Going on "Secure"...

[Resq14]

I'd much rather have all area LEO's be able to hear me, on portable and in cruiser, without worrying about whether they have descramblers...

If it's sensitive, it goes out via cell/MDT. Pretty simple solution that doesn't create cones of silence amongst agencies, which is pretty dangerous imho.

[ateamer]

Police radios are for communication between officers and dispatch. Most scanner listeners are alright people, but their entertainment and the miniscule chance that someone might use what they hear to catch a crook does not outweigh the need for secure communications. I'd just as soon have all communications encrypted. If people want to find out what happened on a call, we have a PIO who prepares press releases every day.

[Resq14]

In an ideal world, complete encryption would rock. But all-too-often, the situation is what NHNSP described.

[asullivan]

In an ideal world, complete encryption would rock.

Ya, and that ain't gunna' happen...... not in many life times,,,, if any.....

That is akin to proclaming the existence of a non-depleting source of energy......

[Fëanor]

Even then, what will it accomplish for the 211 susp? There are too many variables to estimate a response time. The 211 call may go out as a unit rounds the corner. I've been flagged down as a call is put out...

Or they might hear a unit respond that he is 3 minutes out; then they know they have 2 minutes to GTFO.

It's not going to be a "movie-style" advantage where they know every step the PD is taking, but it's an advantage nonetheless. Information is power.

[Georgetime]

I would much prefer that all communications be encrypted. About a year ago in my jurisdiction, multiple sources on the street reported one of our local housing projects had some bad guys that would routinely monitor scanner traffic and write down where our units were and note patrol patterns. That is one of the reasons why I disagree with officers trying to pad their statistics for the month by calling out "extra patrols" over the air. All of the agencies in the entire county where I work utilize the same dispatch center and radio system, so interoperability would not be an issue here at least. I have personally caught a burglary suspect who had a handheld scanner on his person and was caught inside of the perimeter that we established shortly after he smashed a television store front door and made off with a flatscreen television. I also chased a shooting suspect who told me upon his arrest, which was a week later, that he evaded me with the help of his handheld scanner. At least where I am the incidence of good Samaritans assisting with scanners is far less than the known instances of bad guys using scanners to evade us. In fact, I know of no instance that I can recall wherein a citizen used a scanner to aid the police. The fact is that we engage in life or death business on a routine basis, and we never have the luxury of knowing when the next life or death situation may emerge. I would much rather err on the side of always encrypting. Back when I used to have an in car computer, I would use Java-based encryption utilities to encrypt sensitive messages to other officers. Obsessive? Perhaps, but you can never be too safe when securing communications.

[Seventy2002]

Encrypted systems may not be as secure as their users think. Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania "found a significant fraction of the “encrypted” P25 tactical radio traffic sent by federal law enforcement surveillance operatives is actually sent in the clear, in spite of their users’ belief that they are encrypted, and often reveals such sensitive data as the names of informants in criminal investigations."
The authors of "Why (Special Agent) Johnny (Still) Can’t Encrypt" also found they could jam secure radio transmissions with a hacked GirlTech IM-me.
The title of the report is a reference to one issued in 1999. This isn't a new problem.

[NHNSP_ADMIN]

http://it.slashdot.org/story/11/08/10/2113246/Feds-Radios-Have-Significant-Security-Flaws

Looks like the Feds are having the same problem
..."The Wall Street Journal has a story describing how the portable radios used by many federal law enforcement agents have major security flaws that allow for easy eavesdropping and jamming..."

[Georgetime]

That was an interesting article. It is more about the P25 standard and the interface of the Motorola handsets than it is the idea of encryption. It did nothing to make the argument against using encryption, it just highlighted some flaws inherent in the system that would allow super knowledgeable and well equipped geeks in a lab to find a radio. The major issue was user interface problems, in other words people transmitting in the clear without realizing it. At least at my level of LE work I'm not terribly concerned about a well funded group of international terrorists using direction finding to locate a clearly marked patrol car with a light bar on top of it. I am fully satisfied that Joe the Burglar and T-Spoon and his dope slinging homies are effectively kept in the dark by encryption as it is being implemented now. That being said my agency has the hardware and could do it, but for some reason we don't.

The headline of the paper is misleading in that it gives the impression that the encrypted traffic is susceptible to eavesdropping when in actuality it's not. Of course it's obvious that if you don't have encryption enabled and transmit in the clear that your traffic can be intercepted. I'ts more of an end user problem, or a design problem with the implementation, not the actual algorithm itself. While I don't think there is any real danger posed by the potential issues brought up here, I do hope that these vulnerabilities are being patched or otherwise addressed.

[Georgetime]

Why would you think you have a right to this information? Would you want just anyone being able to find out your full name and address just from looking at your tag?

If he's a cop he DOES have the right to it.