View Full Version : Pueblo Police to Encrypt Radios
PUEBLO, Colo. (KKTV) - A letter to the people of Pueblo was sent out by the Chief of Police Tuesday afternoon stating the department will be encrypting all of their public safety radio channels.
The information was tweeted out. Chief Troy Davenport writing, "I have been evaluating information and data and contemplating a very difficult decision for some time.... This is not something that I take lightly."
Chief Davenport goes on to write that technological advances have made it possible for those who hurt and victimize the community to download free scanner apps to cell phones, giving criminals an advantage.
The chief outlined specific examples:
-Suspects who have committed violent felonies, and our/your officers have come across and pursued, have used the apps to avoid law enforcement techniques designed to bring vehicular pursuits to a safe end. This not only endangers the officers, it endangers the public.
-Wanted felons, including cases involving convicted felons in possession of firearms have monitored officers radio traffic as they approach locations where these individuals are located in an attempt to evade arrest.
-Post-arrest interviews of wanted parolees has confirmed that they have used scanner apps to evade arrest.
-Investigation has confirmed that several instances, suspects driving stolen motor vehicles have used scanner apps to avoid officers.
The encryption process will take place over the next 45 days.
The chief goes on to say he is willing to share the encryption codes with media partners.
http://www.kktv.com/content/news/Pueblo-police-to-encrypt-radios-465302823.html
Um... how is this not already a thing? COMSEC isn't exactly rocket science and the technology to do so is readily available. Simply amazing.
AND... this is rich, they're going to share their encryption with the media. *bangs forehead on desk*
When you live in a place without roads, encryption is a mystery.
KevDen2005
12-20-2017, 09:42
http://www.kktv.com/content/news/Pueblo-police-to-encrypt-radios-465302823.html
Um... how is this not already a thing? COMSEC isn't exactly rocket science and the technology to do so is readily available. Simply amazing.
AND... this is rich, they're going to share their encryption with the media. *bangs forehead on desk*
Until we went encrypted we were running into a lot more issues of bad guys using apps to listen to us.
The problem is other agencies can't either so it becomes difficult with mutual aid situations.
I worked for an agency that was encrypted and went un encrypted. There was a time that the media was yelling about transparency with police departments and this was one of their complaints. After numerous instances in each PD I think they are realizing they are much safer being encrypted. Also, the media would hear calls for service get dispatched and either show up while it was still in progress and get in the way or start demanding explanations while it was still in progress and the investigation hadn't even begun yet.
Martinjmpr
12-20-2017, 10:09
When you live in a place without roads, encryption is a mystery.
:D
72898
Martinjmpr
12-20-2017, 10:11
I thought most police agencies were now using UHF "trunked" communications that were very difficult to listen in on anyway?
I don't fully understand trunked communications (which is sort of embarrassing because I do have a ham license) but I had thought that it was not easy to follow those frequencies. Not like in the old days when everything was on VHF and in the clear.
http://www.kktv.com/content/news/Pueblo-police-to-encrypt-radios-465302823.html
Um... how is this not already a thing? COMSEC isn't exactly rocket science and the technology to do so is readily available. Simply amazing.
AND... this is rich, they're going to share their encryption with the media. *bangs forehead on desk*
I am against the whole encryption thing. I get the 'safety' argument but it doesn't trump the 'Taxpayers paid for this, so they have a right to listen.' argument. The whole point of having unencrypted comms for public servants is so that people could monitor what was going on. Encrypting the comms is a slap in the face to every single tax payer. This is bad policy.
Those that know me know that, among other things, I design, build, and engineer *real* encrypted comm architectures for a living. So this is something that I know a little more than something about.
I thought most police agencies were now using UHF "trunked" communications that were very difficult to listen in on anyway?
Trunk tracking is trivial and built into every modern scanner.
Taxpayers paid for all the military radios, too. But that doesn't mean the .mil is going to run in the clear when stateside. If OPSEC and COMSEC is a real concern for them (which it should be), then they should probably run a split model and have a publicly available channel for basic, non-impacting stuff. Don't a lot of Dept's already do that anyway for SWAT situations?
As for interagency/other depts. issues, they've known about the lack of integration of commo systems and processes as a real, true risk and threat to the lives of police, firefighters, and EMTs since before 9/11. 9/11 drove that home in a very painful way. They still haven't fixed it, so unfortunately the guys on the street will continue to get the short end.
I thought that after Columbine, the police departments were going to be working with other departments and sharing their encryptions so they could talk with each other. They haven't?
OneGuy67
12-20-2017, 12:25
I thought that after Columbine, the police departments were going to be working with other departments and sharing their encryptions so they could talk with each other. They haven't?
The state went out and paid for a bunch of repeaters and a state radio system in which they have what they call MAC (mutual aid channels) channels that are programmed into all cooperating agencies radios, so they can speak to each other as long as they are on the same type systems. The problem as described above is, they are unencrypted and anyone can hear. Back in Columbine time, we had people on the 155 MHz, 400 MHz and 800 MHz systems and they could not speak to each other. Now, most are on the 800MHz and above systems.
The state went out and paid for a bunch of repeaters and a state radio system in which they have what they call MAC (mutual aid channels) channels that are programmed into all cooperating agencies radios, so they can speak to each other as long as they are on the same type systems. The problem as described above is, they are unencrypted and anyone can hear. Back in Columbine time, we had people on the 155 MHz, 400 MHz and 800 MHz systems and they could not speak to each other. Now, most are on the 800MHz and above systems.
Ah! Thank you for that explanation. That makes sense.
Taxpayers paid for all the military radios, too. But that doesn't mean the .mil is going to run in the clear when stateside.
"..the traditional American principle of separating civilian and military authority." There is a difference between the .mil and the civilian police. While we, as a nation, have tended to confuse the two over the last 20 years - it doesn't mean the principal shouldn't be upheld. See the Posse Comitatus Act and the Insurrection Act of 1807.
There have been tens of thousands of cases where people who listen to scanners have caught bad actors doing bad things. Those bad actors tend to be civil officials lying, stealing, and hurting others. When departments encrypt the public looses... "they who can give up essential Liberty to obtain a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety".
If OPSEC and COMSEC is a real concern for them (which it should be), then they should probably run a split model and have a publicly available channel for basic, non-impacting stuff. Don't a lot of Dept's already do that anyway for SWAT situations?
I won't get into the technical difficulties of this as it isn't really germane to the discussion - but it comes down to costs. Radios that can do per TGID encryption cost more than radios that do per frequency band encryption. There is also a operational costs of managing encryption keys on a per TGID/situation basis. It gets out of control rather quickly.
"..the traditional American principle of separating civilian and military authority." There is a difference between the .mil and the civilian police. While we, as a nation, have tended to confuse the two over the last 20 years - it doesn't mean the principal shouldn't be upheld. See the Posse Comitatus Act and the Insurrection Act of 1807.
There have been tens of thousands of cases where people who listen to scanners have caught bad actors doing bad things. Those bad actors tend to be civil officials lying, stealing, and hurting others. When departments encrypt the public looses... "they who can give up essential Liberty to obtain a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety".
I won't get into the technical difficulties of this as it isn't really germane to the discussion - but it comes down to costs. Radios that can do per TGID encryption cost more than radios that do per frequency band encryption. There is also a operational costs of managing encryption keys on a per TGID/situation basis. It gets out of control rather quickly.
While I don't necessarily disagree with you, I definitely would not want my transmissions in the clear during an operation if those transmissions could result in an unnecessary escalation.
I am against the whole encryption thing. I get the 'safety' argument but it doesn't trump the 'Taxpayers paid for this, so they have a right to listen.' argument. The whole point of having unencrypted comms for public servants is so that people could monitor what was going on. Encrypting the comms is a slap in the face to every single tax payer. This is bad policy.
Those that know me know that, among other things, I design, build, and engineer *real* encrypted comm architectures for a living. So this is something that I know a little more than something about.
You also don't work in LE, so this is something you know a little less about. There is still a lot that goes on, real time, that are beneficial to keep out of the hands of the public, such as ongoing searches, attempts to locate, and felony apprehensions. I don't see encryption of LE radio traffic as a slap in the face, I see it as a means of keeping us safe. If I'm out on a search for a violent suspect, and we set up a perimeter, and air that information over the radio (without encryption) and the bad guy has a scanner app that can hear our comms, he knows exactly where we are and can map that out to avoid detection or even ambush those units. You want transparency? Do what they do with video and other data- fill out a FOIA request after-the-fact and the agency should be more than happy to oblige. But going on in real time, no, you shouldn't have a *right* to that for officer safety reasons.
You also don't work in LE, so this is something you know a little less about.
You're right. I don't work as in LE, so my opinion is obviously worth less than someone who does. Regardless of whether I have any knowledge or experience, of any sort, that could shed information on the debate - even if that experience and knowledge comes from working with hundreds of departments around the world, authoring numerous papers on the subject, or testifying in front of FCC about such matters.
There is still a lot that goes on, real time, that are beneficial to keep out of the hands of the public, such as ongoing searches, attempts to locate, and felony apprehensions. I don't see encryption of LE radio traffic as a slap in the face, I see it as a means of keeping us safe. If I'm out on a search for a violent suspect, and we set up a perimeter, and air that information over the radio (without encryption) and the bad guy has a scanner app that can hear our comms, he knows exactly where we are and can map that out to avoid detection or even ambush those units. You want transparency? Do what they do with video and other data- fill out a FOIA request after-the-fact and the agency should be more than happy to oblige. But going on in real time, no, you shouldn't have a *right* to that for officer safety reasons.
By your same argument, citizens should not have access to anything that could pose a threat to officer safety. Right?
Officer safety is a critical topic, but so are the rights of the People to have transparency in their government. There is a balance to be struck (in this argument), but that balance, currently, comes at a rather stiff financial and operational penalty. When someone comes out and just screams "Officer Safety" I know they are doing from a place of concern - but it cannot be used as a catch-all to render moot the peoples rights. Those same rights that officers are supposed to be working so hard to protect.
I thought most departments out here had encryption already? Yea when I was at Ground Zero the comms was a nightmare to say the least. We had to have a multitude of radios to keep up with what was going on.
"..the traditional American principle of separating civilian and military authority." There is a difference between the .mil and the civilian police. While we, as a nation, have tended to confuse the two over the last 20 years - it doesn't mean the principal shouldn't be upheld. See the Posse Comitatus Act and the Insurrection Act of 1807.
There have been tens of thousands of cases where people who listen to scanners have caught bad actors doing bad things. Those bad actors tend to be civil officials lying, stealing, and hurting others. When departments encrypt the public looses... "they who can give up essential Liberty to obtain a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety".
Would it matter if the radio broadcast was rebroadcast unedited to the public, but delayed, say 24 to 48 hours?
This satisfies both lawful sides. Keeps officers safe realtime, and the public gets full access to police comms.
.455_Hunter
12-20-2017, 22:54
If I hear a bunch of sirens rolling into my neighborhood, I want to be able to know what is occuring and whether I need to take action to safeguard my family and property. Reverse 911 and other "alert" systems always operating behind the power curve in terms of timely information. This applies to LE actions and other emergencies, like forest fires.
I don't think some people realize the scale of DTRS (Colorado's trunked comm system). A quick look shows DTRS currently has ~3,400 unique talk groups and ~300 towers. It also averages abound 9M 'calls' a month. That is one of the largest in the country.
Encryption requires installation of additional software and/or hardware in radios and dispatch consoles - every single radio/console involved in the encrypted comms requires an upgrade. Additionally the encryption keys need to be managed and changed frequently.
Also, the various 'scanner apps' typically delay their re-transmissions over the Internet by 5-10 minutes. Further, many of them do not include SWAT and 'sensitive' channels.
Obviously public safety should outweigh every other single deciding factor.
GilpinGuy
12-21-2017, 10:12
If I hear a bunch of sirens rolling into my neighborhood, I want to be able to know what is occuring and whether I need to take action to safeguard my family and property. Reverse 911 and other "alert" systems always operating behind the power curve in terms of timely information. This applies to LE actions and other emergencies, like forest fires.
This is what I'm thinking. Sirens are rare up here, and when I hear one the scanner goes on immediately if it wasn't on already.
My guess is that many more citizens benefit from non-encrypted comms than criminals. But the lawful citizen isn't represented adequately.
Just like guns. A homeowner defends himself during a break in and its on the back pages and no big deal, if it's reported at all. A thug shoots a kid in a drive by and it's front page news.
You're right. I don't work as in LE, so my opinion is obviously worth less than someone who does. Regardless of whether I have any knowledge or experience, of any sort, that could shed information on the debate - even if that experience and knowledge comes from working with hundreds of departments around the world, authoring numerous papers on the subject, or testifying in front of FCC about such matters.
By your same argument, citizens should not have access to anything that could pose a threat to officer safety. Right?
Officer safety is a critical topic, but so are the rights of the People to have transparency in their government. There is a balance to be struck (in this argument), but that balance, currently, comes at a rather stiff financial and operational penalty. When someone comes out and just screams "Officer Safety" I know they are doing from a place of concern - but it cannot be used as a catch-all to render moot the peoples rights. Those same rights that officers are supposed to be working so hard to protect.
My argument didn't once curtail anyone's "rights." However, I didn't realize that everyone had the right to listen in on police radios... must have been sick on that day of HS civics class. You never addressed my comment about transparency and FOIA requests. Since LE agencies are accountable to the public, if you wanted to get a copy of radio traffic for a certain event, that request could certainly be made. The agency I work for records several channels, including our patrol and jail channels, and these recordings are available upon request. I find that to be a fair amount of transparency. But if you have a differing opinion I would love to hear it and why. You seem to know quite a bit about radio technology, which I find fascinating, but my understanding of it is pretty limited at best. I R can use the radio, that's about it :P
Would it matter if the radio broadcast was rebroadcast unedited to the public, but delayed, say 24 to 48 hours?
This satisfies both lawful sides. Keeps officers safe realtime, and the public gets full access to police comms.
I agree with this.
If I hear a bunch of sirens rolling into my neighborhood, I want to be able to know what is occuring and whether I need to take action to safeguard my family and property. Reverse 911 and other "alert" systems always operating behind the power curve in terms of timely information. This applies to LE actions and other emergencies, like forest fires.
Unfortunately this is the world we live in. I know they're upgrading the CODERED alert system in and around the metro area, and it's starting to catch up. You have to realize that a lot of these upgrades cost a lot, and local .govs don't really have the funding for it. It's a difficult proposition- how to protect the public as well as protecting ourselves in the same action.
I don't think some people realize the scale of DTRS (Colorado's trunked comm system). A quick look shows DTRS currently has ~3,400 unique talk groups and ~300 towers. It also averages abound 9M 'calls' a month. That is one of the largest in the country.
Encryption requires installation of additional software and/or hardware in radios and dispatch consoles - every single radio/console involved in the encrypted comms requires an upgrade. Additionally the encryption keys need to be managed and changed frequently.
Also, the various 'scanner apps' typically delay their re-transmissions over the Internet by 5-10 minutes. Further, many of them do not include SWAT and 'sensitive' channels.
I didn't know for sure if all of the scanner apps were delayed- good info. I'm fine with this. Also, not every critical incident utilizes tactical comms (like SWAT channels). We had a shooting a couple months back that was on our Channel 1, they just cleared all non-critical traffic and used that channel instead of getting everyone involved to switch to TAC. While I support encryption of LE radio systems, I also recognize that there are probably costs involve that make it prohibitive. The only point I'd emphasize with some of the scanner apps was a story I heard from a counterpart with Broward County S.O. in FL who stated that they had a barricaded subject listening in on a scanner app and when he surrendered they asked what changed his mind, he replied "Because I heard on the scanner you were gonna gas me out." That was following a discussion on the radio to deploy CS.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.