Police Encrypt Radios To Tune Out Public 242
Hugh Pickens writes writes "Police departments around the country are moving to shield their radio communications from the public as cheap, user-friendly technology has made it easy for anyone to use handheld devices to keep tabs on officers responding to crimes and although law enforcement officials say they want to keep criminals from using officers' internal chatter to evade them, journalists and neighborhood watchdogs say open communications ensures that the public receives information as quickly as possible that can be vital to their safety. 'Whereas listeners used to be tied to stationary scanners, new technology has allowed people — and especially criminals — to listen to police communications on a smartphone from anywhere,' says DC Police Chief Cathy Lanier who says that a group of burglars who police believe were following radio communications on their smartphones pulled off more than a dozen crimes before ultimately being arrested. But encryption also makes it harder for neighboring jurisdictions to communicate in times of emergency. 'The 9/11 commission concluded America's number one vulnerability during the attacks was the lack of interoperability communications,' writes Vernon Herron, 'I spoke to several first responders who were concerned that their efforts to respond and assist at the Pentagon after the attacks were hampered by the lack of interoperability with neighboring jurisdictions.'"
Re:Took long enough (Score:3, Insightful)
I get that there are probably huge cost and scale issues, but it has always baffled me that police communications are still mostly unencrypted as complex encryption technology has gotten cheaper and cheaper.
Yes, until I saw this article I thought the police would have been encrypting this kind of stuff for years.
Re:Scanner Proof... (Score:5, Insightful)
Wouldn't it make more sense to have levels? Assuming that there's enough bandwidth for city-level, county-level, state-level, and federal law enforcement on a given piece of spectrum in a given area, wouldn't it just make sense for each municipality to have their own that can't be readily listened in on by others, but also be able to switch, with different credentials, to different encryption that could be read by other agencies? Or maybe to have one bit of spectrum and encryption for individual cities and agencies, and one for metro areas?
Or just have 'clear' channels. Your multi agency command and control channels SHOULD NOT be encrypted. That's for use in a disaster when you want everybody on the same page. Sure, encrypt the police channels - that is a reasonable thing to do to keep perverts^Hperps from being one jump ahead of the police. Everything else, not so much.
Easy fix. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Well (Score:5, Insightful)
In practice, the most common phrase heard on the unencrypted trunked radio system around here is "Call me on my cell."
Re:Scanner Proof... (Score:5, Insightful)
The entire concept of the police having the ability to hide what they are doing from the people is really disturbing.
Yes, but you have to admit there are certain important exceptions. But this can be easily rectified by recording the transmissions and using the key one time, so the signal can be decrypted after the fact.
I'm thinking of on-the-ground tactical radios. SWAT and such - there's not much reason the general public needs to hear that live, and you most definitely don't want some jackoff with a hostage catching wind to the fact there's a sniper aiming at him. Tends to make negotiation a bit difficult I would imagine.
Re:Well (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't necessarily know that there isn't basis. Certainly, a basic search [google.com] turns up plenty of video.
Whenever the police are trying to hide information from the public, the first question you should ask is what they're likely to hide, not what they SAY they are wanting to prevent from being released. Pretexting is very common among governmental agencies trying to grab more power.
Re:Sine and Tetra... (Score:3, Insightful)
Im sorry but let me fill you in on someone who works in policing. The publics information is considered private (much like healthcare and HIPPA). They have to pass very stringent computer/network security configurations and auditing to be able to process the data. While this is in place and all good, Joe Public can hear it on unencrypted (analog or digital) via scanner. If someone getting their plate run gets information leaked (most information is NOT needed by the public and only on rare occasions is it helpful) and harassed because someone heard it on a scanner, they could sue the police dept. for not protecting their systems by going to encryption (not really hackable, NexEdge or Motorola Turbo encryption). It is NOT the publics business to hear who is being pulled over and their birthdates, who they can and cant be around, etc. That is PRIVATE. Many times someones name is listed on the radio and they are NOT persons of interest in terms of being wanted, but rather a sexual assault or domestic assault victim. How would you like it if your sister was raped or beat up by her ex bf or something, would you like that all over the airwaves for the public to hear? I bet you wouldn't.
Most police departments to appease the media and public now put crime stats and summaries of arrests or incidents on maps or in daily reports for download after the fact that may or may not include someones name and birthdate. If you do want to hear unedited information, you can put a Freedom of Information request in for any incident that is of interest to you that is not currently before the courts (anything in front of the courts is only for the defense and the DAs). This is to prevent influencing a decision by incorrect information.
If you want to have a say and want to complain, I suggest you attend your police boards public meetings that you can hear the ongoings of the station including budget and implementation, otherwise, stop complaining.
Re:Well (Score:3, Insightful)
They're most likely to hide "Carl, grab some donuts on your way back", then "There's DUI driver on $intersection", then "Armed burglary at $shop". Encrypting work-related communications is pretty much common sense, doubly so when it's critical services like police, firemen or ambulances.
The real question is not "Why are they doing this?", but "Why the hell didn't they do it long ago?"
There are lots of things to be paranoid about, but you're looking in a wrong direction.
Re:Well (Score:5, Insightful)
These are the same guys who arrest people who videotape them misbehaving in public on "wiretapping" laws. [universalhub.com]
Are you SURE you want there not to be oversight of them? Because I don't trust the local cop as far as I could throw his donuts.
Re:Well (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:something to think about.. (Score:5, Insightful)
So what you're saying is, all somebody would have to do to break AES-256 is steal one of those "best key tapes" and then they'd only have to brute-force 10,000 possibilities?