The REAL Reason Behind Encryption in Illinois

[That_Radio_Geek]

Popular talking points in favor of encryption usually go something like this:

"We don't like it when people monitor us"
"We don't want the public monitoring the police"

"We don't want people listening to fire responses because they might be able to track police movements and responses through that avenue"

"Criminals can and DO use radio receivers to evade law enforcement" (no evidence to support this)

"Officer/responder safety" (again, no evidence to support this). Logical point here: If you're THAT scared, you don't belong in that line of work. Being THAT scared means that you aren't focused on the safety and well-being of the public, you're focused on your own personal fears and anxieties.

"Victim privacy" (No evidence suggests anyone has ever used a radio receiver to violate a victim's privacy or steal their identity and commit identity fraud)

Livestreaming has also been scapegoated without any credible evidence.

Talking points about board-up companies, tow trucks showing-up, and those sorts of things are flimsy and rather petty reasons for resorting to encryption. If these companies wanted to, they could easily pay members of the public to report these incidents to them, or give some other incentive.

So, what's behind radio encryption? The municipalities and agencies using encryption don't want the public (and by extension, "the media" whoever that is (be it independent reporters who do their own work even if they're volunteers who run community information resources on social media, or corporate reporters who work for huge companies) to be able to submit FOIA requests. The thinking at government agencies is "if the public doesn't have any awareness of an incident of some kind they won't be able to write FOIA requests asking us to provide records, and we can keep incidents buried"

The bottom line is this: No matter what talking point government agencies in Illinois try to use, the REAL reason is to avoid public awareness so nobody files FOIA requests to learn about specific incidents or patterns of incidents. They're worried about optics. If they can say "Crime? What crimes?" or "Safety hazards? Where?" / "What traffic accident? We don't have those here!" and not get challenged, they like it that way. What your local, county, and state agencies want is for you to live your life without knowing anything about what's happening around you. There are strategic, logistical, financial, and political advantages to that for local, county, and state government.

Encryption is about keeping YOU stupid, even when you view the incident with your own eyes on the street as you drive to work or wherever it is you transit to and from in everyday life.

Just this morning, NWCD FD-1 went encrypted using one of these predictable talking points.

StarCom21 2025 Official Thread

The only radio traffic from Sites 5-001/002 that are in the clear are Interops 4 to 10, Chicago 2 (TG 25019), and the patch for Tinley Park Fire Dispatch. Is the Tinley Park Fire Dispatch patch active all the time, or just during events in Tinley Park?

forums.radioreference.com

Before this morning, there was this:

NWCD Fire interesting read on encryption

https://www.arlingtoncardinal.com/2024/11/are-arlington-heights-police-and-fire-chiefs-other-nearby-chiefs-hiding-a-secret-move-to-encrypt-fire-radio-communications/

forums.radioreference.com

I don't think anyone has any issues with truly sensitive radio communications being encrypted since there really ARE very real dangers posed to the public, the victim/victims, and to the responders in such situations. Those are instances where the public is going to find out anyway, and someone is going to file a FOIA or multiple FOIAs to get to the bottom of it.

 

[K9KLC]

Criminals can and DO use radio receivers to evade law enforcement" (no evidence to support this)

LOL. Really? Long before I was a police officer it was done and I caught several people committing burglaries with a scanner in the car to know when the police were on the other end of town. I'll take that as evidence enough since I saw it with my own eyes. This was a small town in 1981 or '82, I can't imagine what was happening in larger towns.

I cannot comment to the rest of your post I haven't seen that with my own eyes however

Livestreaming

can't have helped. If you're naive enough to believe it hasn't helped spur towards encryption I have no answer.

 

[KevinC]

Long before I was a police officer it was done and I caught several people committing burglaries with a scanner in the car to know when the police were on the other end of town.

And that scanner helped them how?

 

[That_Radio_Geek]

LOL. Really? Long before I was a police officer it was done and I caught several people committing burglaries with a scanner in the car to know when the police were on the other end of town. I'll take that as evidence enough since I saw it with my own eyes. This was a small town in 1981 or '82, I can't imagine what was happening in larger towns.

I cannot comment to the rest of your post I haven't seen that with my own eyes however

can't have helped. If you're naive enough to believe it hasn't helped spur towards encryption I have no answer.

The key here by your own admission is that you caught them. Obviously, they didn't know how to use the scanner to evade you, did they? If there was a law to charge them with possession of a scanner while in commission of a crime, I hope you used it. and I hope they were charged accordingly.

You as a police officer (even retired) know that unless there is a very real, proven danger to the public, or responders in a given specific case, encryption is only used to prevent the public from asking questions and filing FOIA requests.

 

[KE4ZNR]

I predict this thread will change hearts and minds.......
Somewhere Richeeeeeee is standing in solidarity......

 

[K9KLC]

And that scanner helped them how?

They told us after questioning, that when an officer called out at a traffic on "the north end of town", they knew they had 10-15 minutes to do whatever they wanted on the "south end of town". At this time there was one officer on at a time, and while I'm sure today things are different as far as staffing, at that time it was a perfect means to help evade getting caught.

Also, almost 50% of the residents had scanners, we had people showing up at various calls "just to watch". Again this was in the early to mid 80's and I"m sure today things are much different but this was my personal experience back at that time. People can argue all they want, but it's a moot point, it happened then, and it is likely happening now.

From conversations I've had with current officers, people are using the live streaming now don't even need to buy a scanner. A guy that often is involved in a domestic "situation" often waits till he hears the police dispatch to flee the scene, I'm told but I have not personally witnessed that. I do trust the two officers I still talk to in that town however. Do they eventually catch up with him? Sure, but when after the "situation" happened again and again? Is some of this the courts? Sure it is, but it all starts with that initial call.

This isn't rocket science. Bad guys do bad things with any means at their disposal at times, to believe otherwise is not being truthful with yourself.

 

[K9KLC]

The key here by your own admission is that you caught them. Obviously, they didn't know how to use the scanner to evade you, did they? If there was a law to charge them with possession of a scanner while in commission of a crime, I hope you used it. and I hope they were charged accordingly.

You as a police officer (even retired) know that unless there is a very real, proven danger to the public, or responders in a given specific case, encryption is only used to prevent the public from asking questions and filing FOIA requests.

They were caught speeding out of town, not during the commission of the burglary so ya they were hi tech and stupid both I guess.

 

[K9KLC]

You as a police officer (even retired) know that unless there is a very real, proven danger to the public, or responders in a given specific case, encryption is only used to prevent the public from asking questions and filing FOIA requests.

I suspect that is one of the main reasons yes, or at least a really good one. Nothing heard means nothing needs to be explained. Believe me I have way too much money in monitoring stuff to want encryption to happen. However I know it's only a matter of time before it happens more often here even in my area.

 

[KevinC]

They were caught speeding out of town, not during the commission of the burglary so ya they were hi tech and stupid both I guess.

I caught several people committing burglaries with a scanner in the car

Hmm...

 

[K9KLC]

Hmm...

I explained above what happened. When they admit to why they had the thing to me, that's "caught".
I know what happens and what I witnessed, any further conversation about it is moot.

 

[KevinC]

I explained above what happened. When they admit to why they had the thing to me, that's "caught".
I know what happens and what I witnessed, any further conversation about it is moot.

Ok.

 

[W9WSS]

<snip>
Also, almost 50% of the residents had scanners, we had people showing up at various calls "just to watch". Again this was in the early to mid 80's and I"m sure today things are much different but this was my personal experience back at that time. People can argue all they want, but it's a moot point, it happened then, and it is likely happening now.
<snip> <message truncated for brevity>
-----------------------------------------

How do 50% of the residents have scanners? Was the population polled? Scanner hobbyists are a niche group. Back in the day, very few people I know who were hams or cb'ers had police scanners. Our scanner group, CARMACHICAGO has an email list, Facebook group, and regularly posts on Radio Reference. We meet about 3X a year, and generally approximately 30 participants attend at a local restaurant private dining room.

 

[That_Radio_Geek]

They told us after questioning, that when an officer called out at a traffic on "the north end of town", they knew they had 10-15 minutes to do whatever they wanted on the "south end of town". At this time there was one officer on at a time, and while I'm sure today things are different as far as staffing, at that time it was a perfect means to help evade getting caught.

Also, almost 50% of the residents had scanners, we had people showing up at various calls "just to watch". Again this was in the early to mid 80's and I"m sure today things are much different but this was my personal experience back at that time. People can argue all they want, but it's a moot point, it happened then, and it is likely happening now.

From conversations I've had with current officers, people are using the live streaming now don't even need to buy a scanner. A guy that often is involved in a domestic "situation" often waits till he hears the police dispatch to flee the scene, I'm told but I have not personally witnessed that. I do trust the two officers I still talk to in that town however. Do they eventually catch up with him? Sure, but when after the "situation" happened again and again? Is some of this the courts? Sure it is, but it all starts with that initial call.

This isn't rocket science. Bad guys do bad things with any means at their disposal at times, to believe otherwise is not being truthful with yourself.

we had people showing up at various calls "just to watch".

By your own admission, one of the reasons for encryption is citizens exercising their 1st Amendment right to gather and associate with each other at crime scenes?

Were these citizens gathered for the purpose of organizing to actively interfere with your crime scene? Were they there intentionally to tamper with evidence, and/or intimidate witnesses? Were they there threatening and intentionally posing a danger to officers at the scene?

Let's say that at any given time any one or more of these unlawful activities happened. Should the public pay by having transparency so limited that mere knowledge of incidents having occurred is nearly impossible to come by so that only the government knows (at least until a case enters the court system, or someone in the immediate area photographs it or video records it, and gets word out in the community)?

Would an average person in their reasonable frame of mind believe that to be the correct course of action? If so, if someone is robbed, battered, sexually assaulted, even murdered, should everyone in the community then be arrested and tried, then sent to prison because what's good for the offender is also good for everyone in the community?

 

[K9KLC]

By your own admission, one of the reasons for encryption is citizens exercising their 1st Amendment right to gather and associate with each other at crime scenes?

Were these citizens gathered for the purpose of organizing to actively interfere with your crime scene? Were they there intentionally to tamper with evidence, and/or intimidate witnesses? Were they there threatening and intentionally posing a danger to officers at the scene?

Let's say that at any given time any one or more of these unlawful activities happened. Should the public pay by having transparency so limited that mere knowledge of incidents having occurred is nearly impossible to come by so that only the government knows (at least until a case enters the court system, or someone in the immediate area photographs it or video records it, and gets word out in the community)?

Would an average person in their reasonable frame of mind believe that to be the correct course of action? If so, if someone is robbed, battered, sexually assaulted, even murdered, should everyone in the community then be arrested and tried, then sent to prison because what's good for the offender is also good for everyone in the community

Dude, you posted this

Criminals can and DO use radio receivers to evade law enforcement" (no evidence to support this)

I provided "evidence". Again I'm not saying I'm in favor of encryption. I wasn't then and I'm not now. it was a rebuttal statement to your statement. I'm not going to go back into everything I encountered as a police officer. You can argue till the cows come home but encryption is coming, and some people are not doing anything to help that, in fact they're making it worse. People not, radio devices are causing the problem.

I was wondering if I could ask if you are now or have ever been a "cop"? Just curious as to the mentality I'm dealing with here.

 

[K9KLC]

By your own admission, one of the reasons for encryption is citizens exercising their 1st Amendment right to gather and associate with each other at crime scenes?

Were these citizens gathered for the purpose of organizing to actively interfere with your crime scene? Were they there intentionally to tamper with evidence, and/or intimidate witnesses? Were they there threatening and intentionally posing a danger to officers at the scene?

Let's say that at any given time any one or more of these unlawful activities happened. Should the public pay by having transparency so limited that mere knowledge of incidents having occurred is nearly impossible to come by so that only the government knows (at least until a case enters the court system, or someone in the immediate area photographs it or video records it, and gets word out in the community)?

Would an average person in their reasonable frame of mind believe that to be the correct course of action? If so, if someone is robbed, battered, sexually assaulted, even murdered, should everyone in the community then be arrested and tried, then sent to prison because what's good for the offender is also good for everyone in the community?

Honesty I'm not going to debate the issue with you further. It's coming, people aren't doing much to stop it, at the proper levels or even actions, and there's nothing you, I, or the cow that jumped over the moon can do about it. Good luck on your quest I personally hope it works, way to much invested in Unication pagers that I'd take a loss on if it happens in my area. Scanners I'd keep for other monitoring but the pagers (3 of them) are strictly for public service.

 

[That_Radio_Geek]

Dude, you posted this

I provided "evidence". Again I'm not saying I'm in favor of encryption. I wasn't then and I'm not now. it was a rebuttal statement to your statement. I'm not going to go back into everything I encountered as a police officer. You can argue till the cows come home but encryption is coming, and some people are not doing anything to help that, in fact they're making it worse. People not, radio devices are causing the problem.

I was wondering if I could ask if you are now or have ever been a "cop"? Just curious as to the mentality I'm dealing with here.

I provided "evidence".

You provided an anecdote.

I'm glad you can see that people, and not inatimate objects such as electronic devices are the problem.

You still didn't answer any of my questions.

Earlier in the discussion, you said this in this exchange with me:

You as a police officer (even retired) know that unless there is a very real, proven danger to the public, or responders in a given specific case, encryption is only used to prevent the public from asking questions and filing FOIA requests.

"I suspect that is one of the main reasons yes, or at least a really good one. Nothing heard means nothing needs to be explained. Believe me I have way too much money in monitoring stuff to want encryption to happen. However I know it's only a matter of time before it happens more often here even in my area." quote marks added by me.
So, not once, but twice, you admitted knowledge that government agencies retaliate against the public by limiting transparency for exercising their 1st Amendment rights by (checks notes):

Gathering in public at crime scenes. (Fits the 1st Amendment under freedom to gather, freedom of association, and freedom to gather news)

and

Livestreaming public safety audio, which is a 1st Amendment right under freedom to gather and share information about government activities, a fundamental freedom.

Do I have your admissions of fact correct, officer?

 

[K9KLC]

How do 50% of the residents have scanners? Was the population polled? Scanner hobbyists are a niche group. Back in the day, very few people I know who were hams or cb'ers had police scanners. Our scanner group, CARMACHICAGO has an email list, Facebook group, and regularly posts on Radio Reference. We meet about 3X a year, and generally approximately 30 participants attend at a local restaurant private dining room.

OK maybe not 50% but the amount of calls at the PD, after "something" was dispatched led the dispatchers to believe a "fair amount" of people had them. I did not poll them no. I can tell you in a town that was 1800 people more than 30 had them. I knew them personally. Honestly back then we gave out the frequency to people that called in for it. My how times have changed.

 

[K9KLC]

Livestreaming public safety audio, which is a 1st Amendment right under freedom to gather and share information about government activities, a fundamental freedom.

Can you show me where in the first Amendment where it says that? I can show you in part 97 where it isn't... Just because nothing has been done about it, doesn't make it legal.
Again I have no idea why you're trying to argue with me. I'm not in favor of it either. I'll let you go now, this has become like arguing with a pig and this pig doesn't care to roll in the mud any longer. Have a nice day.

 

[N9JIG]

We are done here. Nothing new, only old arguments rehashed again and again.