[TrunkCom] while we are on the subject of encryption

[Jeff Kenyon]

Hi Scott and the list.  I would agree with you on that one.  Oakland
County has put off the cut over date to OpenSky so many times I have lost
track!
	However, there are still others who feel we need to encrypt
everything or go ProVoice that is just as good as encryption as there are
no scanners for that.  You should see some people though on Michigan's
MPSCS who are real inconsistent about encryption.  Many times one side of
the conversation will be encrypted and one agency in Michigan  who wanted
to encrypt does this a lot, and as for TGs assigned to them it is about
50-50 and many times one side of the conversation is encrypted.





On Mon, 6 Nov 2006, Scott Berringer wrote:

> There has been talk forever about an OpenSky 'receiver' being
> manufactured by MA/COM for being able to monitor the Pennsylvania
> system. However, that has never come to fruit. I don't think it ever
> will. Honestly, I don't even think the OpenSky systems will survive.
> Especially not with everyone trying to get everything P-25 compliant.
>
> IMHO, Encryption should ONLY be used for sensitive ops (VICE, NARCS,
> SWAT, etc...) not for day to day ops. If you need to encrypt your
> car-to-car channels, you got issues. Also, encryption should only be
> available for law enforcement and possibly arson investigators. But,
> only on an as-needed basis for sensitive ops.
>
> There is one city in Ohio that comes to mind that everyone is always
> whining about. Canton, Ohio PD. They have all of their main PD
> talkgroups encrypted in addition to them being P-25 digital modulation.
> With encryption for routine operations, if you give out a BOLO, the
> citizens can't lend an additional set of eyes/ears because they don't
> know that the BOLO has been issued. Some people (system administrators)
> have been suckered by smooth talking sales reps (from Motorola and
> MA/COM) in to thinking that they NEED full-time encryption. Those sales
> reps are the ones that show up for a sales meeting in a Mercedes, or a
> Hummer because they get paid WAY TOO MUCH $$$$$$$$.
>
>
>
> Jeff Kenyon wrote:
>
> > Hi everyone, while we are on the subject of encryption in the few rumors I
> > have seen on the net about a possible OpenSky scanner coming out one thing
> > that was mentioned was encryption there, and the fact that the radio would
> > be able to be disabled if need be.  These threads have been here and
> > there, but I would imagine anything OpenSky would be a long ways out, and
> > I know that in PA and Oakland County, Michigan we have to get our systems
> > working first!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ______________________________________________________________
> > TrunkCom mailing list
> > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/trunkcom
> > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.html
> > Post: mailto:TrunkCom at mailman.qth.net
> >
> >
> >
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> TrunkCom mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/trunkcom
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.html
> Post: mailto:TrunkCom at mailman.qth.net
>