Do Encryption and Corruption go hand in hand? Maybe sometimes

Besides losing a hobby that I’ve done on and off since I was a kid in a small town in Nebraska, this is what scares me as a citizen about the full time use of encryption. Do Encryption and corruption go hand in hand? You be the judge, but looks like they did in this case.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m pro police, but this was a police department run amuck.

Besides being scary, this is an interesting broadcast if you have time. Act one is what I’m talking about. The Miami Gardens PD. And they also happen to be full time encrypted. So would this big time corruption have been caught earlier if they were monitorable? I would think so.

Of course I’m just assuming at the time of this going on they were encrypted. I think the system is different now, but I bet they were then. If not, then they did it after that, which would be just as bad in my book.

Radio show:

Cops See It Differently, Part Two | This American Life

One of my favorite parts is the guy that the police arrested not once, but a bunch of times for trespassing at the place where he worked. And just the sheer numbers of contacts and arrests the media person talks about show there was a big problem.

Database showing encryption:

Miami-Dade County Public Services (Project 25) Trunking System, Miami, Florida - Scanner Frequencies

I realize this doesn’t mean Fort Collins, Estes Park, Westminster, and Arvada are all corrupt and they probably aren’t. But the point is there is no way to know when your police are completely secret. In the future they could be doing anything and get no attention about it unless someone is brave enough and has enough money to do something about it.

And I know it wouldn’t be the same situation as Miami Gardens. The demographics are way different. But it doesn’t have to be the same thing. It could be anything.

And I still think an informed public is safer than being in the dark. Not the other way around like some Chiefs have said. I will never accept “you’re safer if you don’t know what we’re doing”. Seriously? What’s the real reason?

And I’m all for officer safety, but there are plenty of ways to ensure that without full time encryption.

Do Encryption and Corruption go hand in hand? Maybe sometimes.

One thing that is forgotten (I have a LE background and used the old secure button many times) is that everything through a radio system is generally recorded - including encrypted communications. Its not the rule, nor universal, but very common to have ALL communications recorded. As such, they are still generally available for FOI requests as long as they are not part of an active investigation or in the hands of the court. <- This is why (depending on jurisdiction) you cannot get records from a police department until the case makes its way thru the court system. Its a court thing, not a PD thing.

I will tell you that in my LE years, most of the secure comms at the time were for coffee orders, or a heads up so that "scannerland" or a criminal known to use police scanners did not know you were onto them or on the way to them for whatever reason.

In no time were they used for "hey, lets go over to 123 Main Street and violate Mr X's civil rights today" or that type of stuff.

That's what cell phones and Nextel was for

In all seriousness, what people forget on this forum - are that radios, MDT's, and everything in between are used for, intended for, and usually required for public safety communications, coordination and safety of the responders and the public which we serve. It is NOT intended for those who sit at home and glue themselves to the scanner listening for "taking down Mr Big", what your neighbor is up to, or general amusement. Its a hobby, not a right.

Do I like everything to be secure? No, and for many reasons. Do I even like digital trunked systems (and as a user of several?) Not at all. However, they are not going anywhere and the alleged "right to hear" isn't a valid argument.

This same argument could be used for me to come to your place of employment and watch you work all day long, every day, and telling you I have a right to be there. I think that person that I was bird dogging all day at work might not see it the same way.

Secure or non-secure communications does not make anything more or less "transparent" (hate that phrase. Its the actions taken by those with the results of those actions taken that will make or break the public perception of an incident.

Now for the statement of not to have full time encryption - I take you back to the beginning of my post. All it does is not to allow you, and the criminal to know that the cops are going somewhere. Do you really think that an agency cares if John Q Ham, or John Q Scannerhead cares? No. They do care that some idiot they have been trying to catch gets a heads up and still can't catch them and they commit another or many more crimes. That next breakin may be your house. Where do you weigh this?

If you have a request to know what happened, go down and request the police report and/or communications - pay the fee for the copies and there you go.

As an aside, one place I worked we did have a few active "scanner heads". They would listen to our comms, try to get involved and call up the PD and tell us were people were or what was going on. Usually they were completely wrong as they did not know how or what we were saying - even though they thought they did.

Arguing balls and strikes with scanner hobbyists over encryption is a futile effort. No matter how much sense you make, It's a losing proposition.

I don't consider it an argument at all, just a healthy discussion. And I appreciate PJH's perspective as a Law Enforcement Officer.

As I've said before I have a great respect for LEOs. Me being able to hear what's going on almost always enhances that respect. PDs going dark starts to diminish that respect.

As far as someone watching me at work, no I wouldn't like it much. There's a reason I own my own business....ha. But I do think LEOs have to be held to a higher standard than people with most jobs. I mean they are allowed to shoot people after all. And they have a lot of power that we trust them with.

As far as requesting information after the fact, there's a couple of problems with that. One, hard to request info when you don't know about it because your police department is secret. But also, that doesn't do me much good to know in real time that there is a shooting suspect running lose in my neighborhood (have heard that more than once over the years). Personally for me that means I stay in until it's over.

Yeah it's a hobby, but it can also be an important source of information about what's going on around me. And I understand that it's sometimes an issue that the criminals can listen. I don't think it happens often and I think that sometimes police who deal all the time with criminals (thankfully for us) might forget that the vast majority of people, including the ones listening, are decent citizens.

Actually I think informed citizens are more likely to be helpful, even if they get it wrong sometimes. Years ago when I lived in Northglenn, I called in to say I saw an assault suspect in the parking lot of where I was living. They caught him. There used to be a magazine called Monitoring Times that would make a point of publishing stories about scanner listeners who assisted police. Maybe it's a nuisance sometimes, I get that. There are trade offs like a lot of things.

I don't think I've ever stated it is a right for us to be able to listen. If I did, that's a mistake. It's not an established right. There are no laws about it. But it seams to me that it's very bad policy to encrypt everything. I still think some citizen oversight is a good thing and fully secret police is something we should be concerned about. Is there really a need for it? How did they live without it for decades? What's the real motivation? And when tax payers are footing the bill for the salaries and the equipment the rules should be very different than if it were a private business. The secrecy should have to pass really strong muster, otherwise corruption is a real concern.

Isn't it possible that if they think no one knows what they're doing that behavior might change? In the reverse way that wearing a body cam has been shown to improve the behavior of both police and the public.

I see you're the database admin. Doesn't that mean you are mainly a proponent of monitoring? Why else keep the database updated?

Good discussion. Not meant to be an argument. It's like a lot of things where people see things from different points of view.

Thought this was kind of interesting, including the comments:

Panel: P25 encryption is not for everyone | P25 content from Urgent Communications

Kevin_N said:

Besides losing a hobby that I’ve done on and off since I was a kid in a small town in Nebraska, this is what scares me as a citizen about the full time use of encryption. Do Encryption and corruption go hand in hand? You be the judge, but looks like they did in this case.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m pro police, but this was a police department run amuck.

Besides being scary, this is an interesting broadcast if you have time. Act one is what I’m talking about. The Miami Gardens PD. And they also happen to be full time encrypted. So would this big time corruption have been caught earlier if they were monitorable? I would think so.

Of course I’m just assuming at the time of this going on they were encrypted. I think the system is different now, but I bet they were then. If not, then they did it after that, which would be just as bad in my book.

Radio show:

Cops See It Differently, Part Two | This American Life

One of my favorite parts is the guy that the police arrested not once, but a bunch of times for trespassing at the place where he worked. And just the sheer numbers of contacts and arrests the media person talks about show there was a big problem.

Database showing encryption:

Miami-Dade County Public Services (Project 25) Trunking System, Miami, Florida - Scanner Frequencies

I realize this doesn’t mean Fort Collins, Estes Park, Westminster, and Arvada are all corrupt and they probably aren’t. But the point is there is no way to know when your police are completely secret. In the future they could be doing anything and get no attention about it unless someone is brave enough and has enough money to do something about it.

And I know it wouldn’t be the same situation as Miami Gardens. The demographics are way different. But it doesn’t have to be the same thing. It could be anything.

And I still think an informed public is safer than being in the dark. Not the other way around like some Chiefs have said. I will never accept “you’re safer if you don’t know what we’re doing”. Seriously? What’s the real reason?

And I’m all for officer safety, but there are plenty of ways to ensure that without full time encryption.

Do Encryption and Corruption go hand in hand? Maybe sometimes.

Click to expand...

Kevin, I think you can take off the tin foil hat. When corruption happens, it's not the radio causing it.

Very friendly and pointless reply. And that's that's the backwards order.

Kevin_N said:

Besides losing a hobby that I’ve done on and off since I was a kid in a small town in Nebraska, this is what scares me as a citizen about the full time use of encryption. Do Encryption and corruption go hand in hand? You be the judge, but looks like they did in this case.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m pro police, but this was a police department run amuck.

Besides being scary, this is an interesting broadcast if you have time. Act one is what I’m talking about. The Miami Gardens PD. And they also happen to be full time encrypted. So would this big time corruption have been caught earlier if they were monitorable? I would think so.

Of course I’m just assuming at the time of this going on they were encrypted. I think the system is different now, but I bet they were then. If not, then they did it after that, which would be just as bad in my book.

Radio show:

Cops See It Differently, Part Two | This American Life

One of my favorite parts is the guy that the police arrested not once, but a bunch of times for trespassing at the place where he worked. And just the sheer numbers of contacts and arrests the media person talks about show there was a big problem.

Database showing encryption:

Miami-Dade County Public Services (Project 25) Trunking System, Miami, Florida - Scanner Frequencies

I realize this doesn’t mean Fort Collins, Estes Park, Westminster, and Arvada are all corrupt and they probably aren’t. But the point is there is no way to know when your police are completely secret. In the future they could be doing anything and get no attention about it unless someone is brave enough and has enough money to do something about it.

And I know it wouldn’t be the same situation as Miami Gardens. The demographics are way different. But it doesn’t have to be the same thing. It could be anything.

And I still think an informed public is safer than being in the dark. Not the other way around like some Chiefs have said. I will never accept “you’re safer if you don’t know what we’re doing”. Seriously? What’s the real reason?

And I’m all for officer safety, but there are plenty of ways to ensure that without full time encryption.

Do Encryption and Corruption go hand in hand? Maybe sometimes.

Click to expand...

The short answer: yes. And more than just corruption:

Police Radio Encryption: Not Secure, A Transparency Failure, A Public Safety Nightmare | The Cardinal

Southwest Florida Online - Sunday Morning News: Florida Gives Sweet Deal To Harris Corp For Secret Digital Radios (My State)

Closed and Open Government - Florida Public-Safety Radios and Encryption

https://www.voices.com/demo_detail/70794


There are dozens more pages and article, if you really feel you need them.

You can make the argument of why whole-system encryption is so egregious day-in and day-out. You can scream, weep and beg. But your pleas of Constitution justice and transparency will go for naught. You may as well sing to a bag full of jellybeans.

There are two kinds of people in the world; those who take care of themselves, and those who want the Nanny State to take care of them. Most here are in the category of the latter. Some have a sort of "don't ask don't tell" policy regarding the issue, and by their complacency, fence-sitting and detachment, they give their loudly silent consent to be governed in whatever way the State sees fit, be it right or wrong, Constitutional or Unconstitutional. Doesn't matter. Just make sure dinner's on the table at 5 and football's on the TV at 6. To hell with the country, rights, privacy, transparency, and the direction this country is taking towards a corrupt Police State of unimaginable magnitude.

HTH
-

My take is that if its not meant for the public's ears then it should be encrypted. I for one would like to know when my conversations about a potential traffic stop is not being listened to because of safety concerns. I love listening to my scanner but feel that there are some things not worth listening too and if its an emergency or life threatening then it shouldn't be in the public arena. I also hate how some people say its their right to know what the police/fire/ems or government employee is doing all the time. When I hear someone say "I have the right" I always ask "Show me where its written". I work in the public safety field and these people who think they know the law make me laugh because they make fouls of themselves and when the video and audio is played in court their own lawyers laugh at them for being an idiot.

Kevin_N said:

Actually I think informed citizens are more likely to be helpful, even if they get it wrong sometimes.

Click to expand...

I concur with this. I find it ironic that in some places near me where they have gone to full time encryption on all public services claiming the "responder safety" mantra, they also have a long standing aversion to keeping their own citizens informed of rapidly changing incidents, such as the extreme weather events of late. To this day, this county still refuses to use technologies like Nixle, FaceBook, Twitter, etc to make public notifications of events such as missing persons, weather, traffic incidents and active crime pursuits, which, unlike other nearby jurisdictions who do a superb job of use of social media, they refuse to.

Corruption? No secret that this is the same county who have had two county commissioners indicted on Federal and state corruption charges

It is hard to argue that the appearance of any government who is shrouded in corruption chooses to encrypt their public safety radio traffic is merely a coincidence. The O/P mentioned Miami Gardens, FLA. This is one of the most corrupt and vile police agencies in the nation.

The idea that citizens cannot request and make logical arguments to not hide routine dispatch traffic is not always fruitless. When New Orleans chose to begin encrypting their dispatch traffic, there was huge public outcry. They quickly reversed their decision.

In Spokane county, Washington, when public safety leaders considered encrypting police communications they also after hearing from the media, citizens and many fellow leaders in public safety in surrounding jurisdictions have also reversed that decision, at least for the time being.

So, when people do speak up and make compelling fact based arguments, apparently some officials respond accordingly.

Kevin_N said:

I see you're the database admin. Doesn't that mean you are mainly a proponent of monitoring? Why else keep the database updated?

Click to expand...

Not to attack anyone personally, but I do find it rather ironic that there are several members on this forum that are proponents of encrypting all public safety communications.

Thanks for the great post MTS2000. This video is awesome:

SPD leaders consider encrypting scanner traffic

I wish all the agencies around here thought the same way. Maybe Longmont and some others do.

Maybe we should try to get that link to the Chiefs for Estes, Fort Collins, Arvada, Westminster. And any other agencies that people know have plans. What about Aurora with their new system? Sounds like they might have plans. Maybe, not much info yet.

I find it interesting that there hasn't been much of anything in the media here about Arvada and Westminster that I know of. The only thing I can think of is there are back room deals going on to get them radios that can listen, like what happened with Ft. Collins.

Otherwise why wouldn't they be publicly complaining. I know they are some smaller agencies, but things do happen, and if the media were blind to what's going on, you'd think they would say something.

It doesn't seem like the community and the media are very organized around here to have their voices heard like in some other places. That could be a problem in the long run, even when it's easier than ever to have your voice heard now days with electronic forms of communication.

It's also crazy all the different attitudes about it on both sides, but especially on the law enforcement side. Clearly some think that "transparency" (I know a buzz word) and an informed public are good.

And some think screw the public, whatever their reason might be.

MTS2000des said:

Not to attack anyone personally, but I do find it rather ironic that there are several members on this forum that are proponents of encrypting all public safety communications.

Click to expand...

Great post MTS. As for your last comment, they're probably either cops or sheep making the argument. When you've heard as many intercepts as I have, both encrypted and unencrypted, you start to very quickly and clearly get the idea of why they want encryption. Much of it is so corrupt it would curdle your blood, and the "hidden" stuff is always more deplorable - And you can take the following to the bank: encryption has somewhere between little and zero to do with "officer safety," but of course everything requires a pretense, so the public will swallow it more easily. Police have done fine for decades without encryption. And risk is part of the job description; if you don't want the risk, don't sign up.

At any rate, it's nice to hear that there are some districts which are fighting back and refusing to support it. There may be hope yet.

Transparency is for bureaucracies, corporations and public servants. Privacy is for citizens.

Very interesting. Encryption costs money for equipment, etc. It has to be paid for by whatever local government pays the bills.
Corruption is not normally a top-to-bottom thing so to assume that encryption is used to cover up corruption by the police assumes that everyone in the food chain, local chief executive down to the lowest patrolman, is in on it. OK, got it.

I spent 35 years as a cop. I've spent at least 45 or more as a scanner listener, so I think I appreciate both sides. Do all comms need encryption? No. Are there some that do? Absolutely. Who's to decide where to draw the line? How to decide what's to be withheld from the public and what's not? Not an easy thing to do. There's a wide variety of information that's passed back and forth, sometimes at a rapid pace, and there isn't always time do reflect on whether or not the info is too "sensitive" for public broadcast. And something that's sensitive in one location may be no big deal in another. Because some prefer to err on the side of caution, IMHO the blanket encryption scheme is used. I guess that's corruption in some folks' world, I don't know. All I know is that in an environment where the drug cartels in Mexico have a more sophisticated radio system than the government (and that rivals the best here in the US,) I would hope that the cops at least get an opportunity to protect themselves. Used to be that there were vast areas where "nothing" ever happened, but these days, that's not the case.
Thanks.

get ready for the N.D.A.A. coming to your door soon..........

n0doz said:

Very interesting. Encryption costs money for equipment, etc. It has to be paid for by whatever local government pays the bills.
Corruption is not normally a top-to-bottom thing so to assume that encryption is used to cover up corruption by the police assumes that everyone in the food chain, local chief executive down to the lowest patrolman, is in on it. OK, got it.

I spent 35 years as a cop. I've spent at least 45 or more as a scanner listener, so I think I appreciate both sides. Do all comms need encryption? No. Are there some that do? Absolutely. Who's to decide where to draw the line? How to decide what's to be withheld from the public and what's not? Not an easy thing to do. There's a wide variety of information that's passed back and forth, sometimes at a rapid pace, and there isn't always time do reflect on whether or not the info is too "sensitive" for public broadcast. And something that's sensitive in one location may be no big deal in another. Because some prefer to err on the side of caution, IMHO the blanket encryption scheme is used. I guess that's corruption in some folks' world, I don't know. All I know is that in an environment where the drug cartels in Mexico have a more sophisticated radio system than the government (and that rivals the best here in the US,) I would hope that the cops at least get an opportunity to protect themselves. Used to be that there were vast areas where "nothing" ever happened, but these days, that's not the case.
Thanks.

Click to expand...

I agree with you partially, n0doz. First, half of my immediate family are cops. I'm married to a cop. I've worked para-police, etc. So that issue of me potentially not seeing it from both sides is out of the way.

I think you'd find little disagreement that tactical (SWAT), investigative and medical channels should be encrypted. On the other hand, the dispatch and general talk channels should not be encrypted. Whole-system encryption just reeks of secret policing. It may sound trite, but every time I hear about this stuff, I can't help but think of how much, had they the technology, Hitler and his Nazis would have LOVED this technology.

A public should be informed. They don't need to be informed about detectives investigating a case or the movements of a SWAT team, but they should be able to 1. monitor the general goings-on of their police, and 2. be informed of potentially harmful, hazardous or life-threatening situations in real time. That's just common sense. With our new digital technology, encryption is becoming too easy to abuse.

And you are correct that it is not the police officers/street cops who are instituting these systems, but rather their upper echelons. But as you know, a cop is well informed about the new equipment, what it is capable of, etc. The general tone of things is set by the higher ranks. It's too tempting and does create a breeding ground for corruption. Simply think of what the large scale concept of it all really comes down to; SECRECY. That is something that law enforcement agencies should not be engaged in. Speaking frankly, the rights of the public and the need for an informed public outweigh the needs of their public servants so long as they are operating in the capacity of a public servant, and that goes for my family members as well.

Thread moved from Colorado forum.

I find that the agencies in my area that utilize full encryption have some sort of recurring problem(s). Go figure. There's definitely a correlation there in my opinion.

If encryption isn't the result of existing corruption it can be a sign of it to come. Now, agencies can pick what incidents and information they want to disclose to the public and when.

Complete encryption on routine dispatch operations shows a serious transparency issue. Any claims of "safety" should be met with questions in regards to any incident(s) that resulted in that decision.

RadioPatriots said:

I agree with you partially, n0doz. First, half of my immediate family are cops. I'm married to a cop. I've worked para-police, etc. So that issue of me potentially not seeing it from both sides is out of the way.

I think you'd find little disagreement that tactical (SWAT), investigative and medical channels should be encrypted. On the other hand, the dispatch and general talk channels should not be encrypted. Whole-system encryption just reeks of secret policing. It may sound trite, but every time I hear about this stuff, I can't help but think of how much, had they the technology, Hitler and his Nazis would have LOVED this technology.

A public should be informed. They don't need to be informed about detectives investigating a case or the movements of a SWAT team, but they should be able to 1. monitor the general goings-on of their police, and 2. be informed of potentially harmful, hazardous or life-threatening situations in real time. That's just common sense. With our new digital technology, encryption is becoming too easy to abuse.

And you are correct that it is not the police officers/street cops who are instituting these systems, but rather their upper echelons. But as you know, a cop is well informed about the new equipment, what it is capable of, etc. The general tone of things is set by the higher ranks. It's too tempting and does create a breeding ground for corruption. Simply think of what the large scale concept of it all really comes down to; SECRECY. That is something that law enforcement agencies should not be engaged in. Speaking frankly, the rights of the public and the need for an informed public outweigh the needs of their public servants so long as they are operating in the capacity of a public servant, and that goes for my family members as well.

Click to expand...

But forgot something hitler sent his men door to door house to house and took peoples radios away from them so they couldent hear any thing...........

I think this is really well stated!

RadioPatriots said:

I agree with you partially, n0doz. First, half of my immediate family are cops. I'm married to a cop. I've worked para-police, etc. So that issue of me potentially not seeing it from both sides is out of the way.

I think you'd find little disagreement that tactical (SWAT), investigative and medical channels should be encrypted. On the other hand, the dispatch and general talk channels should not be encrypted. Whole-system encryption just reeks of secret policing. It may sound trite, but every time I hear about this stuff, I can't help but think of how much, had they the technology, Hitler and his Nazis would have LOVED this technology.

A public should be informed. They don't need to be informed about detectives investigating a case or the movements of a SWAT team, but they should be able to 1. monitor the general goings-on of their police, and 2. be informed of potentially harmful, hazardous or life-threatening situations in real time. That's just common sense. With our new digital technology, encryption is becoming too easy to abuse.

And you are correct that it is not the police officers/street cops who are instituting these systems, but rather their upper echelons. But as you know, a cop is well informed about the new equipment, what it is capable of, etc. The general tone of things is set by the higher ranks. It's too tempting and does create a breeding ground for corruption. Simply think of what the large scale concept of it all really comes down to; SECRECY. That is something that law enforcement agencies should not be engaged in. Speaking frankly, the rights of the public and the need for an informed public outweigh the needs of their public servants so long as they are operating in the capacity of a public servant, and that goes for my family members as well.

Click to expand...

Yet another responsible, well-spoken and -mannered, and objectively productive thread gets moved to the rear-end of RR Oblivion.
-