On the subject of Encryption

[turbine_prop]

Whiulst at Comms Connect (http://comms-connect.com.au/) I met and got talking top a very senior figure from a very large and very well known communications company that is ( in association with Tait ) developing at this time a CFA RMR Apco 25 receiving set that will be capable of receiving a future " Encryption and Phase II " including NAK the CFA going digital is just the thin edge of the wedge

Regards
Turbine_prop
Melbourne

[blacktown]

Have a look at http://www.p25phase2.com/p25-phase-2
P25 phase 2 is for spectrum efficiency in trunking systems .... Two TDMA channels each 6.25khz instead of the current one in a 12.5khz FDMA signal
Nac = Network Access Code - digital tone (similar to analog subtone)

Phase 2 P25 trunking is what all the Government Radio Networks are planning to upgrade to.
In Queensland's case Phase 2 is the system they are implementing
Why? Double the capacity of limited bandwidth at individual sites.

[fire_rescue]

Is phase 2 new or been out for a while?

[Comint]

Is phase 2 new or been out for a while?

Depends on where you are talking about.

The Queensland Government Wireless Network (GWN), which is in the process of being rolled out, uses Phase 2, but Phase 2 has been available for a number of years in the USA.

APCO P25 Phase 1 is FDMA. APCO P25 Phase 2 is two slot TDMA.

--
Comint

[NakedFaerie]

To me its all stupid. Digital has about a 10th of the range of Analogue so why limit it?
Does encryption also halt the distance of the signal? So the more encrypted the less range?
Thats why rural is still analogue as they need it out there.

[railscan]

To me its all stupid. Digital has about a 10th of the range of Analogue so why limit it?
Does encryption also halt the distance of the signal? So the more encrypted the less range?
Thats why rural is still analogue as they need it out there.

There is a popular misconception that digital cannot provide coverage equal to that of analog. Generally speaking the two are the same, the difference occurs on the limits of the coverage areas. Analog will tend to be choppy but still readable to a point, while digital devolves into digital noise then disappear completely. Overall digital is far superior to analog. Better voice reproduction and noise reduction.

In the past some encryption modes did degrade signal coverage because of power reductions, that is not the case now.

I would suggest that rural is still analog because they don't have the money to change. Get use to it, digital is the way of the future, radio communication, TV, broadcast radio to mention but a few.

R

[Radio_Australia]

I too once believed digital had less range but after watching several YouTube demos and reading many "radio reference" threads I came to the conclusion digital is the "same" if not better then analogue .

[NakedFaerie]

To me its all stupid. Digital has about a 10th of the range of Analogue so why limit it?
Does encryption also halt the distance of the signal? So the more encrypted the less range?
Thats why rural is still analogue as they need it out there.

There is a popular misconception that digital cannot provide coverage equal to that of analog. Generally speaking the two are the same, the difference occurs on the limits of the coverage areas. Analog will tend to be choppy but still readable to a point, while digital devolves into digital noise then disappear completely. Overall digital is far superior to analog. Better voice reproduction and noise reduction.

In the past some encryption modes did degrade signal coverage because of power reductions, that is not the case now.

I would suggest that rural is still analog because they don't have the money to change. Get use to it, digital is the way of the future, radio communication, TV, broadcast radio to mention but a few.

R

Yea, I know digital does sound better and can have data in its signal too but still at a certain distance the digital drops out and just doesn't work where analogue will go further, it might not be as good a signal or as clear but its still a further signal. Example, I cant hear the city digital from where I am but I can hear Bendigo and I'm a lot closer to the city.

Think about it, A SSB signal can go for miles where a digital signal is lost in the next room if there is a wall in the way.

But thats my query, does encryption drops the distance a digital signal works. If so then why are the cops going encrypted? They get less help when needed and I've read here they have problems when going from city to rural as they dont know how to use the radios and there are incompatibilities so encryption doesn't look good. All its doing is covering up the corruption. If the cops weren't corrupt there would be no need for encryption.

[railscan]

To me its all stupid. Digital has about a 10th of the range of Analogue so why limit it?
Does encryption also halt the distance of the signal? So the more encrypted the less range?
Thats why rural is still analogue as they need it out there.

There is a popular misconception that digital cannot provide coverage equal to that of analog. Generally speaking the two are the same, the difference occurs on the limits of the coverage areas. Analog will tend to be choppy but still readable to a point, while digital devolves into digital noise then disappear completely. Overall digital is far superior to analog. Better voice reproduction and noise reduction.

In the past some encryption modes did degrade signal coverage because of power reductions, that is not the case now.

I would suggest that rural is still analog because they don't have the money to change. Get use to it, digital is the way of the future, radio communication, TV, broadcast radio to mention but a few.

R

Yea, I know digital does sound better and can have data in its signal too but still at a certain distance the digital drops out and just doesn't work where analogue will go further, it might not be as good a signal or as clear but its still a further signal. Example, I cant hear the city digital from where I am but I can hear Bendigo and I'm a lot closer to the city.

Think about it, A SSB signal can go for miles where a digital signal is lost in the next room if there is a wall in the way.

But thats my query, does encryption drops the distance a digital signal works. If so then why are the cops going encrypted? They get less help when needed and I've read here they have problems when going from city to rural as they dont know how to use the radios and there are incompatibilities so encryption doesn't look good. All its doing is covering up the corruption. If the cops weren't corrupt there would be no need for encryption.

Proximity is not the only test for being able to hear a signal, digital or analog. There are numerous others, terrain in between, altitude, TX power etc. Saying you cannot hear the digital city but can hear analog Bendigo which is further a field needs to be looked at in the bigger picture with the factors above plus others in mind.

Comparing SSB to a FM digital signal is not really a fair comparison. SSB signals by their very nature use sky and ground waves, while FM, digital or analog is technically to the horizon plus 10 percent. SSB is designed for long distant coverage while FM is not. Digital is certainly equal to the task, so don't undersell it.

No encryption does not drop the distance a digital signal will travel. The police are encrypting to protect themselves from personal and professional attack, the integrity of an investigation and information broadcast over the network in line with legislative requirements. I use to work in this field so can speak with some authority. To suggest that it is to cover up corruption is not valid. How does it cover up corruption? Encryption is not about avoiding scrutiny.

R

[vkcpolice]

P25 is just a new modulation just like Am NFM SSB it will always have the same range however like already said with analogue you will always have a little signal when the signal is weak and where digital will drop in and out. but at the end of the day p25 digital is better and its still in its early days. if you think about it you could have p25 over hf radio and talk to other country's in pure clear voice clarity its just a new modulation that unfortunately carry's the encryption option.
you need a stronger digital signal if the talkgroup is encrypted as the encryption key has to be passed back and forth between the radio and the tower.

[NakedFaerie]

P25 is just a new modulation just like Am NFM SSB it will always have the same range however like already said with analogue you will always have a little signal when the signal is weak and where digital will drop in and out. but at the end of the day p25 digital is better and its still in its early days. if you think about it you could have p25 over hf radio and talk to other country's in pure clear voice clarity its just a new modulation that unfortunately carry's the encryption option.
you need a stronger digital signal if the talkgroup is encrypted as the encryption key has to be passed back and forth between the radio and the tower.

Thats what I thought. So without encryption the signal doesn't have to be as strong so it will go further.
All more reason why analogue is better, it goes further.
It was the same with mobile phones. The phone towers were a long distance apart with analogue signals and now digital has to be a lot closer and there are a lot more black spots. In my area there is a huge blackspot and if your on a call while driving past your phone will cut out. Does it every time. Never did that with an analogue phone.

Encryption is only for covering things up. if they didn't want to hide info they wouldn't be encrypted.
When cops do special operations thats a different story, most of the time they are on phones not the radio anyway so encryption for the radio is irrelevant. But yea, they want to be encrypted if they are on the radio but the usual cop on the street doesn't need to be encrypted.

[railscan]

P25 is just a new modulation just like Am NFM SSB it will always have the same range however like already said with analogue you will always have a little signal when the signal is weak and where digital will drop in and out. but at the end of the day p25 digital is better and its still in its early days. if you think about it you could have p25 over hf radio and talk to other country's in pure clear voice clarity its just a new modulation that unfortunately carry's the encryption option.
you need a stronger digital signal if the talkgroup is encrypted as the encryption key has to be passed back and forth between the radio and the tower.

Thats what I thought. So without encryption the signal doesn't have to be as strong so it will go further.
All more reason why analogue is better, it goes further.
It was the same with mobile phones. The phone towers were a long distance apart with analogue signals and now digital has to be a lot closer and there are a lot more black spots. In my area there is a huge blackspot and if your on a call while driving past your phone will cut out. Does it every time. Never did that with an analogue phone.

Encryption is only for covering things up. if they didn't want to hide info they wouldn't be encrypted.
When cops do special operations thats a different story, most of the time they are on phones not the radio anyway so encryption for the radio is irrelevant. But yea, they want to be encrypted if they are on the radio but the usual cop on the street doesn't need to be encrypted.

Suffice to say, irrespective of the reasons and your opinions encryption is not about hiding the truth from the public.

You cannot compare mobile phone technology to two way communications. Likewise you cannot compare the AMPS analog system to a CDMA, GSM, 3G or 4G (LTE) system. The methodology is very different.

I have exampled the digital / analog difference or lack therefore, I am not planning to continue to go down this path.

R

[Pumper_50]

Gents,

I think some people really need to get beyond the whole 'encryption will cause or assist corruption' argument. The reality is a corrupt Officer will carry out such activities regardless of his/her radios abilities.

Please show me multitudes of cases where because Police had encrypted radios they decided that was the pinnacle of them being able to undertake corrupt activities?

They may also use their mobile phone, do we remove mobile phones from them? They may use a Police vehicle, do we remove vehicles from them? They may use a computer, do we remove them?

If a Police Officer is corrupt he/she will carry out those corrupt activities regardless, but you don't remove necessary policing tools like those above because of the actions of a few.

Also remember even encrypted police communications is recorded by the relevant agency meaning investigators can obtain said transmissions at a later time if needed to investigate officers possibly involved any corrupt activities.

How many cases in Australia was there in the days of old where because of what was said on an unencrypted radio system by a Police Officer, Joe Citizen listening on his 100XLT picked up on some sort of widespread corruption issue and was able to bring said Officer to justice.

That sort of scenario was far outweighed by the amount of criminals using scanners to commit crimes by listening to Police communications.

[vkcpolice]

im gonna quote every single word you said pumper 50...
Encryption puts civilains at risk
Encryption does allow corruption and higher people up that you say are so called recording these transmissions can also be corrupt.

it simply comes down to if they had nothing to hide then why hide it. you dont see the ambos or cfa or mfb hiding personal details over the radio so why should the police be so damn paranoid.


im sorry to say but at the end of the day. it is the beginning of a new world order.

[vkcpolice]

and 15-30 years from now if this site is still going people will come back and see these posts and know that it is the truth

[Phantom]

Now where is my tin foil hat again... I only just took it off!

[Pumper_50]

im gonna quote every single word you said pumper 50...
Encryption puts civilains at risk
Encryption does allow corruption and higher people up that you say are so called recording these transmissions can also be corrupt.

it simply comes down to if they had nothing to hide then why hide it. you dont see the ambos or cfa or mfb hiding personal details over the radio so why should the police be so damn paranoid.


im sorry to say but at the end of the day. it is the beginning of a new world order.

I am unable to see where you quoted me?

Please provide detailed facts, not suspicion or theories, that encryption endangers civilians?

They 'hide it' because there are elements out there that try everyday to get the upper hand on the Police in an attempt to better their own criminal and illegal acts.

Think I'm kidding? Do some research, look at a lot of the old armed robbery crews that were running hot in the years gone by, guess what the next vital bit of kit other than their gun was, a scanner. Why do you think that was? It wasn't to listen to the ATIS report at the nearest airport.

Nearly every armed robber back in the day had a scanner to listen to the police.

Let's go back to just prior to the MMR Network coming in to Victoria. There was a 'gangland' killing. What did the killers have in their car to assist them in evading Police once they had shot their victim. A scanner.

Have a look at the crew that tried to pull off the Sigma robbery in 1996. They has some nice scanners in hand, to bad for them the folks from the Police watching them had DVP radios so they couldn't be heard during surveillance and when moving in for arrests. Too bad for them indeed, but lucky for the Police huh?

[/url]

[vkcpolice]

Let's go back to just prior to the MMR Network coming in to Victoria. There was a 'gangland' killing. What did the killers have in their car to assist them in evading Police once they had shot their victim. A scanner.

there is no evidence for this

[railscan]

Encryption puts civilains at risk

You seem to have all the answers, how does it "put civilians at risk"? And at risk of what?

Encryption does allow corruption and higher people up that you say are so called recording these transmissions can also be corrupt.

So are you alleging wholesale corruption amongst the Victoria Police? How does encryption allow corruption? Remember to need proof, not just hearsay or theory but beyond reasonable doubt proof.

it simply comes down to if they had nothing to hide then why hide it. ....... so why should the police be so damn paranoid.

The police do have something to hide, their activities from criminals, just as the criminals try to hide from the police. As I said I worked in this field, both as street police officer and in police communications. All before encryption was in place and it was easy for long term investigation to go out the door because of $100 scanner, that is what the police have to be paranoid about. And for anyone who knows who I am and knows me, knows where I am coming from.

R

[vkcpolice]

ril scn i i have already explained on many forums pages how encryption puts people at risk please dont make me repeat myself yet again