This is the reply I got from the Hennepin Co. Sheriff:
"Thank you for reaching out to the Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office regarding the issue of encrypting our law enforcement radio channels. We recognize that some members of our community both enjoy listening to the radio traffic and feel it is important for the public to have access to the radio channels to ensure the transparency into the actions of law enforcement.
The decision to encrypt the radios was not taken lightly—it has been discussed for over four years with all of the agencies for which we provide dispatch services, and it was decision by all of the police agencies for whom we provide dispatch services. The reason we decided to encrypt the radios was twofold:
First, we believe the citizens of Hennepin County have a right to privacy, and an expectation that the information they give 911 is private. When people call 911 to report domestic abuse, a suicide attempt, or other sensitive matters, they likely do not want other’s hearing their personal information. Likewise, when a 911 caller shares their address along with the location of a hidden house key or the code to a keypad entry system, they do want that information broadcast to the public. Yet this information needs to be broadcast to responding officers and technology is allowing others to listen in on that information. Our mission is to protect the public. This includes protecting their data from those who might abuse it.
Second, mobile scanner apps have helped criminals around the country elude capture and put officers in danger by letting them monitor police response activity in real time. Scanner apps let listeners know where police are headed, giving criminals a chance to flee a crime scene, or an opportunity to arm themselves before police arrive.
So, as you can see, we are in a quandary: do we give the general population all of the information—some of it very personal—that is broadcast over the radio? Do we allow broadcast about law enforcement actions that may jeopardize the lives and safety of responding officers or the security of people’s homes? Or do we ignore those concerns and release everything to the public? We have, along with the other agencies we work with, decided that it is more important to safeguard the very personal information of our citizens and the safety of our officers responding to dangerous calls.
Ultimately, we are hoping for a technological solution that would allow us to do both—broadcast calls, but redact sensitive information—but until that technology emerges, we had to choose one way or the other."
