Slashdot Mirror
Pasadena Police Encrypt, Deny Access To Police Radio
An anonymous reader writes "There is media (but not public?) outcry over the Pasadena, CA police switch from analog radio that can be picked up by scanners to encrypted digital radio that cannot. 'On Friday, Pasadena police Lt. Phlunte Riddle said the department was unsure whether it could accommodate the media with digital scanners. Riddle said the greatest concern remains officer safety. "People who do bank robberies use scanners, and Radio Shack sells these things cheap," Riddle said. "We just had a robbery today on Hill Avenue and Washington Boulevard," Riddle said. "The last thing I want to do is to have the helicopter or the officers set up on the street and the criminals have a scanner and know where our officers are." Just prior to the switch over, city staffers said they would look into granting access to police radio chatter, most likely by loaning media outlets a scanner capable of picking up the secure signal.'"
So, the police have a legitimate reason for securing their network, and have discussed options accommodating other stake-holders who might be inconvenienced by improving their system's security. It sounds to me like the police are handling this sanely and fairly. What's the problem here?
Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
This has happened in hundreds of jurisdictions, and its been going on for a dozen years. Some jurisdictions only encrypt special tactical frequencies used for emergencies, but most realize that as soon as they did that they needed the decryption capable radios for every officer and car any way, and there was not much saving leaving regular channels unencrypted. They bought the radios, why not use them.
Not having reporters and wanna-be-cops show up at every incident was sort of a side benefit in their eyes.
Why the press would expect to be "loaned" a radio is beyond me. The press never "loans" their confidential sources to the police.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
I'm more surprised they aren't using some sort of encryption already.
Scanners are fun.
Until you are the one dialing 911 --- and fielding calls the next day --- the next week --- from every friend, neighbor and relation who picked up on the response.
The keys for an Aussie Police system have been out for at least 2 years according to people who were at Ruxcon this year talking about this very topic.
The radios sent lots of known plain text at the end of every call and its trivial to get the encrypted data. The rest is lucking into a key for newer systems or trying them all for some of the older systems.
Now only criminal organizations with the fund and resources to have a police officer or five on the take will have access to vital information. What is the lowly freelance hoodlum supposed to do?
I'll accept the police having encrypted communications, the moment EVERY COP on duty has video and audio surveillance on their person at all times recorded on person, and rebroadcast to their squad car for preservation without tampering.
Short of that? No, you can't have encrypted communications.
http://www.fordyce.org/scanning/scanning_info/encrypt.htm
Old but informative
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Most likely this is a trunked radio system. Trunk following scanners have been out for years. A trunked radio system is a subscription radio system just like cell phones. Disabling a stolen radio is a simple administration task encrypted or not.
These are not simplex walkie talkies, but are duplex radios with a control channel.
The truth shall set you free!
Current.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_25
And old but informative:
http://www.fordyce.org/scanning/scanning_info/encrypt.htm
From what I gather cell phone jammers seriously screw with this mode of communication, I think it's a bad idea all around to encrypt radios, not to mention repeater issues and the relatively low number of keys available.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Most encrypted (analogue or digital) radio systems have a remote stun/kill feature. When the radio is reported lost it is sent a message that disables it, or the disable code is sent regularly until the radio gives a stun/kill acknowledge. At that point the radio is a brick.
Queensland Police have been using encrypted P25 radios (not trunked) for some time in Brisbane & the Gold Coast. The media cannot monitor, but neither can tow-truck operators, which improves safety at road crashes. The clear-speech audio is recorded at Police HQ for later review or in court cases. The people that oversee police behaviour (Crime and Misconduct Commission) have access to this. Despite their own opinions, it is the CMC that keeps the Police honest in Qld, and that's why the CMC has access to the audio and the media do not.
Nestled in quiet suburban Pasadena, a small university without a football team is full of hundreds of students who could probably crack the encryption scheme faster than they can finish their CS/EE midterms. That is, if they could be bothered to....
It's not just trunked but P25, with encryption. P25 digital signals can be scanned with a modern higher end scanner specifically designed for P25. Trunktrackers will not cut it. There is regular and encrypted P25. Encrypted P25 cannot be decrypted by the scanners. You'd need 2-way radio that can connect to the radio system as a user on the system and have approval from the agency to allow you to hear decrypted radio traffic.
Some media and agencies do this, but it's not too common. The radios are rather pricey and leasing them out tends to make the agencies nervous and liable to pull the plug at any moment.
There are also methods to break the P25 encryption mainly based on sloppy key handling by the agency and ways to take advantage of sloppy practices by the officers.
Sig for hire.
... Maybe it's different in California, but where I live, there is no law granting the 'press' special powers or privilege to information that is denied to everyone else ...
The press would like us to believe otherwise but it is the same in the U.S. The only right that the press has is that it can not be muzzled, it has a Constitutionally guaranteed right to speak. It has no right to access the government beyond what a normal citizen may nor does it have any immunity from laws when pursuing a story. If they wiretap, trespass, etc they can be arrested and prosecuted.
When the press is treated advantageously compared to a normal citizen it is merely a courtesy or politics. Nothing in the Constitution requires it.
Maybe it's different in California, but where I live, there is no law granting the 'press' special powers or privilege to information that is denied to everyone else.
What about press passes, then?
They are a courtesy. They are at the police department's discretion.
They retain recordings of all the radio traffic and make it public after 24 hours.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
... While it's nice that the media acts keeps an eye on our interests ...
No, the media acts on its own interests, selling ears and eyeballs to advertisers. When they protect our interests that is a happy coincidence and subordinate to their business or political interests.
Someone is going to crack the encryption and start selling decoders to all the criminals. So the result will be that only the criminals will know what everyone is doing.
If you think this will prevent the bank robbers from listening, you are naive beyond salvation.
The only thing this will do is prevent the public and media from listening to what your watchers are doing. ONLY THAT!
if now the robbers tune in with a $5 radio, tomorrow they will tune in with a $5000 radio or $5000 bribe, or a loot share for more people eying the police and reporting to them with $5 radios.
anyway, they will get around it. because well, that's the minimal investment on their part. the big investment is they risking their lives or freedom behind bars. and that they are already committing.
They have families, mistresses, and organized crime to feed too.
Funny this, Europe has been switching to TETRA in droves, and nobody cares. We simply don't have a tradition of listening in on the cops.
10 ?"Hello World" life was simple then
My 2cents police radio use is not for point 2 point communications but broadcast communication so that everyone on the team maintains an image of whats going on. Police have always had alternate methods of communicating sensitive information off the radio even if that was only cell phones.
In this context my concern is not that encrypting broadcast is a bad thing but that encryption will be seen as an excuse for being lazy and not using point to point communication systems to convey operationally sensitive information.
Even if the encryption were 100% perfect and you had perfect operational security there are "alleged" bad guys routinely being escorted to station in the back seats of these vechicles.
The incidental effect of criminals being able to listen in is outweighed by the need to check the overreach of law enforcement.
Nothing but real-time broadcasts in the clear of all broadcasts is acceptable for accountability to the constituents. A delay would not prevent law enforcement from committing an unlawful action, it would only provide time to cover things up.
Since they are in the public interest, the only path that preserves accountability and transparency is to leave things in the clear without any delay or interruption.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
If there's someone you don't want to have access to your encrypted communication, it's the media, we all know they will use it for their own benefits. Why should media have access to the communication, there is no need for it.. the only reason people want it, is because of their sensation hunger they need to satisfy, and that can NEVER be a reason for not having encrypted communications.. Civilians don't want their cellphones to be listened in on, so why wouldn't officers have a safer working enviroment by having encrypted communications (as it's their asses that are on the line, not ours who sit behind the tv watching the mayhem)..
The bigger question should be how much personal information with respect to those accused/victims/witnessing crimes is indiscriminately broadcast over police radio.
No, that is simply a very good argument for encrypting everything and never releasing details of any of it to the public.
I really don't see why "the media" should have access to confidential police information that Mr X of Y address has been questioned on suspicion of Z if it turns out to be a mistake and he is released without charge later. You only need Z to be "rape" or "possession of child pornography" and Mr X is in serious trouble, even if he is totally innocent.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Drive (2011)
Seems quite sensible to me to encrypt police communications.
They don't release that information over the air. They just don't, ever. They use KDT terminals in the car for any sensitive information like names, addresses, etc. The most they will usually EVER give over the air is a phone number or situation codes like "Signal One", "Code Black" or "10-8". If they can't use the data terminals, most of the cops have figured out that a cell phone is an easy way to keep things off the air and confidential, a lot of them use the phone to call their dispatch and discuss any sensitive information like the type mentioned above on a regular basis and hardly ever use their radios at all anymore. As they switch to digital and encrypted type communications, they actually are finding their radios more useful than before - due to the extra margin of security, they actually CAN safely discuss names, addresses, etc.
That said, my Cook County Sheriff here in Chicago has been running full-time encryption since they went digital about 4 years ago. A lot of smaller city agencies are also in the process of going digital and want full-time encryption, too. When they did this, the world did not stop, the media did not dry up and blow away - somehow they still report on crimes in a timely manner, but a bunch of scanner geeks and hams were pissed off. That was it, that was the sum total of the impact. Unfortunately, I'm one of the hams that used to listen in because it was interesting when there was no Ham traffic to listen to, but hey, life is short - there's a lot of other things to do and listen to elsewhere!
-- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
Make a media room at the police station, put one of the police's receivers there, and let the media guys send drones to listen. The drones can call their companies when something of interest happens. The police get their encrypted radio, the media get their live feed, and people who shouldn't be listening might not be able listen (how good is the encryption?).
Doesn't it cut both ways? With the major govs sinkholing all digital communications, shouldn't private citizens therefore securely encrypt their messages as well?
Which is the answer, opacity or transparency? Who gets the upper hand? Government, law enforcement, and emergency services (all paid for by citizens), or the freedom loving citizens themselves?
The arguments on both sides have valid points, but what solution fosters the values of a society that we can salute to?
---
Gimmee Liberty
That is because the media has managed to get the average person to think that when the First Amendment says "freedom...of the press" it is using "press" as a synonym for "news media". When in actuality when the Framers used the word "press" in the First Amendment, they meant "printing press" and were saying that anybody's right to publish anything they wish shall not be infringed.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Doesn't he use a police scanner? Actually, I think of super heros do that.
The same happens here. Our officers do most everything on MDT so radio communication is very light. They really do use cell phones for anything sensitive. They also have played with Skype calls on MDT's (but that's usually to talk about wives and girlfriends). Cop to cop meetings along dark sections of road are still the best way to communicate so even the boss doesn't hear.
These idiot "watchdogs" who think they're keeping an eye on local government by listening to their scanner have no clue. They are missing maybe 80% of what's going on. Our cops play with them on a routine basis. The cops know who's listening, they appreciate their audience. So when they do use the radio, they made that choice from several communication options. The end result is that these "watchdogs" are totally suckered in. They should be suspicious of what they do hear, not what they don't.
. Quit playing Monopoly with Bill. Switch to one of many non-Microsoft products today.