BCasto
Member
It seems the police concern about scanning and internet broadcast of police radio traffic continues to grow, leading more and more agencies to encrypt, not just sensitive transmissions but all radio traffic. Here is a memo from High Point NC Police citing those reasons for their recent decision to begin encrypting all transmissions.
https://nc-highpoint.civicplus.com/DocumentCenter/View/9656
From this memo, it is easy to surmise that modern digital systems make a decision to encrypt much easier and much cheaper than before. High Point is now joining other local agencies like Cary PD, Wilmington PD, and others switching to an encryption approach that was a feature of new digital systems purchased but only now being "turned on". Can we expect the numbers of encrypted systems to grow quickly?
The decision to encrypt is most always driven by the Police offering persuasive operational and safety arguments to government policy makers. Not always do those policy makers invite public participation in the debate, probably believing this is not a policy with public interest. Input from the press, scanner hobbyists, other agencies, and the public is often not solicited. Some policy makers seem to understand there are transparency issues but the overall policy body doesn't see them compelling enough to counter perceived officer safety issues. If there are examples where the police request to encrypt was denied, I have not found them.
In public statements from organizations deciding to encrypt, you will find references to 911 lessons learned along with examples given where criminals used scanners or public internet sites to plan their crimes, evade capture and confound police efforts. From an analytical perspective, there are too few examples cited like that and no real statistics. Also, there often is no consideration or examples given where citizens using those same tools aided the police.
Suggestions to encrypt only sensitive radio traffic (SWAT, Surveillance, ...) or use other tools (MDTs, cell phones..) are discounted as operationally inefficient because operating in 2 modes (encrypted and open) may confuse people during an emergency, effecting response time, inter-operability, etc.
Encryption is not the only transparency issue facing police. Police body cameras is another highly charged topic impacted by many of the same issues? Are the policy makers involving the community in this decision? Departments are carefully considering when and how to make video available to the public and press. Contrary to police fears, body cam video has exonerated police officers more often than not. But now as a standard, failure to release body cam video after an incident prompts public suspicion. Will they respond similarly when there are no other sources of radio recordings?
This is a tough topic. As an ex Police Officer and scanner hobbyist, I care a lot about this subject. It should be openly discussed with all considerations included. I don't know where this is going. I have read where some agencies are reversing decisions to encrypt as part of their citizen involvement initiatives. However momentum suggests an ever growing number of agencies will fully encrypt.
Are we the scanning hobbyists, speaking with one voice. Many in our ranks are public safety professionals. What are your thoughts on this? Are we doing the right things?
Below are some items worth reading.
https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/f...siderations for Encryption_Final Draft508.pdf
https://www.wirelessdesignmag.com/blog/2018/02/las-vegas-police-encrypt-radio-channels
Law enforcement radio encryption draws backlash | News | thereflector.com
Editorial: Encryption of police radio traffic should be debated;
Law Enforcement Agencies Encrypting Radio Transmissions
https://nc-highpoint.civicplus.com/DocumentCenter/View/9656
From this memo, it is easy to surmise that modern digital systems make a decision to encrypt much easier and much cheaper than before. High Point is now joining other local agencies like Cary PD, Wilmington PD, and others switching to an encryption approach that was a feature of new digital systems purchased but only now being "turned on". Can we expect the numbers of encrypted systems to grow quickly?
The decision to encrypt is most always driven by the Police offering persuasive operational and safety arguments to government policy makers. Not always do those policy makers invite public participation in the debate, probably believing this is not a policy with public interest. Input from the press, scanner hobbyists, other agencies, and the public is often not solicited. Some policy makers seem to understand there are transparency issues but the overall policy body doesn't see them compelling enough to counter perceived officer safety issues. If there are examples where the police request to encrypt was denied, I have not found them.
In public statements from organizations deciding to encrypt, you will find references to 911 lessons learned along with examples given where criminals used scanners or public internet sites to plan their crimes, evade capture and confound police efforts. From an analytical perspective, there are too few examples cited like that and no real statistics. Also, there often is no consideration or examples given where citizens using those same tools aided the police.
Suggestions to encrypt only sensitive radio traffic (SWAT, Surveillance, ...) or use other tools (MDTs, cell phones..) are discounted as operationally inefficient because operating in 2 modes (encrypted and open) may confuse people during an emergency, effecting response time, inter-operability, etc.
Encryption is not the only transparency issue facing police. Police body cameras is another highly charged topic impacted by many of the same issues? Are the policy makers involving the community in this decision? Departments are carefully considering when and how to make video available to the public and press. Contrary to police fears, body cam video has exonerated police officers more often than not. But now as a standard, failure to release body cam video after an incident prompts public suspicion. Will they respond similarly when there are no other sources of radio recordings?
This is a tough topic. As an ex Police Officer and scanner hobbyist, I care a lot about this subject. It should be openly discussed with all considerations included. I don't know where this is going. I have read where some agencies are reversing decisions to encrypt as part of their citizen involvement initiatives. However momentum suggests an ever growing number of agencies will fully encrypt.
Are we the scanning hobbyists, speaking with one voice. Many in our ranks are public safety professionals. What are your thoughts on this? Are we doing the right things?
Below are some items worth reading.
https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/f...siderations for Encryption_Final Draft508.pdf
https://www.wirelessdesignmag.com/blog/2018/02/las-vegas-police-encrypt-radio-channels
Law enforcement radio encryption draws backlash | News | thereflector.com
Editorial: Encryption of police radio traffic should be debated;
Law Enforcement Agencies Encrypting Radio Transmissions
