CAP Radio Communications Are Being Monitored!

[RADIOMAN015]

Interesting blog article/comments at:
http://mt-milcom.blogspot.com/2010/08/cap-to-conduct-disaster-relief-exercise.html

Also within the blog conduct a search "Civil Air Patrol" -- looks we being monitored by many on VHF as well as HF SSB & ALE.

RM     

[davidsinn]

Interesting blog article/comments at:
http://mt-milcom.blogspot.com/2010/08/cap-to-conduct-disaster-relief-exercise.html

Also within the blog conduct a search "Civil Air Patrol" -- looks we being monitored by many on VHF as well as HF SSB & ALE.

RM   

That's why I don't understand why we even make the attempt to keep our freqs secret. They're out there on the web. Some of those pages even get it right.

[CommGeek]

JUST BY ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THEY ARE RIGHT SHOULD PUT YOU IN A VIOLATION OF OPSEC!

[davidsinn]

JUST BY ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THEY ARE RIGHT SHOULD PUT YOU IN A VIOLATION OF OPSEC!

I didn't say which ones were right. Some are wrong. What is the the big deal anyway? Radio emissions can be detected. You can capture the freqs being used with a scanner. Just using the radio lets an interested party know what frequency you are using. It is easier for me to use Google to program a scanner than it is to get the info through legitimate channels. What I want to know is what purpose does it serve?

[arajca]

It makes Ma Blue happy. Also, if we get into the practice of keeping our mouths shut, when some other freqs are needed, we have better chance of being authorized to use them. Remember, our freqs are not CAP freqs. They are USAF/DoD freqs that we are authorized to use. There are many others we are not authorized to use - yet.

[Eclipse]

This is a good lesson for anyone who uses Facebook, Comms actually got it right.

Yes, the information is obtainable if you work for it and care enough, but you don't just give it to people.

BTW - it wasn't really "news" to you that HAM clubs monitor and search for frequencies they don't need and aren't really supposed to
have, right?

[Krapenhoeffer]

So... My question is, now that we're *supposed* to be using digital, why don't we add some simple software-based encryption? I mean, if I can get software-based crypto on a tactical WAN, or for point to point University communications with the supercomputer, why can't we add it to our radios?

[SABRE17]

apparently some HAM clubs even have one or more of my wings repeaters on a live feed via internet

[SABRE17]

and one more note ive heard that ham clubs may be able to hear even P25 encryption  so various websites suggest

[wuzafuzz]

This is a good lesson for anyone who uses Facebook, Comms actually got it right.

Yes, the information is obtainable if you work for it and care enough, but you don't just give it to people.

BTW - it wasn't really "news" to you that HAM clubs monitor and search for frequencies they don't need and aren't really supposed to
have, right?

There is no prohibition against radio hobbyists (not just hams!) listening in to government comms and figuring out who is using what.  It's illegal to monitor cell phones or encrypted communications, but CAP is wide open.  Want privacy?  Encrypt. 

Of course we are still bound by the rules we agreed to follow as CAP members.

[SarDragon]

So... My question is, now that we're *supposed* to be using digital, why don't we add some simple software-based encryption? I mean, if I can get software-based crypto on a tactical WAN, or for point to point University communications with the supercomputer, why can't we add it to our radios?

Rules.

Keys must be approved by NHQ and/or USAF, and must be safeguarded according to USAF rules, which is NOT a trivial matter. BTDT. The freqs belong to DoD; we must play by their rules, as draconian as they may seem.

BTW, P25 isn't encrypted; it's just audio that's been digitized for transmission, using a standardized protocol.

[Krapenhoeffer]

I am awares of the DoD rules, but if DoD is so concerned with INFOSEC, shouldn't they streamline the process for getting crypto?

This is just me griping. Technology-wise, it should be simple.

[SarDragon]

Crypto has never streamlined, and likely will never be. The rulemongers and traditionalists will see to that for a long, long time.

[Thunder]

Had to double-check the date on the OP. Thought this was from a year ago. Its shocking that its shocking.

Don't write, broadcast, post, or tell anyone the frequencies. That said, I think the punishment for monitoring should be listening to my comm trainees get mike fright

"This is....Ummmmmmmmmmmmmm..............uhuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhh...................."

[Krapenhoeffer]

Honestly, if you're concerned with being listened in on, I have a solution... Only use phone or internet based communication during actual missions, and radio for practice (just in case the Phones don't work, or you're that far away from civilization...)

Back WIWAC, I absolutely hated it when the GTL pulled out his cell phone, because the Radios are hard kewl. And they are hard kewl. However, OPSEC and INFOSEC are more important, and the phone wins every time for sensitive communication.

[Eclipse]

The reason we're not supposed to use cell phones and internet for mission communications is that
the messages are never passed through CUL, which means they may not be recorded, which in turn makes AAR's harder
to do if things didn't go smoothly.

Its hard to deny you were given a tasking when its in writing and you initialed it, much easier to deny a GT checked in
and was told RTB when they did it via text message direct to the GBD.

Mission base also has a single-point of authority versus round-robin chains of tasking that happen when everyone is
in direct contact with their teams.

[Krapenhoeffer]

You know... You can just put the phone in the Comm Lair. Not to mention, I've only been on one actual mission (AirVenture doesn't count in my book) where we were actually in repeater range of IC. And since it was a missing person search, the State Patrol (with their fierce and intense hatred of all things media-related) said "no repeater" Instead, they sent up a State Patrol plane to play Highbird for all the resources on the mission. When we sent them radio messages, they forwarded them on via encrypted State Patrol radio.

Everything is done via phone where I live, in both CAP and EMS. (In fact, the unofficial rule in my district is that the radios are to only be used for patients who were just too lazy to drive themselves to the hospital, cell phones are exclusively used for actual emergency calls).

[lordmonar]

The reason we're not supposed to use cell phones and internet for mission communications is that
the messages are never passed through CUL, which means they may not be recorded, which in turn makes AAR's harder
to do if things didn't go smoothly.

No reason for all the message to go through the CUL.

If you had the money/space AOBD and GBD would have their own radio operator.

Its hard to deny you were given a tasking when its in writing and you initialed it, much easier to deny a GT checked in  and was told RTB when they did it via text message direct to the GBD.

Mission base also has a single-point of authority versus round-robin chains of tasking that happen when everyone is
in direct contact with their teams.

Comm is NOT a point of authority....they are a point of communcations.   I can't stand it when comm guys try to direct teams or mission base personnel.

[CommGeek]

why does everything have to go through the CUL?  it doesn't.  common misconception by CAP.

What typically happens is the team/aircrew on the field asks the Comm center a question, they then have to go find the appropriate person to get an answer.  What if the question was an emergency?  unless our comm operators are more like dispatchers and Ground/Air Branch trained its a bad idea to run everything through comms.   The tactical issues should be routed directly through the appropriate operations person.  On a fire scene do you think every tactical  TX  is sent to dispatch?

Another common misconception.  P25 is NOT crypto.  To be secure you must add DES/XLS or some other method of COMSEC to the equation. Just because you cant hear it with an old 'analog' scanner dose not mean its secure.    Some of our comms is already crypto.  The issue is control of the keys, and what to do when a radio gets lost.  That gets expensive.

[raivo]

Keys must be approved by NHQ and/or USAF, and must be safeguarded according to USAF rules, which is NOT a trivial matter.

Quoted for extreme truth.