Pasadena Police Encrypt, Deny Access To Police Radio 487
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.'"
Why is this news? (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.
Re:So? (Score:5, 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.
Re:Big deal (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:So? (Score:3, Informative)
hang on, these are SUPPOSED to be PUBLIC SERVANTS. Aren't they? That's what all the literature says. "To protect and SERVE"?
A little history:
The precursors to State-run police forces were a gang on private enforcers known as the Bow Street Runners, who patrolled most of London selling their services to anyone who could afford them or needed them badly enough - for example, to dish out vigilante justice to someone who had welched on a deal or raped someone's dog. They did their job so well, the Government wanted their piece of the very lucrative pie, as it were, and regulated them - giving them Lawful authority, Legal powers and the right and duty to bring criminals - wherever in England they found them - to justice, rather than wait for someone to go cap in hand to them and beg. In return the Runners gained immunity from prosecution in case - or rather, when on the many occasions - someone they were pursuing or had apprehended, died.
Current police forces still operate this vigilante, mercenary approach: cherry picking jobs and only working for those who hold the chequebooks. DO NOT expect protection from the police, that is not what they are there for: they are there to protect PROPERTY. For PERSONAL PROTECTION you need a BODYGUARD.
Press has political connections, not rights (Score:4, Informative)
... 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.
Media does not protect our interests (Score:3, Informative)
... 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.
Re:We the people... (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!
Re:So? (Score:4, Informative)
Interesting choice of words, "work communications". When I was learning about radio and the frequency band assignments, I noticed the UHF Police frequencies are in what is designated by the FCC as "Business Band", unlike the VHF frequencies where Police have a specific sub-band or slot of frequencies assigned by the govt'. I asked my mentor why they were in the Business Band, and he said "What they discussing over the air? Police Business!" Kind of funny, but it always stuck in my memory.
As to your comment, all the dispatch traffic on all channels is ALREADY continuously recorded in case there is a need later to inspect the information to figure out what happened during a shoot-out or whatever. So yes, audio can and is used for oversight, but If the information is needed it is already there, and it can be reviewed and perhaps released if necessary.
Re:So? (Score:4, Informative)
I used to work in the media for a company providing traffic reports for the local TV and radio stations. We worked very closely with law enforcement, including having 2-way radios provided by them so we could offer our aircraft and pilot when they needed air support. When we heard about speed traps they were setting up (they call them "directed patrols") we'd publicly announce them as part of our traffic reports. One day we were talking with some of the officers and the subject was brought up. At first we thought they may be upset that we were doing so, but on the contrary they encouraged us to do so, saying they saw a significant reduction in speeders and tickets written after we announce it. This helped them in their goal of reducing the drivers traveling at excess speed in the troubled areas. In fact they started calling us to let us know if we didn't hear it on the scanners, and even gave us their plans at times far in advance so we could warn drivers ahead of time. In short, they'd rather have someone hear about their trap and not speed through the area, than operate in silence and write more tickets.
While most drivers that knew about the traps adjusted their speed accordingly, there were some I'm sure that simply avoided the area and continued to speed elsewhere. The thing to remember is just because a trap is set up somewhere doesn't mean there aren't just as many officers as normal still out on patrol. Most of the time they bring in reserve officers of have officers work extra shifts for those directed patrols, so it doesn't impact the regular patrols. This means you're just as likely to get caught speeding outside of the trap area as you are any other day. The old "all the officers are busy in area X, that means I can do whatever I want in any other area" doesn't apply with speed traps or other pre-planned increased enforcement.
Like radar detectors, scanners aren't a "get out of jail free card" for traffic violations and are more of a false sense of security than anything. Also, in many areas it is an additional crime to use a scanner in the commission of a crime. While the burden of proof may be nearly impossible, if they could prove you used a scanner to avoid police patrols in order to be able to violate traffic laws, you'd have a lot more troubles to deal with.