462
NYPD faces backlash as it prepares to encrypt radio communications | New York | The Guardian
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 04 Jan 2024
462 points (97.5% liked)
Technology
59377 readers
4525 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Why are they encrypting their communications? Do they have something to hide?
If they've got nothing to hide, then they've got nothing to fear.
Or so I've heard, anyway, right?
They're public employees. Their privacy is non-existent while on duty. There is actually no reason for police radios to be encrypted. The only reason police feel even a modium of responsibility to the public is because they are able to be constantly watched by citizens, and their unencrypted comms is an important part of that.
ETA: I get what you were saying and adding onto it, not trying to contradict
True, but your privacy exists even in this case.
Actually I can think of a couple of reasons.
One is that this way the parents of a violent crime or lethal incident victim can be informed about the condition before the press publish the news. Last year we had some cases here in Italy where the parents of people who passed away for some incident/crime discover it from the press even before the authority had time to inform them.
True, in this case is the press that is in the wrong, but they could do it because they had access to the communications.
Another is that maybe it is not a good idea to let criminals know what the police are doing to catch them.
BUT I understand your point given the news about US police I read around.
What I think about it is that if you think that all the US police officers are bad then I agree that the not having access to the radio communications can be a problem. The solution however is not to keep the communications open but to fix the US police.
In that case the records need to be auditable, e.g. available for subpoenas and all that. But given the frequency of their body feels suddenly "malfunctioning" during arrests, I don't see that happening in the shower term.
What we need BEFORE encrypted comms is stronger accountability laws and harsher punishments for police brutality.
Otherwise I won't buy the "protect and serve" excuse. They just want to save their own asses.
It's worth noting that in Italy, police communications are encrypted (they use TETRA radios, like most police forces in Europe). I'm not saying it can't help prevent this, but when weighing the cost and benefits of encryption for police radios, we should take into account that this benefit is not absolute.
I don't quite get these comments, I think our emergency services went encrypted a while back in Vancouver Canada and I'm surprised NY wasn't already encrypted?
What about keeping the communications encrypted for the privacy and safety of people involved, and storing the records for a set amount of time. Anyone with access to the live feed can access the backups during that time, and report issues as needed.
I'm not familiar with the issues with the police department, so maybe a better compromise would be to open up the feeds publicly after a set amount of time?
I'll put it simple.
American cops are not equivalent to Canadian cops. US cops use tax payer money to pay lawsuits but are allowed a special police union as well. No other public servants get a union to do their bidding while tax payers foot the bill.
Open the channels. What's there to hide. In emergency events, yes it could be an issue. But people also need to know where serious events might be occurring in their areas.
I'd much rather have some real accountability measures than the accidental accountability occasionally provided by broadcasting their communications.
How about both? The governmental systems are supposed to be open so that they can be observed to be truthful and trustworthy, and then keep checking anyways.
I don't think things like names of suspects or victims should be made public.
The American legal system has made a conscious decision to require public trials (so accused are public) with the right to face your accuser (so victims are public). This does remove privacy, but the idea is that the trade off is worth it to avoid people being "convinced" in secret trials.
You may disagree with this trade off, but it's baked in and changing it would be a big difference. Some exceptions exist, I think, but IANAL.
Obviously nobody should disappear into secret jails, but victims and witnesses are not on trial, and should have their privacy protected.
Having random people listening to police comms is no substitute for a competent regulator.
Fine, roll that out before you take away what we have
Historically in the USA many police agencies have tried to cover-up and hide evidence of wrongdoing by on duty officers. Some people viewed the open radio policy as a way to monitor the police to make sure they're not breaking the law themselves. I personally have never tried to listen in to a police radio so it doesn't bother me much but some people are upset about it.
Hey I love snooping on shit and watching reality shows as much as the next guy but I couldn't be that mad about the police wanting to have a secure way of communicating
I wouldn’t imagine that radio communications contain much evidence of wrongdoing. All the real illegal shit happens in person.
Police interactions are public information. If you go to a police station and do a FOIA request, you get all that info anyway. Why would it need to be kept secret before the point it is requested?
Apart from the fact that many departments deny legal FOIA requests and force people to take legal action to get the information they are legally entitled to.
Oh wait. Maybe that’s why they want encryption.
Isn't personal information taken out of FOIA requests first? I can see why victims wouldn't their names and addresses given freely out. Heck I think suspects should get the same amount of privacy too.
Suspects would already be covered, FOIA requests usually aren’t released before a case is closed, and you ideally don’t close a case half finished.
Yes, some information is redacted from FOIA requests, but it’s normally not stuff that would be broadcast over a radio. For instance, they may blur the faces of bystanders, or mute a section where someone is giving the officer personal info. But again, there would be no reason to broadcast this info over the radio regardless.
When I was in the USCG Auxiliary in Boston in the 90’s they used the same VHF radio as all boaters for most comms, but they also had an encrypted radio they could switch to if they needed to discuss anything sensitive. The encrypted radio was crap though and only worked over short distances. But they’d use it when relaying personal details of boats/people they stopped, dealing with drunk boaters, etc.
As time progressed they switched to using mobile phones when they wanted privacy. Cell coverage along the coast proved far better than the proprietary encrypted radio…
Where I live it's partly to protect the privacy of the people involved.
Hm everywhere else they're not all for privacy ... Must be a coincidence.
It's not the proper argument but I get your point. Of course they got things to hide. However, public servants like police shouldn't be allowed to hide anything.
They currently aren't hiding anything on the radio and are still getting away with the shit they've been doing since forever, hard to see this as actually being worse when the lack of encryption hasn't lead to a perfectly transparent police force.