• AirBreather@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    253
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    11 months ago

    Why are they encrypting their communications? Do they have something to hide?

    If they’ve got nothing to hide, then they’ve got nothing to fear.

    Or so I’ve heard, anyway, right?

    • rockSlayer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      123
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      They’re public employees. Their privacy is non-existent while on duty. There is actually no reason for police radios to be encrypted. The only reason police feel even a modium of responsibility to the public is because they are able to be constantly watched by citizens, and their unencrypted comms is an important part of that.

      ETA: I get what you were saying and adding onto it, not trying to contradict

      • gian @lemmy.grys.it
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        25
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Their privacy is non-existent while on duty.

        True, but your privacy exists even in this case.

        There is actually no reason for police radios to be encrypted.

        Actually I can think of a couple of reasons.

        One is that this way the parents of a violent crime or lethal incident victim can be informed about the condition before the press publish the news. Last year we had some cases here in Italy where the parents of people who passed away for some incident/crime discover it from the press even before the authority had time to inform them.
        True, in this case is the press that is in the wrong, but they could do it because they had access to the communications.

        Another is that maybe it is not a good idea to let criminals know what the police are doing to catch them.

        BUT I understand your point given the news about US police I read around.

        What I think about it is that if you think that all the US police officers are bad then I agree that the not having access to the radio communications can be a problem. The solution however is not to keep the communications open but to fix the US police.

        • Cyber Yuki@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          11 months ago

          In that case the records need to be auditable, e.g. available for subpoenas and all that. But given the frequency of their body feels suddenly “malfunctioning” during arrests, I don’t see that happening in the shower term.

          What we need BEFORE encrypted comms is stronger accountability laws and harsher punishments for police brutality.

          Otherwise I won’t buy the “protect and serve” excuse. They just want to save their own asses.

        • korfuri@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          It’s worth noting that in Italy, police communications are encrypted (they use TETRA radios, like most police forces in Europe). I’m not saying it can’t help prevent this, but when weighing the cost and benefits of encryption for police radios, we should take into account that this benefit is not absolute.

    • OtterA
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      36
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      I don’t quite get these comments, I think our emergency services went encrypted a while back in Vancouver Canada and I’m surprised NY wasn’t already encrypted?

      What about keeping the communications encrypted for the privacy and safety of people involved, and storing the records for a set amount of time. Anyone with access to the live feed can access the backups during that time, and report issues as needed.

      I’m not familiar with the issues with the police department, so maybe a better compromise would be to open up the feeds publicly after a set amount of time?

      • doppelgangmember@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        34
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        11 months ago

        I’ll put it simple.

        American cops are not equivalent to Canadian cops. US cops use tax payer money to pay lawsuits but are allowed a special police union as well. No other public servants get a union to do their bidding while tax payers foot the bill.

        Open the channels. What’s there to hide. In emergency events, yes it could be an issue. But people also need to know where serious events might be occurring in their areas.

        • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          I’d much rather have some real accountability measures than the accidental accountability occasionally provided by broadcasting their communications.

          • Krauerking@lemy.lol
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            How about both? The governmental systems are supposed to be open so that they can be observed to be truthful and trustworthy, and then keep checking anyways.

            • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              I don’t think things like names of suspects or victims should be made public.

              • iknowitwheniseeit@lemmynsfw.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                7
                ·
                11 months ago

                The American legal system has made a conscious decision to require public trials (so accused are public) with the right to face your accuser (so victims are public). This does remove privacy, but the idea is that the trade off is worth it to avoid people being “convinced” in secret trials.

                You may disagree with this trade off, but it’s baked in and changing it would be a big difference. Some exceptions exist, I think, but IANAL.

                • SapientLasagna
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  Obviously nobody should disappear into secret jails, but victims and witnesses are not on trial, and should have their privacy protected.

                  Having random people listening to police comms is no substitute for a competent regulator.

      • AdamEatsAss@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        11 months ago

        Historically in the USA many police agencies have tried to cover-up and hide evidence of wrongdoing by on duty officers. Some people viewed the open radio policy as a way to monitor the police to make sure they’re not breaking the law themselves. I personally have never tried to listen in to a police radio so it doesn’t bother me much but some people are upset about it.

        • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          Hey I love snooping on shit and watching reality shows as much as the next guy but I couldn’t be that mad about the police wanting to have a secure way of communicating

        • Rolder@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          I wouldn’t imagine that radio communications contain much evidence of wrongdoing. All the real illegal shit happens in person.

      • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Police interactions are public information. If you go to a police station and do a FOIA request, you get all that info anyway. Why would it need to be kept secret before the point it is requested?

        Apart from the fact that many departments deny legal FOIA requests and force people to take legal action to get the information they are legally entitled to.

        Oh wait. Maybe that’s why they want encryption.

        • BirdyBoogleBop@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          Isn’t personal information taken out of FOIA requests first? I can see why victims wouldn’t their names and addresses given freely out. Heck I think suspects should get the same amount of privacy too.

          • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            Suspects would already be covered, FOIA requests usually aren’t released before a case is closed, and you ideally don’t close a case half finished.

            Yes, some information is redacted from FOIA requests, but it’s normally not stuff that would be broadcast over a radio. For instance, they may blur the faces of bystanders, or mute a section where someone is giving the officer personal info. But again, there would be no reason to broadcast this info over the radio regardless.

    • IphtashuFitz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      When I was in the USCG Auxiliary in Boston in the 90’s they used the same VHF radio as all boaters for most comms, but they also had an encrypted radio they could switch to if they needed to discuss anything sensitive. The encrypted radio was crap though and only worked over short distances. But they’d use it when relaying personal details of boats/people they stopped, dealing with drunk boaters, etc.

      As time progressed they switched to using mobile phones when they wanted privacy. Cell coverage along the coast proved far better than the proprietary encrypted radio…

      • WallEx@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Hm everywhere else they’re not all for privacy … Must be a coincidence.

    • /home/pineapplelover@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      It’s not the proper argument but I get your point. Of course they got things to hide. However, public servants like police shouldn’t be allowed to hide anything.

    • Wahots@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Copy/pasting from another comment, but it’s assholes who ruin it for everyone

      In prior articles on this, religious nutjobs would listen to police radio and visit the active crime scene and start praying in the middle of the chaos. Like, every crime scene. People and police started getting really sick of their shit during an emergency. Other flavors of morons would also show up to watch shit go down. Sometimes, private information would also get said on the radio such as names or addresses, which could lead to harassment or true crime nuts showing up to victims’ homes.

      I kinda get why making channels private for everyone but reporters (for transparency) is happening.

    • R0cket_M00se@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      They currently aren’t hiding anything on the radio and are still getting away with the shit they’ve been doing since forever, hard to see this as actually being worse when the lack of encryption hasn’t lead to a perfectly transparent police force.

  • harry_balzac@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    156
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    Aside from the transparency issue, did you see how much it’s going to cost?

    Four hundred million dollars! The city is cutting back on pretty much everything else but wants to spend that on police radios.

    Everyone has to tighten their belts while the thin blue line gets fatter and more dangerous.

    • TheFriar@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      39
      ·
      11 months ago

      No matter what it costs, we will shield police from accountability.

      Name a price and go fuck yourself.

    • Mango@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      11 months ago

      One city’s cops want more than a dollar per US citizen for something I could personally implement for a small group of people?

  • TimeSquirrel@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    93
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    They actually need to focus on hospital communications. It’s scary what all you can pick up from paging systems in cleartext with a $20 USB SDR and a laptop. Patient names, rooms numbers, alert codes, everything.

    • Bazoogle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      11 months ago

      I worked in a hospital, and patient names should never be paged. Room numbers and alert codes are not PHI, and generally they would say “Adult Male blah blah blah…”. Unfortunately, in concrete mazes, paging is still the most reliable (as seen by how easy it is for others to see). And when you’re as important as a doctor, you need reliability.

  • M. D. Pan0wski@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    77
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    I find it fascinating how in the United States police radio communications aren’t encrypted and therefore anyone can listen to them. In my European country all emergency service communications are TETRA encrypted.

      • barsoap@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        EU security forces didn’t really care as TEA2 wasn’t backdoored. It’s a mid-90s standard with different encryption levels for different actors, it should be blindingly obvious that whatever is publicly available is backdoored. You may not like it, I do not like it, but it should’ve been obvious.

        The actual own goal was that while all EU security forces always had access to the secure stuff plenty of operators of critical infrastructure (think energy suppliers etc) used TEA1 as that’s what they were given. Also some EU forces bought TEA1 equipment presumably because they didn’t know what they were doing, with or without help from manufactures with an overstock of TEA1 radios.

        Here’s a 37c3 talk about the whole thing, from the people actually breaching the protocol.

        Aside from those encryption issues (which are finally getting addressed btw) TETRA is a great protocol, though. By now a bit dated so bandwidth isn’t exactly stellar (forget video streaming or such) but devices can talk directly to another just as in olden times, setting up a base station simply increases range, radio channels are now virtual, it’s all very sweet. Basically TETRA is to radio what GSM is to rotary phones. Which, as GSM phones don’t tend to be wired, makes a hell a lot more sense.

    • harry_balzac@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Well, for starters, European police are actually trained professionals (in general, much more so than American police) and have different oversight. American police also handle a wider variety of things that really aren’t law enforcement - things that should be handled by other kinds of professionals.

      EDIT: American law enforcement agencies are also home to some of the highest rates of domestic violence perpetrators and right-wing extremism.

      American police shoot and kill 3-4 people each day. That doesn’t take into account deaths that occur in jails and prisons due to negligence.

    • cybersandwich@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Not all llaw enforcement or emergency services are in the clear. The Feds are all encrypted (except for some intentional in-the-clear channels for open comms).

      One of the biggest criticisms after 9/11 was the lack of easy comms across agencies because of radio set ups, different 10-codes, etc.

      Hopefully this is something they are accounting for with this change.

      Also $400m doesn’t seem that crazy for an endeavor like this given the size of NYPD.

      40k officers and staff + backhaul + tower upgrades + vehicle radio upgrades and installation /$400m

      And is that $400m entire lifecycle cost? Over 5-10 years or whatever that’s really not insane.

    • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      It seems insane that they were communicating out in the open.

      On the one hand, you probably hear all kinds of cool shit. On the other hand, how in the fuck are they just discussing all their sensitive shit out in the open??

      • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        11 months ago

        They don’t? I mean, you can listen to them, they are not discussing sensitive shit because it’s public.

        • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          11 months ago

          So what do they use to do that? Or is it that they can’t because they don’t have a secure channel?

            • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              Jesus. I can’t believe they haven’t encrypted sooner. “We have a situation here, wait let me call you.”

              • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                Why would the situation need to be kept private? “We have a jumper at this and this street”, “shots fired on scene”, “I ate a burrito.”

                I’m honestly curious, what vitally secret info do you think needs to be communicated over radio? They aren’t for conversations.

                • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  7
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  11 months ago

                  To keep the private info of the people involved actually private. License plates, descriptions, home addresses, personally identifiable info. It seems mad that all of that is just broadcasted out to everyone. Probably wouldn’t even be legal where I live because of privacy concerns.

                • A_dude@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  I mean… Let’s just take your example of “we have a jumper at x and y street”. Is it really a good idea to have everyone know that? Do we want “journalists” to drive over their and take pictures of people in crisis (possibly worsening it).

                  Or let’s imagine a car chase, do we really want criminals to know that a spikestrip is set up 2 streets ahead?

                  Do we want information like warrant and licence checks to be held over unencrypted radio transmitions. Allowing everyone who wants to to listen in and learn about people’s criminal histories?

                  Just to add, I am aware that the whole idea of privacy isn’t really a thing in the US, the names and mugshots of arrested people are literally made public in some (all?) states, so you probably don’t care about the last point, but the rest still stand, and in lots of countries everyone’s privacy is considered a right, including that of (suspected) criminals.

          • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            Communicate private health information? A lot of times they still use fax machines. Information can also be stored in a secured database where access is recorded and monitored. If needed, they can always pick up the phone and talk directly with a person if you need something. HIPAA is fairly specific about this.

            An encrypted two-way radio, where only the two parties requiring the information would be on the call, that might be fine as long as you’re careful to make sure someone standing nearby can’t overhear. But that’s not what NYC is building.

    • Cryan24@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      I think most eu countries use tetra for emergency services. it’s great for cross service group/task communications also.

    • Toes♀@ani.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      39
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      11 months ago

      I suspect it would be helpful for protecting sensitive situations. Currently (at least with EMS) they call each other’s cellphones for that, not ideal.

        • godzillabacter@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          35
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          EMS communication over unencrypted channels is limited by HIPAA, patient information must be kept vague to protect patient privacy. In the event that, say, an individuals name needs to be given to the receiving facility to facilitate review of records prior to arrival by the ER physician, some other method of communication has to be used.

          • rockSlayer@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            24
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            It’s not a HIPAA violation for a report like this to go over unsecured radio waves:

            16 year old male, unresponsive. Suspected alcohol poisoning. EMS required. Address to be provided by emergency services

              • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                Does EMS typically provide patient names over the radio? That honestly seems like information that would normally not be needed, or potentially even known.

            • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              11 months ago

              They have to keep it vague like that because the channel is open to all. It’s a limitation of the system.

          • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            17
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            Encryption on radio communications would not help that at all. It would still be a HIPAA violation to share sensitive information on a broadcast, even if it is encrypted.

            Edit: I hope y’all downvoters aren’t actually responsible for patient information.

            • chakan2@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              18
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              11 months ago

              That’s very incorrect. End to End encryption is legal under HIPPA. All the receiving parties have likely filled out the HIPPA yearly thing, so they’d be covered.

              • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                edit-2
                11 months ago

                That’s absurd. There are very specific guidelines for sharing protected health information with and among law enforcement. There is no paperwork that “all receiving parties” can fill out to cover a blanket broadcast of protected information to anyone with an encrypted police radio. You would still need to have a specific purpose for disclosure, and disclose only the required information to only the necessary parties. An encrypted channel would still be available to dispatchers, administrators, and a bunch of random people that don’t need to receive that information.

                Covered entities may disclose protected health information to law enforcement officials for law enforcement purposes under the following six circumstances, and subject to specified conditions: (1) as required by law (including court orders, court-ordered warrants, subpoenas) and administrative requests; (2) to identify or locate a suspect, fugitive, material witness, or missing person; (3) in response to a law enforcement official’s request for information about a victim or suspected victim of a crime; (4) to alert law enforcement of a person’s death, if the covered entity suspects that criminal activity caused the death; (5) when a covered entity believes that protected health information is evidence of a crime that occurred on its premises; and (6) by a covered health care provider in a medical emergency not occurring on its premises, when necessary to inform law enforcement about the commission and nature of a crime, the location of the crime or crime victims, and the perpetrator of the crime.34

                https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/privacy/laws-regulations/index.html

            • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              Source? If you broadcast encrypted data you’re not sharing it with anyone who doesn’t have the right key to decrypt it. Someone could theoretically crack the encryption, but literally every method of transmitting information is vulnerable to being intercepted by a sufficiently motivated attacker.

              • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                edit-2
                11 months ago

                I’ll copy my reply to the above, but add that someone who has the key to encrypt a broadcast doesn’t necessarily have a need to receive private health information. Law enforcement officials may receive protected information if they need it in the course of their duties. Private health information should only be shared in a secure communication, but encrypting the broadcast doesn’t change the fact that

                This is like HIPAA training 101 stuff. If you’re a doctor at a hospital, you might be able to access any patient’s records. But if you peek at a celebrity’s serologies, you’ve violated HIPAA. Broadcasting on an encrypted channel would be like posting test results in a locker room and arguing that it’s OK because only doctors have a key to the room. Having access to information is not the same as needing access to information, regardless of whether everyone has their paperwork in order.

                That’s absurd. There are very specific guidelines for sharing protected health information with and among law enforcement. There is no paperwork that “all receiving parties” can fill out to cover a blanket broadcast of protected information to anyone with an encrypted police radio. You would still need to have a specific purpose for disclosure, and disclose only the required information to only the necessary parties. An encrypted channel would still be available to dispatchers, administrators, and a bunch of random people that don’t need to receive that information.

                Covered entities may disclose protected health information to law enforcement officials for law enforcement purposes under the following six circumstances, and subject to specified conditions: (1) as required by law (including court orders, court-ordered warrants, subpoenas) and administrative requests; (2) to identify or locate a suspect, fugitive, material witness, or missing person; (3) in response to a law enforcement official’s request for information about a victim or suspected victim of a crime; (4) to alert law enforcement of a person’s death, if the covered entity suspects that criminal activity caused the death; (5) when a covered entity believes that protected health information is evidence of a crime that occurred on its premises; and (6) by a covered health care provider in a medical emergency not occurring on its premises, when necessary to inform law enforcement about the commission and nature of a crime, the location of the crime or crime victims, and the perpetrator of the crime.34

                https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/privacy/laws-regulations/index.html

                • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  Ok, I think I see where our disagreement is. Would you agree that an encrypted broadcast is ok if you encrypt the sensitive information with a key that is only accessible to the specific individuals who need it? Not that I see any advantage to doing so—it’s just a hypothetical scenario.

        • JaymesRS@literature.cafe
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          11 months ago

          Off of the top of my head, I can see how an announcement of an open shooter at a location might attract some Meal Team 6 Rambo wanna-be to try and bust in and save the day and making it significantly worse.

          • Cethin@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            11 months ago

            I’ve never heard of this happening. It’s probably more for people avoiding police and maybe ambulance chasers.

            • JaymesRS@literature.cafe
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              We had a kid cross state lines to show up to a riot with a gun to defend property and shoot people. Just because you haven’t heard about it doesn’t mean it’s not plausible as a valid reason.

              • gaylord_fartmaster@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                11 months ago

                And? Do you think he heard about it from a police radio, and not literally every news outlet that was covering it at the time?

                • JaymesRS@literature.cafe
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  11 months ago

                  You must know that unencrypted police radios have been a upstream source for local media for a long time, right?

                  And I’m not arguing that encryption is a good idea, in fact I think a blanket encryption of emergency radio is a bad idea (but nuance on social media is invisible).

                  This thread is simply in answer to an earlier poster who asked for a situation where it could be helpful to protect a sensitive situation and I provided one that we have seen analogs of in real life.

          • CaptainSpaceman@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            11 months ago

            OK, so something thats never happened before needs to be curtailed?

            And even if so, active shooters are rare, do we need to encrypt ALL chatter for something that happens maybe every few years for a given precinct/jurisdiction?

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    45
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    This isn’t just bad news for citizen monitoring of the police, it’s bad news for the media as well. I worked at a news station. We had multiple police scanners going in case something big happened. The cops want no cameras around.

  • Critical_Insight@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Surprised it’s not encrypted in the first place. You haven’t been able to listen to police communications in Finland since the 90’s. I would assume most of Europe is the same way.

    • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      11 months ago

      Apparently Americans feel like this is a way of keeping taps on what their police do.

      It’s interesting. One argument for encrypting is that it keeps private info of the people involved private. But some retort that they can just use other means to communicate that info. But wouldn’t that mean that it doesn’t help keeping taps on the police doing shady shit since they can just use those more secure means of communicating anyway?

      • NocturnalEngineer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        They’re getting away with shady shit now, via the unencrypted channels, hiding behind qualified immunity and get away with literal murder.

        The question should be how successful is it holding the police accountable based solely on their radio communications. I’d imagine the answer is “not fucking likely”.

  • ilinamorato@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Yes, this is absolutely suspicious and definitely a sign of police overreach and government’s misplaced priorities.

    But.

    I do want to point out that, whenever a cop wants to do something shady right now, they don’t do it over the unencrypted radio. It’s not like we’re giving them a new way to be malfeasant. It’s not like they’re currently completely accountable and transparent, and they won’t be later.

    Right now, they just use their cell phone when they want to do something shady.

  • AWildMimicAppears@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    11 months ago

    i’m all for full transparency regarding all police activity - i’m not for full realtime transparency regarding all police activity.

    active shooter scenarios, violent crimes and everything that invites rubbernecking (read: situations where MORE people are a bad idea, which is most police/ambulance business) should probably not attract people; a 24h delay for release would be enough tho.

    my inner cynic already tells me - without searching - that noone thought about automatically releasing the info after a delay. :-(

    • foyrkopp@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      I genuinely like this idea, because it would allow to reach both goals.

      The problem I see is that this would probably go down the same as the bodycam idea, with inconvenient recordings vanishing due to “technical issues”.

      You’d need an independent third party doing life recording and delayed release. Subjectively, the US don’t have a great track record with these.

      Easier idea: Just publish last week’s encryption key. Probably won’t happen because some tech supplier will lobby for a more expensive solution.

    • SmoothIsFast@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      11 months ago

      They already find any reason not to release body camera footage. You really think they’re gonna release all policy activity after 24 hours?

      • Dkarma@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        Lol the police are a response team. The criminals always have a head start.

          • Dkarma@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            11 months ago

            Who’s dumb enough to use comms at all while uc? If so why aren’t u using aliases. Smooth brain thinking right there.

    • Wahots@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      In prior articles on this, religious nutjobs would listen to police radio and visit the active crime scene and start praying in the middle of the chaos. People and police started getting really sick of their shit during an emergency. Other flavors of morons would also show up to watch shit go down. Sometimes, private information would also get said on the radio such as names or addresses, which could lead to harassment or true crime nuts showing up to private homes.

      I kinda get why making channels private for everyone but reporters (for transparency) is happening.

      • Mango@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        11 months ago

        I kinda get it, but at the same time I think it should be our right to monitor police. I’m not sure how to reconcile the personal info part though.

        • SeriousBug@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          11 months ago

          Agreed. But I think the right to monitor the police doesn’t have to mean real-time access to police radio. The radio could be recorded, like body cam footage, and released on demand with FOIA. FOIA allows redactions when needed, so sensitive information like victims names and addresses could be redacted.

            • Tyfud@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              11 months ago

              How is he bootlicking?

              We live in a society. Compromises need to be made. If they end up being in the wrong direction, then we correct.

              The answer to solving this problem isn’t to burn the system to the ground, and it’s also probably not to keep letting the crazies get involved in crime scenes. It’s also not to give police carte blanche or obscure the information of it’s needed.

              His suggestion was a reasonable first step.

              Now. Can the NYPD be trusted to do the right thing when they get a FOIA request? Probably not without being forced. They don’t have a great track record of transparency. But that’s no reason to remain stuck in the past.

            • R0cket_M00se@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              Tell me, has the currently unencrypted radios kept the cops from doing shady and unethical shit so far? No? Well then it seems like they already have ways to break the rules outside of what the citizen is currently capable of monitoring, yes?

    • atrielienz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Imagine an active shooter situation where the shooter was carrying or had access to a police scanner and could listen in on what they knew and their movements. I don’t like this idea because I think cops need more media scrutiny than less. But I do understand why it may be necessary in some scenarios.

  • vsis@feddit.cl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    I’m surprised it was nos encrypted already.

    Any one can silently hear their frequency. I looks like an easy way to know if police is coming your way, and how avoid them.

  • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    just the police doing everything they can to make sure that no one ever knows what they’re doing because they’re such great big heroes that we normal people just can’t handle their awesomeness