Encryption of all communications (not just sensitive operations) is in essence a "policy decision". While a given public safety department's views on this matter (Chief or otherwise) may be the initial impetus behind a move to full encryption, the decision to do so ultimately rests with those who that same department/Chief report to: City Mayor, Town Manager/Town Council, County Executives etc.
Technology and vendor sales pressure aside, it's the elected political powers in a given jurisdiction that make the final call as to whether or not all communications will be Encrypted. These same elected officials are also responsible for upholding a certain level of transparency & openness in their government operations - including allowing their constituents (public and media) some level of access.
Like any other policy decision, it's incumbent that our government officials strive to find a healthy balance between the need to protect officer safety and the right of those they serve (the public) to have transparency in the government they pay for. I personally believe this is where the dialogue around this whole issue needs to move to.
That compromise for lack of a better word is somewhere in the middle IMO. Encryption of sensitive operations if a department so desires/needs, while leaving day-to-day patrol activities in the clear is something most rational people and hobbyists can probably support. Easier said than done....but it can be done.
Well said.
I'd add that in the cases where the City, County, Agency, etc. has their own radio shop, does their own programming, etc. (like most large ones do) the guys in the radio shop need to be in on this.
In the end, there should be a subject matter expert on the side of the agency that is involved and can provide input to the decision makers. This, in many cases, would be the agency radio guy, shop, tech, sergeant, etc.
That person should understand what encryption is and how it impacts things. If everyone agrees that the benefits to encryption outweigh the costs, then that may very well be the right decision.
On the other hand, the same radio guys should be making sure that band specific interoperability channels be programmed into the radios and that it's included in part of the training (they do have a training plan, right?). That's something DHS has been pushing for years, but seems to be falling on deaf ears.
As for the hobbyist side of it, I'm not really that involved. I can say from my point of view that making sure hobbyists have access to listen in on agency communications usually isn't on the list of deliverables.
With freedom of information acts, recorded dispatch audio, delayed feeds, etc. making sure that a scanner listener can monitor at will is not a concern of most departments. In fact I've been specifically asked on occasion how we can block on line scanner feeds.