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.

[Eclipse]

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

Because then all messages and taskings are recorded in the official mission log.

Lord - Comms is not the authority, they are the "voice of command" - maybe you have perfect ICP's where everyone works and plays well,
but in a trainee environment not all instructions are clear, understood, or don't conflict with other orders.

Having a single point of communications insures everything is recorded and in theory understood.  Also, when broadcast over freq's all
assets can hear, sometimes messages don't need to be repeated, and GT's and Observers can keep a handle on the whole field to avoid
problems.
(Yes, things break, people go out of comm range, etc., this is the plan, not the micro 1% contingency).

[Krapenhoeffer]

But when have you been on an ACTUAL mission where there were more than 2 ground teams at a time?

Training is one thing, and by all means, stick with the radios... But in an actual mission, you can document everything, and still use more secure methods of communication, to include phones and internet.

Besides, for your run of the mill ELT hunt, IC is going to be WELL out of repeater range anyway.

[Eclipse]

But when have you been on an ACTUAL mission where there were more than 2 ground teams at a time?

Katrina, Kentucky, most REDCAPS in my wing. 
Downstate we are a primary responder for missing persons, they routinely have a lot of teams, and many times from different wings.

Training is one thing, and by all means, stick with the radios... But in an actual mission, you can document everything, and still use more secure methods of communication, to include phones and internet.

You don't train one way and do something else during an actual.

Besides, for your run of the mill ELT hunt, IC is going to be WELL out of repeater range anyway.

We're clearly not discussing a small ELT chase, however at least in my wing repeater coverage is pretty good, especially in the areas we get most ELT's.

[Krapenhoeffer]

Well, I still keep my radio on, and monitoring whatever channel they want me to monitor... I use the radio for the required check ins, and boring stuff that the media frankly doesn't care about. But if I have a Foxtrot, it goes through the cell phone.

As for missing person searches, same goes for us. Most of the time

1) Sheriff designates CAP for all non-Criminal missing person searches.
2) Sheriff hands search over to State Patrol. State Patrol's protocols involves getting AFRCC involved as soon as possible, which means us.

And now that everyone and their grandmother carries a cell phone with them, missing person search radii are reduced greatly... And in those situations where the victim doesn't have a cell phone, and CAP has to be called in... You don't want to be requesting the coroner over the radio, where the victim's family, and the media can hear it.

Disaster Relief is another animal entirely, and I'm not worried so much about sensitive information, or alerting the media, as they have already be alerted by the presence of disaster.

[Thunder]

The CAPF110 is flexible enough you can log phone calls, text messages, etc. If box A is CC1 and box B is AIR1, put "Phone" in box C and "Text" in box D (and write the phone number down). It can still be logged.

CUL and all radio operators are under the Logistics branch. There is a reason we are not in Operations. We are a resource that is used, not people that carry out the mission directly. No radio ever saved a life.

Also, cell phone and text communications certainly can be traced and subpeona'd.

[Eclipse]

Also, cell phone and text communications certainly can be traced and subpeona'd.

First off, good luck with that, second, we're not talking about a legal situation, we're talking about "Jim said RTB" but "Jane said stay in the field".  No one is going to court to figure that out, but I've had more than one case where someone stood in front of me and said "I told you x..."  or you "you never told me Y...", only to find that the signed message sheets say other wise.

In my wing we use 3-part message forms and everyone gets a copy - sender, comms and recipient.  Its one of the few places I still appreciate paper (though we could go paperless fairly easily).  Rarely will I accept a tasking order, etc., that isn't in writing.

[Short Field]

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.

I don't care who has a radio operator - but I had better see EVERY radio call logged on the comm log.  I also expect to see every phone call to a team or aircrew logged by the AOBD and the GBD.  If it is a comm check-in call, I expect to see it in the comm log as well.     

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. 

Totally concur.  One of my pet peeve is when I am in the field and call for instructions from mission base and get told "hold one" by the radio operator.  Then after two hours the AOBD/GBD/CUL/PSC/OSC/IC finally return from brunch and I get an answer.

CUL and all radio operators are under the Logistics branch.

ICS allows radio operators to be placed at just about anyplace they are useful and assigned to just about anyone.  The CUL builds the comm plan but does not need all the radio operators working for him during the operation.

[CommGeek]

Logistics is Section, not a Branch

[ZigZag911]

As an IC there have been occasions that I spoke with a GT or even an aircrew via cell phone and revised their instructions.

Following such conversations, I informed Ops Section Chief, not CUL...OSC made sure relevant branch director got it on the board, paperwork, etc.

CUL keeps a communications log...the mission log is maintained (or at least under direction of) the IC.

[Short Field]

As the IC, did you log it on your mission log?

[lordmonar]

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

Because then all messages and taskings are recorded in the official mission log.

Lord - Comms is not the authority, they are the "voice of command" - maybe you have perfect ICP's where everyone works and plays well,
but in a trainee environment not all instructions are clear, understood, or don't conflict with other orders.

Having a single point of communications insures everything is recorded and in theory understood.  Also, when broadcast over freq's all
assets can hear, sometimes messages don't need to be repeated, and GT's and Observers can keep a handle on the whole field to avoid
problems.
(Yes, things break, people go out of comm range, etc., this is the plan, not the micro 1% contingency).

Having a single point of comm...means that the message gets passed between more people...anyone who has played "telephone" knows that is not smart.

As far as logging your comms...no reason the AOBD or GBD can't do that just as well as the two guys in the comm room.  In fact it would be easier because they would only being logging THEIR message traffic and not everyones.

[ZigZag911]

As the IC, did you log it on your mission log?

Absolutely, as for example "re-tasked GT2 from air/ground coordinated search to conduct ramp check at MMU".

[RADIOMAN015]

As the IC, did you log it on your mission log?

Absolutely, as for example "re-tasked GT2 from air/ground coordinated search to conduct ramp check at MMU".

My suggestion would be to ensure you number each tasking, e.g. #1, #2, #3, you could also use a prefix Air=Alpha & Ground=Golf.  This way there's no confusion and it is easier for the radio comm folks to control.  So that if ground team #1 completes task GOLF 4, they they report in "Task GOLF 4 completed, negative results" and that is easily logged by comm and can be audited.  Also some mission comms actually use two part telephone message type forms and actually write the message down and give a copy to the appropriate Air or Ground Branch director.  A copy is automatically retained in the comm section.  (Not my idea, but another guy in the wing who does a fantastic job (He can't wear the AF style uniform because of his hair length so it's the blue golf shirt or blue flight/BDU's)).

Also if you are using formal message traffic besides the DTG, at the beginning of the text message I would add a control number to that such as "IC" (India Charlie) #1, etc. IF you are responding to a higher level such as in a region wide exercise.   

Again it's a matter of keeping control easily and ensuring all messages/taskings are complied with and are closed out.

Also I think it is a very good idea to have teams/aircraft crews read back instructions each time, especially if ANY coordinates are given.

RM   

[Short Field]

So that if ground team #1 completes task GOLF 4, they they report in "Task GOLF 4 completed, negative results" and that is easily logged by comm and can be audited.

The GBD should know what GT1 is tasked to accomplish already so a simply task completed, negative results is good enough.

Also some mission comms actually use two part telephone message type forms and actually write the message down and give a copy to the appropriate Air or Ground Branch director. 

Not a bad idea when passing requests.  I tend to use a post-it so that the MRO can correctly read the task and coordinates to the crew/team but this would be better.  Passing verbal directions that are more complex than RTB tend to get screwed up really fast.

[Thunder]

Also some mission comms actually use two part telephone message type forms and actually write the message down and give a copy to the appropriate Air or Ground Branch director.  A copy is automatically retained in the comm section.

AWESOME idea - I think I'll use it in the upcoming SAREX I'm doing. Question though, do you staple to the comm log, or leave loose in a folder?

Also I think it is a very good idea to have teams/aircraft crews read back instructions each time, especially if ANY coordinates are given.

RM

I teach this to everyone that works with me. It is the responsibility of the transmitter to verify the message is copied and understood correctly, not the receiver. I have them verify coordinates, codes, identification numbers like Tail number or plates, addresses... basically, anything that if was even the slightest bit incorrect, could cause the whole mission to go south. In poor reception conditions, this applies too.

[CommGeek]

Most Missions and exercises I have been on we put a radio  in the operations section so the AOBD/GBD/OSC can listen and communicate directly with the assets on the field.

Too many times does the Comm Unit receive a message that the A/c  or Ground team has reached the target etc....and then it takes 15 for Cadet Snuffy to walk over to the OPS room, find the appropriate person and deliver the message.   

This way the people who need to know can communicate real time with the assets.

Or if you use IMU or instant messaging it helps as well.  But the Comms MUST remain at the tactical level.  Unless we are going to use our OPS personell as MRO's or Dispatchers.
We used to have an Incident Dispatcher in FLWG....and they did just that.

[Johnny Yuma]

Encryption?

[lisp] Super![/lisp]

Get right on it, right after:

- wrap up the remaining repeater installations
- flash every EFJ radio with the new firmware, a 45 minute job per radio X150 radios
- the SECOND EFJ, NPX138 and Technsonic reprogramming to remove the wideband channels X 150 radios
- ICUT
- Install the HF ALE radios they shotgunned out last Spring
- Install the HF ALe radios they still have shelved at NTC to go out

Gee, I also got a WFA visit, an Air Force Logistics Audit, a SAV and a CI in the next 90 days! 

[Gung Ho]

Encryption?

[lisp] Super![/lisp]

Get right on it, right after:

- wrap up the remaining repeater installations
- flash every EFJ radio with the new firmware, a 45 minute job per radio X150 radios
- the SECOND EFJ, NPX138 and Technsonic reprogramming to remove the wideband channels X 150 radios
- ICUT
- Install the HF ALE radios they shotgunned out last Spring
- Install the HF ALe radios they still have shelved at NTC to go out

Gee, I also got a WFA visit, an Air Force Logistics Audit, a SAV and a CI in the next 90 days!

If they would let people do it we could get all the radios redone. Then maybe they would issue them out

[JC004]

Encryption?

[lisp] Super![/lisp]

Get right on it, right after:

- wrap up the remaining repeater installations
- flash every EFJ radio with the new firmware, a 45 minute job per radio X150 radios
- the SECOND EFJ, NPX138 and Technsonic reprogramming to remove the wideband channels X 150 radios
- ICUT
- Install the HF ALE radios they shotgunned out last Spring
- Install the HF ALe radios they still have shelved at NTC to go out

Gee, I also got a WFA visit, an Air Force Logistics Audit, a SAV and a CI in the next 90 days!

If they would let people do it we could get all the radios redone. Then maybe they would issue them out

No, no.  We can't do it because CAP members (most) can't have the frequencies...only everyone else who can use Google can have them.     I even found a pretty complete list of the PAWG repeater PL tones somewhere using Google a few weeks ago.     So heh...not just frequencies, but the PLs too.     Funny thing is I wasn't even looking for them when I came across them.  I just saw a link that said "Civil Air Patrol," so I clicked to see.

[Eclipse]

I just saw a link that said "Civil Air Patrol," so I clicked to see.

Did you send the link to your wing's DC or simply ask the site owner to remove them?

[BillB]

Why would the site owner remove them?

[Eclipse]

Why would the site owner remove them?

Because the federal government, our regulations, and common sense, say they are not supposed to be posted.

We can ask nicely, and many times site owners comply out of courtesy.  The Feds (NTIA / DOD) tell these site owners to cease and desist.

[Johnny Yuma]

Encryption?

[lisp] Super![/lisp]

Get right on it, right after:

- wrap up the remaining repeater installations
- flash every EFJ radio with the new firmware, a 45 minute job per radio X150 radios
- the SECOND EFJ, NPX138 and Technsonic reprogramming to remove the wideband channels X 150 radios
- ICUT
- Install the HF ALE radios they shotgunned out last Spring
- Install the HF ALe radios they still have shelved at NTC to go out

Gee, I also got a WFA visit, an Air Force Logistics Audit, a SAV and a CI in the next 90 days!

If they would let people do it we could get all the radios redone. Then maybe they would issue them out

The firmware revision isn't for everyone and will only run on certain PC's. There's like 3 separate flashes that happen and if done in the wrong order you toast the radio.

I'd let more people reprogram the radios, except for the fact that folks start deciding what's "best" for their unit to have in "their" radios and start screwing with the codeplug. So instead of having 150 radios that are programmed the same we now have 150 radios programmed differently. I'll continue to program the radios so every radio you use works exactly like all the rest.

Well, units are gonna have to start doling out radios where they belong, in the hands of the IC's and GTL's. It's goign to be part of the SUI's and CI's to check inventories and gig units with too much stuff on the shelves and issued equipment where it doesn't belong. Noncompliance will be findings that will have to be corrected. I dunno about your wing, but I'm turning the screws HARd on my unit Commanders to get the crap off their shelves.

[JC004]

I just saw a link that said "Civil Air Patrol," so I clicked to see.

Did you send the link to your wing's DC or simply ask the site owner to remove them?

I sent a link.  That's all I can do.  I'm done with chasing CAP directors of whatever down.  If NHQ or the NTIA or whatever group doesn't want them there, they need to take the action.  They could be on a thousand pages for all I know.  I didn't look.  I just ran into them when looking for LE frequencies for my scanner.

It has been mentioned here before that they are freely available.  I don't know to what extent, but I've certainly seen them over time.

[BillB]

There are several scanner geek sites online that list the CAP frequencies. And CAP or DoD can not control the lists. According to the Communications Act of 1932, the airways are public. The FCC assigns the frequencies to hams, government, communications companies and other interests. The only limitation is the FCC has required that radios covering cell phone frequencies not be produced. Every scanner has a block on those frequencies. CAP regulations have no weight for non-CAP members, and DoD can't send a C&D letter to remove the government band frequencies. Many states have laws that police scanners can't be used in cars. But even then there are exceptions, usually the news media and hams. There is no law on the books saying that a scanner geek can't put the list of radio frequencies on his web page.

[ol'fido]

^^^^^ Yep!!

[JC004]

I assumed what you are now saying was probably true, but I didn't know all the pieces.  CAP puts FOUO notices all over that crap but I don't think that means much.  Heck, I've seen it on stupid stuff that has nothing special in it.  I was talking to someone from the State Department who was telling me there is some question about this whole FOUO thing and what weight it has legally since it's not classified information.  I don't know much about that - I haven't looked into it. 

Like I said, it could be on a thousand pages for all I know.  I was just looking for scanner frequencies using my phone, so I wasn't doing any intense web browsing.  I clicked...it was moderately interesting, and I went back to doing what I was doing.  PLs aren't that hard to get either.  If you have the frequency, you just go through the PLs trying to activate the repeater until it works.  MAGIC!

[Eclipse]

There are several scanner geek sites online that list the CAP frequencies. And CAP or DoD can not control the lists. According to the Communications Act of 1932, the airways are public. The FCC assigns the frequencies to hams, government, communications companies and other interests. The only limitation is the FCC has required that radios covering cell phone frequencies not be produced. Every scanner has a block on those frequencies. CAP regulations have no weight for non-CAP members, and DoD can't send a C&D letter to remove the government band frequencies. Many states have laws that police scanners can't be used in cars. But even then there are exceptions, usually the news media and hams. There is no law on the books saying that a scanner geek can't put the list of radio frequencies on his web page.

For starters you might want to look into which agency actually controls CAP frequencies...

[tsrup]

There are several scanner geek sites online that list the CAP frequencies. And CAP or DoD can not control the lists. According to the Communications Act of 1932, the airways are public. The FCC assigns the frequencies to hams, government, communications companies and other interests. The only limitation is the FCC has required that radios covering cell phone frequencies not be produced. Every scanner has a block on those frequencies. CAP regulations have no weight for non-CAP members, and DoD can't send a C&D letter to remove the government band frequencies. Many states have laws that police scanners can't be used in cars. But even then there are exceptions, usually the news media and hams. There is no law on the books saying that a scanner geek can't put the list of radio frequencies on his web page.

Thats all well and fine, if the FCC was the agency that controlled our freq's.

I'll give you a hint.  Its not.

[arajca]

The FCC does not assign federal government frequencies, including DoD (of which CAP freqs are a subset). The NTIA assign frequencies to government agencies - including the FCC. The FCC merely reassigns those frequencies assigned to it by the NTIA.

There are several scanner geek sites online that list the CAP frequencies. And CAP or DoD can not control the lists. According to the Communications Act of 1932, the airways are public. The FCC assigns the frequencies to hams, government, communications companies and other interests. The only limitation is the FCC has required that radios covering cell phone frequencies not be produced. Every scanner has a block on those frequencies. CAP regulations have no weight for non-CAP members, and DoD can't send a C&D letter to remove the government band frequencies. Many states have laws that police scanners can't be used in cars. But even then there are exceptions, usually the news media and hams. There is no law on the books saying that a scanner geek can't put the list of radio frequencies on his web page.

Thats all well and fine, if the FCC was the agency that controlled our freq's.

I'll give you a hint.  Its not.

[RADIOMAN015]

Why would the site owner remove them?

Because the federal government, our regulations, and common sense, say they are not supposed to be posted.

We can ask nicely, and many times site owners comply out of courtesy.  The Feds (NTIA / DOD) tell these site owners to cease and desist.

The logic above escapes me totally.   Whether any federal or military radio systems' frequencies are posted on a website, taken off the website, or never posted on a website, doesn't change the OPSEC/COMSEC principle that ALWAYS applies.  On an unencrypted radio transmission one should assume that they are ALWAYS being monitored!!!!!!!!

Somewhere buried on the www.radioreference.com site is a letter (probably about 3 year ago) from USAF AETC Comm asking the site to remove CAP and all AETC base radio system/frequency information from the website.   Apparently the website owner may have talked with a lawyer, because doesn't look like it was removed, actually looks like it was expanded.  Check out the Federal Monitoring Wiki on that website.

Even on encrypted transmissions, the signal is still known to be present in a specific geographic area.  With new high end radio scanner/receiver equipment with the "close call capture" enabled the radio would alert even to an encrypted radio transmission so the individual would know "someone" is close by.  (Likely by NAC availability/display & frequency, be able to determine the agency).   So cellphones may be the best method to use.  Sprint/Nextel has been advertising their system for public safety comms (not sure on critical systems that's the best idea).   

So if we go to encryption that's fine, BUT I would guess that that the asset control procedures on encrypted radios will be very strong and if you loose one of those radio, CAP will likely treat the member responsible very harshly.
RM

 

[CAP.is.1337]

Why would the site owner remove them?

Because the federal government, our regulations, and common sense, say they are not supposed to be posted.

We can ask nicely, and many times site owners comply out of courtesy.  The Feds (NTIA / DOD) tell these site owners to cease and desist.

Two words: Streisand effect.

[SARTAC Medic]

So? 

[Eclipse]

Two words: Streisand effect.

Not applicable.

[MikeD]

I don't see how encrypted radios will be anything but a total disaster in CAP.  How are we going to handle keying?  How tightly controlled with they be?  Do our radios support AES, DES, or one of the NSA-supplied codes?   Will we be able to key a radio with someone's laptop right before a mission? 

On a side note, will our repeaters pass along any encrypted radio signal, or would they need to be loaded with the current keys too?

[arajca]

AES

Repeaters will pass the encrypted signal as currently configured.

As for how to handle keys, that's a HUGE issue that has been brought up many times to the National leadership. No resolution yet.

One of the upgrades to the latest radios is Over-The-Air-Rekeying. This should allow a 'master' radio to send the keys to other radios. I don't know which radios will be masters or who will have them. I don't think National knows.

[CommGeek]

 the Federal USAR Teams use a 'Master" OTAR station connected to a modem.  To rekey your radios you simply dial in to the remote 'OTAR Command Center' control station with your modem, and make sure the radios being rekeyed are in range of the 'Master' OTAR station.

This way you don't have to distribute keys to anyone...its done via modem back to national.   In a perfect world we would equip our repeaters with phone lines, (They all already have modems). this way national  (or Wing) could push a key to any radio in range or a repeater.

[MikeD]

OTA keying sounds like the way to go, particularly with something like AES where you could have a public-key infrastructure in place, and therefore could verify radio ID before sending out a key.  It sounds like some OT&E is called for here.

[arajca]

The problem is not all of our radios can do OTAR.

[Gung Ho]

Why would the site owner remove them?

Because the federal government, our regulations, and common sense, say they are not supposed to be posted.

We can ask nicely, and many times site owners comply out of courtesy.  The Feds (NTIA / DOD) tell these site owners to cease and desist.

The logic above escapes me totally.   Whether any federal or military radio systems' frequencies are posted on a website, taken off the website, or never posted on a website, doesn't change the OPSEC/COMSEC principle that ALWAYS applies.  On an unencrypted radio transmission one should assume that they are ALWAYS being monitored!!!!!!!!

Somewhere buried on the www.radioreference.com site is a letter (probably about 3 year ago) from USAF AETC Comm asking the site to remove CAP and all AETC base radio system/frequency information from the website.   Apparently the website owner may have talked with a lawyer, because doesn't look like it was removed, actually looks like it was expanded.  Check out the Federal Monitoring Wiki on that website.

Even on encrypted transmissions, the signal is still known to be present in a specific geographic area.  With new high end radio scanner/receiver equipment with the "close call capture" enabled the radio would alert even to an encrypted radio transmission so the individual would know "someone" is close by.  (Likely by NAC availability/display & frequency, be able to determine the agency).   So cellphones may be the best method to use.  Sprint/Nextel has been advertising their system for public safety comms (not sure on critical systems that's the best idea).   

So if we go to encryption that's fine, BUT I would guess that that the asset control procedures on encrypted radios will be very strong and if you loose one of those radio, CAP will likely treat the member responsible very harshly.
RM

The guy that owns the radioreference website is not about to remove anything that makes him money unless they can force him to. He is all about sitting back and making money off all those mods that do it for free along with all the folks that send in the data for free. He then turns around and sells it back to you or to places like Uniden. He makes his living off that site and is not about to cut into his profit if he doesn't have to

[Gung Ho]

Are most CAP repeaters Quantar's? I think they are and Motorola cancelled that line so in a few years they will have to replace all of those any way. Maybe then they will buy what they need and not just want some salesman can make some money on

[ol'fido]

Why encrypt all of our radio traffic when:

1. One of the principles of ICS is open comms and our comms are supposed to support ops which are using ICS.

2. 99.99% of our radio traffic is ordinary admin stuff. Check-ins, lunch plans, meet me heres. We're not usually discussing plans to invade small third world countries.

Just watch what you say. No need to spend thousands of dollars to fix something that could be taken care of by keeping your mouth shut. 

[arajca]

When (not if) Big Blue says "Thou shalt use encrypted radio transmissions efective immediately", guess what? We start using them - or at least dealing with the issues that such a thing would create.

So far, the idea is that our customers would make that decision and provide us with the necessary keys.

There is a difference between open comms and plain English comms (which is what ICS supports). If the field units are using plain English comms and the transmission is encrypted between the radios, that is fine according to ICS concepts. The message itself is plain English. What ICS concepts do not support is such things as 10 or Q codes, made up 'secret' codes that CAP has been so famous for, etc. How the message is transmitted is entirely irrelevent.

[UWONGO2]

When (not if) Big Blue says "Thou shalt use encrypted radio transmissions efective immediately", guess what? We start using them - or at least dealing with the issues that such a thing would create.

When Big Blue comes down from the mountain carrying the stone tablet with the encryption requirement chiseled into it, they better be carrying a large check in the other hand because encryption isn't cheap an we can't afford it.

At the national conference comm meeting, the head comm guy for CAWG respectfully, but forcefully requested a logical explanation as to why we need encryption. After shooting down every explanation offered by the national staff with solid logic of his own, national eventually employed the secret squirrel defense. They knew why we need encryption, but they can't tell us why due to the missions being secret.

[CommGeek]

In a perfect world in ICS everyone will be non-encrypted and use plain language.  But in the  real world, you cant expect a cop that has been using 10 codes every day of his life to suddnly use plain english.  Half of the on the street radio users dont even know hot to turn on and off encryption...

The bottom line is what is your dept / agency policy on encryption / prowords.  in our case the USAF says you use encryption, and military prowords.   

One way to help inperoperability is the NPSPAC   Interop freq's.  Each band has several freqs set aside only for interoperable communications.  theoretically, when you are going to talk to another agency you would use plain english and clear COMSEC on the interop freq's.  But again, you have a police dept that used 10-23 as routine traffic stop, and another uses 10-23 as officer down.   Not a good situation.