Why do we allow the police to go digital without any debate ?

richopesto assumes just because we are using computers that we are all young…
DarkLady: very funny. I’ve gotta stop this laughing out loud in the middle of the office stuff…getting weird looks.

This is Canberra, if it doesn’t cause a problem for Washington DC Metro police, and many other police departments, las vegas PD for example, provide a link to a live feed on their very own websites, I can hardly see it being too great a problem here.

I don’t have a lot of good to say about the local plods but it is entirely reasonable that operational matters are not available for two compelling reasons: to keep sightseers away from incidents and to protect the operational modus operandi from those likely to use it for their own uses. For the second reason you won’t see too many agencies revealing their case selection algorithms.

wow, what a bunch of do-the-right-thing compliant do-gooders.
Not one voice of dissent. Not even as devils advocate. What is wrong with the youth of today?

Most of the private comms between police occurs on mobile phones now anyway.

…..and when they came and took my brother away, I didnt say anything, ’cause it wasn’t me…..

OMG!!!

You just figured that out – The police have been using a digital system for *Years and Years* – Probably about 15+of them.

They have also been encrypting the transmissions on an as required operational basis. Gone are the days where you can purchase a scanner and listen to the latest drug bust.

I strongly suspect that the Privacy Act requires protection of data relating to individuals from being disseminated into the public domain (Which Radio is). You will also find a requirement that information above a certain classification requires protection as specified under the Commonwealth Protective Security Manual. I also suspect that the police have classified their data as being Protected – given the sensitive nature of personal and crime related details

As a home owner, I certainly expect the police to be protecting information about my personal circumstances (ie – the fact that I was broken into, and my address details)

Other agencies who are using digital and encrypted communications include (and are not limited to) ASIO, Customs, Defence, and The Australian Protective Service. These guys will also be rotating their encryption keys on a monthly basis, as they are serious about security.

Get a life!

There is no need for people to know what is going on. If you are concerned that there is some ‘conspiracy’ going on put in a request to access the radio chatter. Peoples ignorance that the whole digital encryption goes untouched and is unaccountable is laughable.

Good old Jack Waterford surely would know this, he is after all an expert on everything.

Way behind the US? Try visiting http://www.policescan.us . Listening to the washington metro feed is particularly interesting. Many of these feeds come from the police department’s own website. You used to be able to get Sydney on that site, the link is still there but it is inactive, as it has gone digital

The territory radio network, in operation since 2004, is the digital system that all emergency service in the ACT use, and no equipment from tandy is going to allow you to listen. It has always been perfectly legal to listen, anywhere in Australia, so long as you don’t listen to help you commit crimes, you don’t discuss what you hear, record what you listen to, or make transcripts.

It is the restrictions on the use on scanners that limit their use as a journalistic aid, and Jack Waterford once told me that before the introduction of the territory radio network, that the scanner would do little but than sit in the background unnoticed by most. But what it did do is keep emergency services personnel accountable, and dimiminished the gap between, for example, the AFP and the media, that was so apparent in the DJ Suicide Ngunnawal siege incident. Presently even with expensive equipment, outlets like the CT have no access.

Another example of emergency services personnel being held accountable is in suburban Sydney early 2004, a fire was called in, but there were no firetrucks. Radio chatter revealed the reason there was no truck available, is because somebody had gone out on a pizza run, and was away from their radio. The only reason people found out, and action was taken, was the accountability that free access to the network allows.

While this is true, there is a point at which it is not worth expending the resources needed to ‘crack the code’. This is a basic principle of cryptography. There is also the consideration of time, being that much of the information that moves across a police radio network would be considered perishable (useless within a short period of time). As long as it takes longer to break the encryption than the useful life of the information, there’s no issue.

Wait until they get really cluey and use the one truly unbreakable (either mathematically or by brute force) encryption method…

anything thats emits can be collected.

anything that can be collected can be processed.

all it takes is resources.

For sweet jebus, the only people who have anything to worry about police sneaking around like underwear stealing wombles are those wankers who honestly believe it is ok to break the laws of this wonderful society. Pull off you tin foil hat and chase the japanese submarine in the pond of the High Court using long lines to derail the Mabo land title claims.

Just been informed I may be wrong about encryption on the AFP net. But I suppose that anyone who wants to drop $2k on a digital capable scanner REALLY wants to listen to cops.

The Motorola system that is used by the AFP is a digital system to allow more users on a given bandwidth. Encryption is not normally used used unless operationally required as it ties up bandwidth and can affect audio quality. The ESA uses the same type of system although without encryption. The ACTRFS digital system has coverage issues and they now use it as a secondary system having gone back to the old VHF system.

Going digital and encrypted must be a disadvantage to those criminals who used to listen if there was a police call to their area of operations.

I’m fine with the encryption. There is nothing worse than having the police attend you after a bad event, and then having the media and everyone with a scanner turn up and take a gander.

V qba’g frr nal ceboyrz jvgu gurve pbzzhavpngvbaf orvat rapelcgrq. V’q or jbeevrq vs gurve pbzchgre argjbex jnfa’g frpher (naq rapelcgrq) naq gur fnzr tbrf sbe trareny pbzzhavpngvbaf.

Encrypted communications is nothing new.

Should be “There is quite a bit…”

This is quite a bit of government information that is not (and will never be) public. Most of this information requires a formal Australian Government security clearance. The reason for this is that in the wrong hands this information could damage either individuals or Australia as a nation. I work in the space, and see no issue at all with police choosing to encrypt some or all of their radio transmissions. It has zero to do with accountability, and everything to do with operational effectiveness. If we expect the police to do their jobs properly, we should support approach this rather than criticise.

Hasdrubahl, I’m aware of that, just questioning the legality of it.

Most Government radios in the ACT are now Digital. Only the AFP and “Quiet” Organizations are Encrypted. Even the RFS and SES are now digital though not Encrypted.

All the other states are moving to this system and we are way behind the US.

You can pick up a uniden scanner that will decript, but will cost megabucks.

If the boy SGS had any understanding of radio newsroom practice, he’d know that police broadcasts are monitored all the time.

That said, it has long worried me that crims could be monitoring police comms – as it may help them to escape the long arm of the law.

It’s my understanding that they went to digital radios to improve signal quality and system reliability, rather than to make sure that thomas%00 can’t monitor them.

The public doesn’t need to be able to see the inner workings of public agencies in real time in order for them to be accountable — no one, for example, is suggesting that the public be able to wander in and out of operating theatres, prisons, government departments, and so on … but these are still publicly accountable.

It’s easy to blow the ‘conspiracy’ whistle, but most of the time I’d say it’s not justified.

SGS – Scanners are readily available for such purposes. I am pretty sure that it would not be illegal to listen in for the sole purpose of listening in (vg?)

Listening in for your own benefit i.e. in the process of commiting a crime – driving while listening – then thats a chargable offence (vg?)

I have had scanners on and off over the years – they are quite an enjoyable hobby – plucking signals out of the air and listening.

As for the police going digital – I would have thought that if it is an operational requirement then why would the public need to be consulted.

I have no legal standing to back up my claims – but this is how I see it – and I am quite happy to be corrected where possable.

I was under the impression that it is illegal to listen in on police communications…or is that just New South Wales?