Pueblo Police to Encrypt Radios

[CS1983]

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/Pue...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*

[Irving]

When you live in a place without roads, encryption is a mystery.

[Martinjmpr]

When you live in a place without roads, encryption is a mystery.

[KevDen2005]

http://www.kktv.com/content/news/Pue...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]

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.

[asmo]

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.

[asmo]

http://www.kktv.com/content/news/Pue...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.

[CS1983]

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.

[asmo]

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.

[CS1983]

"..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.