> Our radios are undergoing the first stages of encryption. The signal could possibly return by Friday, August 1, 2014. The time frame for full encryption has not been announced.

>

> The message has been interpreted to mean police radio broadcasts will no longer be publicly available.

>

> David Koon is looking into the ins and outs of this. Forbidden Hillcrest, a Facebook page that has built a big audience by monitoring Little Rock police radio traffic, isn't happy about it, to name just one.

>

> As of today LRPD has begun encrypting police radio dispatch, therefore it will no longer be available to the public or the press. This was done with no public discussion and with no vote before the LR board of directors. Repeated inquiries to city officials about the subject over the last several months were answered with silence or misinformation.

>

> Public silence will be a blow to a large audience of police scanner hobbyists who monitor the channel regularly. It will also be a problem for news outlets that monitor broadcasts, not only for breaking crime news, but also for traffic problems.

>

> Lack of immediacy will be a problem. One questions is what alternative, if any, will be provided on traffic reporting.

>

> A bigger problem is the simple absence of information. Case in point: Absent radio traffic, would anyone have known about the wreck, shooting and chase that began in Murray Park yesterday afternoon and concluded at the Waffle House just off Cantrell Road in Riverdale? No one was hurt. But the fact that it happened might not have been publicly known absent the radio traffic. A police department interested in a city's image might decide not to volunteer so many reports about untoward events with the knowledge that none of it was in earshot of regular listeners.

>

> On the flip side, it's fair to note the rise of quotes on social media from scanner traffic, some of which turns out to be inaccurate. The Navy yard shooting in Washington[1] was a particularly good (bad) example. Furthermore, there's a growing believe that, with cell phone apps, home burglars and others can tune into police radio broadcasts as a crime aid.

>

> Little Rock is moving its signal to the Arkansas Wireless Information Network (AWIN), a time when some other departments have made the decision to encrypt. Said the Russellville police when they made the switch:

>

> With the AWIN system our radio traffic will be encrypted. We know that for some people this will be a disappointing revelation. We understand that some of the community monitors our traffic on scanners that they have purchased. We have already received feedback from some of the community on anticipating the change; of course not all of it was positive.

>

> We have made this change due to communications and operational security reasons. We have noticed that not all of the monitoring of our system with scanners was done with good intentions. On numerous occasions criminals were using it to track our locations and to deter their capture.

>

> It's unclear until we hear more if this concern figures in the Little Rock encryption trial. More to come.

> [ Subscribe to the comments on this story[2] ]

> [1]: http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/news-outlets-often-stumble-in-quest-for-speed-and-accuracy/2013/09/16/e5444820-1f19-11e3-8459-657e0c72fec8_story.html [2]: http://www.arktimes.com/arkansas/Rss.xml?oid=3400590id=comments

> ______________________________________________________________

> 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

-- 

Sean Hoyden
703.899.8893

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."  -- Benjamin Franklin

-- Want to see my nighttime railroad photography?  Just check out My FLICKR page, while my new website is under rebuild after a hacker strike. 