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.'"

30 of 487 comments (clear)

  1. So? by Kell+Bengal · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:So? by errandum · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem is the status quo. People got used to have access to something (and I'm sure some have a legitimate reason for it), so it is conisdered bad form to remove said feature. That's the way I see it, at least.

    2. Re:So? by errandum · · Score: 4, Informative

      The problem here is not really the access, but the access in real time, according to the article.

      If you request a communication you will still be able to get it.

    3. Re:So? by johngaunt · · Score: 5, Insightful

      My only problem with this scheme, and I work for the local constabulatory as a civilian, is that they hope to give preferential treatment to the 'press'. If they won't let Joe Citizen have access to, then no one should. Just because you work for a paper or TV or Radio station doesn't make you better or more able to access information than anyone else. 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.

      --
      In the wild there are no dumb lions tigers or bears. Only humanity subsidizes the continued existence of the stupid.
    4. Re:So? by cupantae · · Score: 5, Funny

      I think if the mods had a "+5, Hysterical" option, people would use it all the time.

      --
      --
    5. Re:So? by Z00L00K · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why not present the radio traffic time lapsed on the web?

      A delay of up to an hour wouldn't hurt the news agencies that much and still would keep any criminals off track.

      It also allows for the possibility to further delay or even cut traffic in special cases.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    6. Re:So? by symbolset · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm actually surprised it took them this long. Operational security is important, and bad guys listening on scanners has been a fiction theme for what, 25 years? It's been well proven to happen in practice too.

      And no, for the commenter above, time delay doesn't work. Even response times, the names and numbers of units, processes and practices are all operational security elements that can be exploited by criminals and these would be revealed by a time-delayed online stream. Besides, providing it requires public moneys put to a use outside the police department budget.

      I'm as suspicious of some members of the police as the next guy, and feel they generally need good supervision. But transmitting their radio signals in the clear is a simple detriment to the public safety mission.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    7. Re:So? by walshy007 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Even response times, the names and numbers of units, processes and practices are all operational security elements that can be exploited by criminals and these would be revealed by a time-delayed online stream.

      By this logic, the public should have no method of determining their local police forces typical response times, how well or under staffed they are, etc. Being able to not reveal a thing to the public might do wonders for the security of the police, but without some oversight how can you tell if the police are doing their job well or not?

    8. Re:So? by EdIII · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In other words.... Operational Security is for military operations. Last time I checked we lived in a free society in which our military is 100% separated from civilians. By that I mean that a Colonel armed with a gun can't walk around the streets and start ordering civilians to do anything, unlike some parts of the world.

      Operational Security does not apply to law enforcement. Once you take away the tremendous bullshit of the War on Drugs, just how much "Operational Security" is really required on a day-to-day basis? I suspect a hell of lot less than anything that would justify it.

      The public safety mission is harmed when you take away oversight and accountability. Radio signals in the clear is part of oversight and accountability. The public has every right to know response times, unit numbers, processes, practices, methodologies, etc. After all, they work for us.

      Is the proper balance being struck here? Somehow I doubt it.

      Now in situations in which a SWAT team is actually required I don't object to some Operational Security during that particular operation and full disclosure afterwards. Those situations are fairly rare when compared against all crime, once you exclude all the aforementioned bullshit of the drug war.

      Law enforcement will never be able to justify to me why their actions cannot be 100% transparent.

    9. Re:So? by psiclops · · Score: 4, Insightful

      or if there were something that the police thought the public should be aware of for their own safety then perhaps they could just i dunno, tell the media?

      --
      i spent five minutes thinking and all i got was this crappy sig
    10. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Law enforcement will never be able to justify to me why their actions cannot be 100% transparent.

      Because they have a job that's far less dangerous than fishing for crab off Alaska.

      Snark aside, that's the usual bullshit excuse - that they're risking their lives and all that. Sure, there are a very few places in this country where officers would probably increase their safety by volunteering instead to sweep for IEDs by hand in Iraq. But by and large, the common knowledge of it being dangerous to be a cop is absurdly overstated. Yet this continues to justify military-like armaments, ridiculous pay and pension, effective immunity from prosecution, a lack of transparency and oversight, et cetera.

    11. Re:So? by Gription · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ding,ding,ding,ding! We have a winner!!!

      Government unobserved very quickly starts to smell very bad. Often government only has to obfuscate their actions in plain sight to hide their actions. The City of Bell in Los Angeles is a prime example. Take an organization that is granted extraordinary powers, self regulated, and (when caught out) investigates itself and you have a recipe for disaster. The only protection that the public has to protect itself is to be able to observe in a meaningful manner the actions of the police.

      Do you think that police are good and magically 'special' so they can be trusted? It is a pretty well excepted fact that a single person, observed, will tend to make choices that we would describe as moral simply because they are being observed. You put together a group of like minded people and then you can start to see really questionable behavior. When you get really large masses of people in a hierarchy then you can get truly obscene, despotic behavior. Question any police officer you know and you will find seeds of this. They have a culture ingrained with the idea that the laws don't really apply to them combined with equal parts of "they are a brotherhood that stands apart" and the fact that they investigate themselves.

      Ask any police officer you know if they have chosen to not give a 'brother officer' a traffic citation simply because they are a police officer ("One of the brotherhood"). They will say things like "professional courtesy" and if pressed for a better reason will come up with something like, "I don't give them a ticket because this is someone that I might have to count on to back me up in an emergency situation at a moments notice". Really!??? The police officer's excuse breaks down to, "a policeman might be so unreliable and sophomoric to not pitch in during an emergency situation because someone gave them a traffic ticket"? I don't believe that answer for a minute even though the officer probably believes it, because it has been ingrained in him through the culture of his department and training.
      Let's break it down:
      - They can choose which laws apply to their brotherhood.
      - They have a culture of protecting their own before they protect the public. (all people are this way)
      - They are put in situations where on an average day they see the worst in humanity and the normal human thing to do is to anticipate/expect/look-for that behavior out of of every new person they meet.
      - They have a culture of secrecy.
      - And then they investigate themselves and only they can decide to send one of their own in front of a judge.
      - - - - - - - - -

      Trust your government as far as you can spit upwind in a hurricane. A government unobserved is a recipe for tyranny... and the baking time till ready is almost instantaneous. Remember that Morality is a function of consciousness, and a government (or corporation) is not conscious so it cannot make moral choices. They may appear moral or the actions may agree with your moral choices but that doesn't make them moral choices.
      It is actually just a big process populated by people wanting to justify their own positions and to a large part by people who think citizens are accountable to 'The Process instead of the other way around. A big thing to look for are governments that think that the constituents are their source of revenue. This tells you what the people at the top think the relationship is. And everyone else in the hierarchy is sucking from the teat above them so you know how the Kool-Aid is distributed.

    12. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I worked for the IT department for a large PD in Australia and this is what we did.
      Jobs were release or not with delays based on certain criteria:

      Release information by direct data-feed dispatch about all job
      types, with the following exceptions:
      A Job types to be excluded
          mentally ill person
        offences against children
        shop-steal child
        absconder hospital/institution
        absconder juvenile
        rape
        attempted rape
        indecent assault
        wilful exposure
        indecent acts
        domestic violence
        suspect terrorist activity
      B Job types to be released after a one-hour delay
        armed person
        siege
        shots red
        hijack
        hostage taken
        bomb threat
        sudden death
      C Discretionary delay
        Authority to withhold or exclude a job from release should reside with the
      Duty Ofcer, Police Communications Centre and be based on documented
      compelling and demonstrable public safety or police safety reasons.

    13. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We've had enough UK precedence, thank you.

    14. Re:So? by peawormsworth · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The public safety mission is harmed when you take away oversight and accountability. Radio signals in the clear is part of oversight and accountability. The public has every right to know response times, unit numbers, processes, practices, methodologies, etc. After all, they work for us.

      Law enforcement will never be able to justify to me why their actions cannot be 100% transparent.

      Save your battle for the right to take video of the police in public. Laws that prevent you from filming anyone in public is a real issue. This is work communication and rarely if ever do I hear of it being used to for oversight of the police. Videos of police abuse is the number 1 way to find the few bad apples in the force who cannot handle the authority they are entrusted with.

      Perhaps there is an argument to have all police radio communication recorded and make it available to the courts and requests from the public for release later. I just dont think real time eavesdropping on the police will make a difference in watching over the police for abuse.

    15. Re:So? by Joce640k · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The way the police are headed recently we need every single control and check possible over what they say and do. Letting them censor their own communications is a bad idea.

      *Everything* the police does should be made public. If it was up to me I'd have every public servant walking around with a video camera on his shoulder recording everything they say/do. We need to watch the watchmen.

      OTOH, yes, letting criminals listen in real time isn't good - it helps them get away. There's a better solution then 'encrypt everything' though...

      --
      No sig today...
    16. Re:So? by Mister+Transistor · · Score: 4, Funny

      Would those be "woofies"?

      Sorry, couldn't resist...

      --
      -- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
    17. Re:So? by Plunky · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The reasoning the police give for having privacy is a lot more realistic: to deny criminals the ability to track police actions.

      Except, that reasoning may seem sound, but the people they want to block are not criminals until they have been charged and convicted by a court of law. What they actually want: to deny all people the ability to track police actions.

      Its up to you if you accept that this is proper, but history shows that some amount of oversight is desireable, even necessary.

    18. Re:So? by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 4, Interesting

      While a valid point, I am more than a little concerned about police forces never having to worry about what they are saying (or planning i.e., covering up). This combined with their propensity to confiscate and erase the devices of anyone recording them publicly does not a democratic society make.

    19. Re:So? by Joce640k · · Score: 4, Insightful

      'encrypt everything' is a perfectly fine solution

      I dunno. It sounds good in theory but history shows that as soon as you do it people will start thinking of ways to hide the embarrassing stuff in the name of 'security'.

      It's just the way their minds work. Look at how much resistance there currently is to recording police when they're on duty.

      Best to keep as much stuff as possible in plain sight. Not hidden, under control of the privileged few.

      --
      No sig today...
  2. Why is this news? by icebike · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.
    1. Re:Why is this news? by epyT-R · · Score: 5, Insightful

      the cops are supposed to work for the public interest, but they don't. they work for the state's and thus not for us. the media is supposed to keep tabs on the government's activities, but they're really in it for their own personal gain and glory these days. I think if public money gets pumped into it, it should be accountable to the public should individuals take an interest. in this era of standing up for your rights = terrorist, locking up the radio broadcasts is just one more step towards an opaque state that can do whatever it wants.

    2. Re:Why is this news? by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'm sort of surprised that the police are so willing to be accommodating here too

      The reason they don't care is that they already use cell phones for any sensitive communications, as well as any communications that might not look good in a newspaper article or court transcript.

      As I mentioned in an earlier Slashdot story on police use of encryption, the most common phrase you hear on the (unencrypted) Motorola Smartnet system around here is "Call me on my cell."

    3. Re:Why is this news? by garyebickford · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I wouldn't object to a delay, say 15 minutes, before public availability, if the data is streamed directly onto a public access server not controlled by the police force (perhaps a service bureau that acts as a neutral third party). That would meet the public's right to the information, and also the need for the police to not let the bank robbers listen in while the police are saying "you two go around the back, you go up on the roof, and we'll go in the front door on five ... one ... two ... three ... four ... FIVE!".

      --
      It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
    4. Re:Why is this news? by icebike · · Score: 4, Insightful

      who the hell modded this flamebait!? It's absolutely spot on, they're supposed to be publicly transparent - including radio comms - since they're paid for with PUBLIC MONEY!

      No they are not meant to be totally transparent. That's a great way to get innocent people killed, and totally destroy the effectiveness of police.

      Being paid by public money doesn't entitle every bank robber, drug dealer, or murderer listen into police comms.

      If the press gets to listen, then everybody gets to listen, because the press can't keep a secret. The big competition becomes which radio station can get it on the air first.

      Use just a tiny bit of common sense before you post.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    5. Re:Why is this news? by adolf · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This. I hope you're modded +10, Insightful.

      Our local PD (in our small town of ~40k heads) decided to encrypt all of their radio traffic a couple of years ago. I wrote a (scathing, factual, naming-names) letter to the editor of the local news rag about that time, pronouncing that the concept was stupid and that all of their reasons for the concept were also stupid. (I'd link to my published letter and/or provide more details, but I like the aura of anonymity here, and my name isn't really Adolf Osborne.)

      I have even been encouraged by a sergeant at the local sheriff's office to request recordings, as often as I feel like, under the FOIA, just to make it a pain in PD's ass. (The SO has encryption available to them, but they do not use it unless it is important that the things being discussed remain secret...unlike the PD, who does it 24x7. Further, the PD refuses to share their encryption key with the SO, rendering moot any chance that the two overlapping agencies might be able to help eachother out efficiently.)

      I nearly lost my job over that letter, since I'm one of the guys responsible for actually programming the radios and I have the requisite encryption keys on my thumb drive and can (pretty much literally) do whatever I want to make things work/fuck up the system.

      BUT: I never thought of a delay. 15 minutes is perfect. It allows the people to know what's going on with their paid and well-armed uniformed thugs, while also preventing active criminals from understanding the goings-on of the police department.

      Scanner-land wins, paranoid public entity wins, and active criminals still lose. Sign me up. (Hell, sign everyone up.)

  3. Quid Pro Quo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  4. Re:Key management? by RubberDogBone · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
  5. Re:We the people... by tehcyder · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  6. Re:We the people... by Mister+Transistor · · Score: 5, Informative

    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... --