Tweet fijado
That is a very important question and one I have been debating making a deep dive post into, so here goes:
TLDR: It depends on the interpretation of an FBI security policy.
The FBI maintains databases with law enforcement info (warrant status, criminal history, sexual offender status, etc...) which it provides access to by all law enforcement agencies in the country.
The way the FBI wants the data to be protected is detailed in a document called "CJIS Security Policy", latest version is available here: le.fbi.gov/file-repositor…
If any agency does not adhere to this policy, they can lose access to the system. Although I cannot find any public record of it ever actually happening.
The document is 460 pages and can be interpreted in various ways, for example:
A. It refers only to the data stream from the FBI to the agencies.
There is a lot of evidence this was the actual purpose, as the document mentions a lot about networks, cloud, infrastructure, and mobile data terminals. In fact, the word "radio" appears 15 times in the document but usually is refering to a radio in a cell phone or other data device.
B. This info should not be sent in any way the public can intercept.
This seems to be the interpretation agencies (including BCSO) use to justify encryption. That any transmission spoken over the radio could contain this info and be in violation of the policy.
Even if interpretation B was correct, there are still some problems with the implentation, in my opinion:
1. Almost all agencies in the county (the only exceptions are the 3 small beachside communities) have a dedicated "teletype" channel that units switch to when running a license plate or investigating criminal history. Encrypting this channel only would still adhere to the policy.
2. All LEO units in the county have mobile data terminals which is where most of this data is queried for and displayed. They have never been viewable by the public even under the old system.
3. Even if you dismiss 1 and 2 as being wrong, the county, and all other agencies in the county, encrypted channels that do not have the possibility of containing any FBI data, such as fire dispatch, working fire, and even lifeguards.
It all comes down to the interpretation of the policy. If you have time to look at it, I would be interested in your interpretation.
Other jurisdictions around the country have found ways to adhere to the policy without encryption, I refuse to believe it cannot be done here as well.
Karl Lambert@wklambertphotog
@ScannerBrevard Radio comm encryption isn't just a local issue, is it? That directive came from much higher, if I recall...
English
