• AirBreather@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    192
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    2 years 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
      90
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years 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

    • IphtashuFitz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years 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…

    • /home/pineapplelover@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years 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.

    • R0cket_M00se@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years 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
    121
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 years 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
      32
      ·
      2 years 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
      3
      ·
      2 years 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?

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 years 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.

  • ilinamorato@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years 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.

  • A Wild Mimic appears!@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 years 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
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years 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
      3
      ·
      2 years 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
        16
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 years 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
            1
            ·
            2 years 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.

    • atrielienz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years 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.

  • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    2 years 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

  • Obinice@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    2 years ago

    They’re not encrypted? What? That’s a gigantic security hole.

    Damn, are these guys up on modern tech or living in the 90s?

    • FartsWithAnAccent@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      Regular police radio should not be encrypted. Police should not be operating under a cloak of secrecy especially in the US.

  • Pan0wski@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 years 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.