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
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.
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.
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.
Aside from the transparency issue, did you see how much it’s going to cost?
Four hundred million dollars! The city is cutting back on pretty much everything else but wants to spend that on police radios.
Everyone has to tighten their belts while the thin blue line gets fatter and more dangerous.
No matter what it costs, we will shield police from accountability.
Name a price and go fuck yourself.
Yeah police radio should never be encrypted.
I suspect it would be helpful for protecting sensitive situations. Currently (at least with EMS) they call each other’s cellphones for that, not ideal.
What kind of situations?
EMS communication over unencrypted channels is limited by HIPAA, patient information must be kept vague to protect patient privacy. In the event that, say, an individuals name needs to be given to the receiving facility to facilitate review of records prior to arrival by the ER physician, some other method of communication has to be used.
It’s not a HIPAA violation for a report like this to go over unsecured radio waves:
16 year old male, unresponsive. Suspected alcohol poisoning. EMS required. Address to be provided by emergency services
I know, which is why my example was about providing the patient’s name over the radio.
Does EMS typically provide patient names over the radio? That honestly seems like information that would normally not be needed, or potentially even known.
They have to keep it vague like that because the channel is open to all. It’s a limitation of the system.
Encryption on radio communications would not help that at all. It would still be a HIPAA violation to share sensitive information on a broadcast, even if it is encrypted.
Edit: I hope y’all downvoters aren’t actually responsible for patient information.
That’s very incorrect. End to End encryption is legal under HIPPA. All the receiving parties have likely filled out the HIPPA yearly thing, so they’d be covered.
That’s absurd. There are very specific guidelines for sharing protected health information with and among law enforcement. There is no paperwork that “all receiving parties” can fill out to cover a blanket broadcast of protected information to anyone with an encrypted police radio. You would still need to have a specific purpose for disclosure, and disclose only the required information to only the necessary parties. An encrypted channel would still be available to dispatchers, administrators, and a bunch of random people that don’t need to receive that information.
Covered entities may disclose protected health information to law enforcement officials for law enforcement purposes under the following six circumstances, and subject to specified conditions: (1) as required by law (including court orders, court-ordered warrants, subpoenas) and administrative requests; (2) to identify or locate a suspect, fugitive, material witness, or missing person; (3) in response to a law enforcement official’s request for information about a victim or suspected victim of a crime; (4) to alert law enforcement of a person’s death, if the covered entity suspects that criminal activity caused the death; (5) when a covered entity believes that protected health information is evidence of a crime that occurred on its premises; and (6) by a covered health care provider in a medical emergency not occurring on its premises, when necessary to inform law enforcement about the commission and nature of a crime, the location of the crime or crime victims, and the perpetrator of the crime.34
https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/privacy/laws-regulations/index.html
Source? If you broadcast encrypted data you’re not sharing it with anyone who doesn’t have the right key to decrypt it. Someone could theoretically crack the encryption, but literally every method of transmitting information is vulnerable to being intercepted by a sufficiently motivated attacker.
I’ll copy my reply to the above, but add that someone who has the key to encrypt a broadcast doesn’t necessarily have a need to receive private health information. Law enforcement officials may receive protected information if they need it in the course of their duties. Private health information should only be shared in a secure communication, but encrypting the broadcast doesn’t change the fact that
This is like HIPAA training 101 stuff. If you’re a doctor at a hospital, you might be able to access any patient’s records. But if you peek at a celebrity’s serologies, you’ve violated HIPAA. Broadcasting on an encrypted channel would be like posting test results in a locker room and arguing that it’s OK because only doctors have a key to the room. Having access to information is not the same as needing access to information, regardless of whether everyone has their paperwork in order.
That’s absurd. There are very specific guidelines for sharing protected health information with and among law enforcement. There is no paperwork that “all receiving parties” can fill out to cover a blanket broadcast of protected information to anyone with an encrypted police radio. You would still need to have a specific purpose for disclosure, and disclose only the required information to only the necessary parties. An encrypted channel would still be available to dispatchers, administrators, and a bunch of random people that don’t need to receive that information.
Covered entities may disclose protected health information to law enforcement officials for law enforcement purposes under the following six circumstances, and subject to specified conditions: (1) as required by law (including court orders, court-ordered warrants, subpoenas) and administrative requests; (2) to identify or locate a suspect, fugitive, material witness, or missing person; (3) in response to a law enforcement official’s request for information about a victim or suspected victim of a crime; (4) to alert law enforcement of a person’s death, if the covered entity suspects that criminal activity caused the death; (5) when a covered entity believes that protected health information is evidence of a crime that occurred on its premises; and (6) by a covered health care provider in a medical emergency not occurring on its premises, when necessary to inform law enforcement about the commission and nature of a crime, the location of the crime or crime victims, and the perpetrator of the crime.34
https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/privacy/laws-regulations/index.html
Ok, I think I see where our disagreement is. Would you agree that an encrypted broadcast is ok if you encrypt the sensitive information with a key that is only accessible to the specific individuals who need it? Not that I see any advantage to doing so—it’s just a hypothetical scenario.
Off of the top of my head, I can see how an announcement of an open shooter at a location might attract some Meal Team 6 Rambo wanna-be to try and bust in and save the day and making it significantly worse.
I’ve never heard of this happening. It’s probably more for people avoiding police and maybe ambulance chasers.
We had a kid cross state lines to show up to a riot with a gun to defend property and shoot people. Just because you haven’t heard about it doesn’t mean it’s not plausible as a valid reason.
And? Do you think he heard about it from a police radio, and not literally every news outlet that was covering it at the time?
You must know that unencrypted police radios have been a upstream source for local media for a long time, right?
And I’m not arguing that encryption is a good idea, in fact I think a blanket encryption of emergency radio is a bad idea (but nuance on social media is invisible).
This thread is simply in answer to an earlier poster who asked for a situation where it could be helpful to protect a sensitive situation and I provided one that we have seen analogs of in real life.
Plausible, but is it likely? Enough to be even remotely worth it…?
OK, so something thats never happened before needs to be curtailed?
And even if so, active shooters are rare, do we need to encrypt ALL chatter for something that happens maybe every few years for a given precinct/jurisdiction?
Nope, even never had any sort of analogous situation where armed civilians show up to insert themselves and potentially complicate matters: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/national/wp/2018/07/13/feature/in-all-reality-there-were-three-shooters-oklahomans-kill-an-active-shooter-and-its-not-as-simple-as-it-sounds/
do we need to encrypt ALL chatter…
I never suggested we did. The original poster referenced a specific context of a “sensitive situation” and you asked for an example, so I provided one that could qualify.
deleted by creator
Newsflash: Cellphone calls are not encrypted either, believe it or not.
That may be the case with older technologies but VoLTE very much is.
Or fucking use telegram or Whatsapp. Anything except the official equipment.
Those are both terrible examples of messaging apps, because they are not properly secured (end-to-end encrypted). Signal would be a much better option.
They actually need to focus on hospital communications. It’s scary what all you can pick up from paging systems in cleartext with a $20 USB SDR and a laptop. Patient names, rooms numbers, alert codes, everything.
I find it fascinating how in the United States police radio communications aren’t encrypted and therefore anyone can listen to them. In my European country all emergency service communications are TETRA encrypted.
Which had/has a built-in backdoor for years.
https://www.wired.com/story/tetra-radio-encryption-backdoor/
Well, for starters, European police are actually trained professionals (in general, much more so than American police) and have different oversight. American police also handle a wider variety of things that really aren’t law enforcement - things that should be handled by other kinds of professionals.
EDIT: American law enforcement agencies are also home to some of the highest rates of domestic violence perpetrators and right-wing extremism.
American police shoot and kill 3-4 people each day. That doesn’t take into account deaths that occur in jails and prisons due to negligence.
What do American police handle that European police do not?
Not all llaw enforcement or emergency services are in the clear. The Feds are all encrypted (except for some intentional in-the-clear channels for open comms).
One of the biggest criticisms after 9/11 was the lack of easy comms across agencies because of radio set ups, different 10-codes, etc.
Hopefully this is something they are accounting for with this change.
Also $400m doesn’t seem that crazy for an endeavor like this given the size of NYPD.
40k officers and staff + backhaul + tower upgrades + vehicle radio upgrades and installation /$400m
And is that $400m entire lifecycle cost? Over 5-10 years or whatever that’s really not insane.
It seems insane that they were communicating out in the open.
On the one hand, you probably hear all kinds of cool shit. On the other hand, how in the fuck are they just discussing all their sensitive shit out in the open??
They don’t? I mean, you can listen to them, they are not discussing sensitive shit because it’s public.
So what do they use to do that? Or is it that they can’t because they don’t have a secure channel?
Cell phones are a common option.
Jesus. I can’t believe they haven’t encrypted sooner. “We have a situation here, wait let me call you.”
Why would the situation need to be kept private? “We have a jumper at this and this street”, “shots fired on scene”, “I ate a burrito.”
I’m honestly curious, what vitally secret info do you think needs to be communicated over radio? They aren’t for conversations.
To keep the private info of the people involved actually private. License plates, descriptions, home addresses, personally identifiable info. It seems mad that all of that is just broadcasted out to everyone. Probably wouldn’t even be legal where I live because of privacy concerns.
Surprised it’s not encrypted in the first place. You haven’t been able to listen to police communications in Finland since the 90’s. I would assume most of Europe is the same way.
Apparently Americans feel like this is a way of keeping taps on what their police do.
It’s interesting. One argument for encrypting is that it keeps private info of the people involved private. But some retort that they can just use other means to communicate that info. But wouldn’t that mean that it doesn’t help keeping taps on the police doing shady shit since they can just use those more secure means of communicating anyway?
I’m surprised it was nos encrypted already.
Any one can silently hear their frequency. I looks like an easy way to know if police is coming your way, and how avoid them.
Regular phone calls and text messaging are still a thing. They don’t need this at all.
So then why do they bother with radios?
It’s insane it hasn’t been encrypted ages ago. Bizarre
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The New York police department (NYPD) is facing serious backlash after announcing additional details about its plan to encrypt its radio communications system, which experts warn will limit transparency and accountability.
The entire “upgrade” to a new, encrypted radio system will be completed by December 2024 and cost an estimated $400m, a hefty price tag as several city agencies have been forced to swallow major budget cuts.
Maisel said that during Hurricane Sandy in 2012, when more than 200 people died, he was able to provide public safety updates on social media by listening to the police radio.
The encryption plans also have support from Mayor Eric Adams, who said during a July press conference that “bad guys” are listening to the police radios, the New York Times reported.
Cahn added that police have been unable to provide “concrete examples” of criminals abusing the radio system, especially to justify citywide encryption.
“I really do think that we have a fundamental rule-of-law issue under Eric Adams, where the NYPD continues to be enabled to lawlessly pursue this surveillance agenda without abiding by the protections that already exist under law,” Cahn said.
The original article contains 918 words, the summary contains 190 words. Saved 79%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
just the police doing everything they can to make sure that no one ever knows what they’re doing because they’re such great big heroes that we normal people just can’t handle their awesomeness
Are they switching to use Whatsapp?
They’re not encrypted? What? That’s a gigantic security hole.
Damn, are these guys up on modern tech or living in the 90s?
Regular police radio should not be encrypted. Police should not be operating under a cloak of secrecy especially in the US.
Theres a case for real time communication having at least some channels with dedicated encryption, just because every criminal and their mother is capable of buying a police scanner. Especially if there’s records and transcripts for after the fact review.
The problem is that current police forces simply can’t be trusted to use it for above the board means. More than likely it’d be used as a means of subverting law and order, not upholding it.
They already get around the open radio issue by calling each other, messaging, etc. but encrypting all communications would make it even worse.
