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

[Sean Hoyden]

Perhaps I am overgeneralizing, but it is hard not to when you hear law
enforcement leadership doing the very same overgeneralizing with very
little substance to back it up.  As was already mentioned, during the Navy
Yard shootings, most of the communications were already encrypted; so using
that as an exemplar is a fallacy at best. ​ I'm quite tired of hearing
police chiefs tell reporters and the unwitting public that they are locking
down communications because of some perceived threat that bad guys are
using their own radio traffic against them.  The "bad guys" have been doing
this since the 70's at least, and the police have been pretty darned
successful at catching them still.

For my part, I am not a sworn law enforcement officer, although I do
work in counter-terrorism operations and frequently find myself in the
company of federal, state and local law enforcement officers while
working.  I also grew up in a small town in Northern New York with a family
that was either involved in the military or law enforcement and in many
instances both.  Current count as per my last family reunion was two New
York State Troopers, a retired Sheriff's Deputy, and no less than ten
municipal police officers in various towns in New York, Pennsylvania and
Ohio.

About 6 or 7 years ago, I was at one of the annual reunions and as is the
norm, we turned things into a story-telling session.  I was a little
bemused to find out that they often used "scrambling" on the radios to
cover up conversations that they knew were as inappropriate for open radio
conversations as they might have been for the bathroom or the bar.  I was
even more surprised when they expressed surprise that their conversations
via radio were de-scrambled and recorded for potential use in court
proceedings.

My surprise was equal in parts that they didn't realize that radio
communications were legal records, and that they didn't realize that their
"scrambled" conversations were descrambled then recorded.  (For the NYSP's
credit, they knew it was recorded as legal record but didn't seem to
care.)  I suppose I shouldn't have been surprised that a county sheriff's
deputy and a bunch of town cops/city police officers didn't know, but I was
surprised.

On my end, I use radios frequently when talking with my team-members or
other agents, but I'm not the least bit concerned about my conversations
since I don't use the radio for anything but mission oriented traffic.  My
work keeps me much too busy to pick up a handset to engage in casual
conversation that would better done in person anyways.

I'm not advocating that the collegiate character of the law enforcement
workplace be thrown out like the baby with the bathwater.  But I, like you,
want to see law enforcement use a valid motive to encrypt SOME information,
not all of it.  There are some things that should be afforded appropriate
levels of protection from open discovery by the general public, but that
policy needs to be carefully crafted to make sure that encrypted
communications are a means for sharing sensitive information, not any
information doesn't require that level of protection.


On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 2:30 PM, Earthlink <traff11 at earthlink.net> wrote:

> Beware of generalizations such as "Law enforcement types are so paranoid
> of their idea of their privileged position..."  As a ham radio operator,
> scanner listener as well as a 26 year police officer I support the public's
> ability to listen to the day to day radio traffic of public safety.
>  Undercover operations and tactical response is different, but I would say
> that 90% of police work over the radio is not sensitive.  So, this is one
> "law enforcement type" who does not agree with the "encrypt everything"
> trend.
>
>
> Frank Carson
>
> On Jul 30, 2014, at 13:52, Sean Hoyden <sean.hoyden at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 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
>



-- 




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 <https://www.flickr.com/photos/23954134@N06/>, while my new website is
under rebuild after a hacker strike.