ScannerChi

The Case Against Police Radio Encryption

INTRODUCTION

For the past several decades, hobbyists, journalists, off duty police/fire, volunteers and others have been able to use police scanners to gain information on what the police are doing. A police scanner is a radio that is capable of receiving police, fire and other radio signals, and scanning through them, allowing a user to listen to police communications. However, police departments have been taking that away, as many departments have gone full or partial encrypted. When a department goes encrypted, no police scanner is capable of listening to them. Unless you have a physical police radio programmed and given by the department, you have no access to what is happening around you. This article will outline the various arguments against this, and will address the pro-encryption arguments.

TRANSPARENCY

Police scanners provide a great window of transparency into how the department works, and how they respond to calls. It provides citizens with a real time view of police response times to various calls and overall provides citizens with a view into what their law enforcement are doing in their neighborhoods with their tax dollars.

MEDIA ACCESS

Media outlets have used scanners for decades in order to get information to inform citizens. Scanners are useful to determine which incidents are bonafide, and which are worth sending a ground crew to photograph. Without scanners, the media has no good way of informing the public about newsworthy events in the area. They would be forced to release information to the public only if/when the department decides to issue a press release. This will lead to a less informed public, and encryption hampers the ability of the media to do their job effectively.

PUBLIC SAFETY

An informed public is a safer public. If people know what is happening through scanners, they are less likely to find themselves in a dangerous situation. For example, if there is a wanted dangerous person running around your neighborhood, if you were aware of this, you would be much less likely to leave your house, and you would convey this to your family/friends in the area. Informed citizens are less likely to call the department asking for information, stop officers and attempt to get information, or gawk at large police scenes. Citizens calling 911 or the department asking for information can be a significant burden on dispatchers, so open scanner traffic would reduce this. This creates a better environment for police, as they are able to do their jobs more efficiently, and the public is safer.

MISINFORMATION AND PUBLIC TRUST

When the citizens have access to scanners, it increases the public trust and prevents misinformation from spreading. Citizens, through apps like Nextdoor, Facebook and others, will try to share information they can gather on incidents. This information is often incorrect or misleading. Without a semi official tool like a police scanner, people will craft theories that are less accurate than if they had access to a scanner. People will make up information regardless, so it is up to the department to combat misinformation by releasing timely information. This puts a burden on departments, as having someone available at all times to disseminate information to the public via social media or press releases is difficult. Just having a scanner can destroy myths and can combat misinformation without putting a burden on the department. I have personally observed people in towns where police are encrypted spreading rumors about a shooting, when no EMS transports were made for gunshot victims.

INTEROPERABILITY, COST, AND AUDIO QUALITY

Encrypted radio systems are far more expensive than non encrypted systems. In addition, encryption harms interoperability, as neighboring departments without the proper keys cannot hear or communicate with the encrypted department. In a large-scale police response, the risk of miscommunication due to encryption is a potential danger to the officers and public. When seconds count, even the smallest communication issues can cost lives. I have also observed that some types of encryption can hamper communication in emergencies, because digital encoding errors prevent the officer from being able to convey a message. This is highlighted in this case, where a Chicago police officer was shot, but the encrypted radio quality left the officer unable to call for help for several minutes (Source).

ADDRESSING THE PRO-ENCRYPTION ARGUMENTS

There are several arguments that can be made in defense of encryption. Police often argue that having an unencrypted scanner helps criminals evade the law, and puts officers at risk. Using the scanner to commit a crime and get away with it is a crime, but we don’t see any examples of this happening that would indicate a widespread problem. Are towns with encrypted police radios substantially safer than towns with unencrypted radios? If there was widespread evidence of this happening, the police departments would be able to cite some concrete examples. Instead, it is a vague appeal to officer safety. Also, even if one were to take those seriously, that can be easily mitigated with a delayed feed. Many large departments such as Chicago, provide a feed that is delayed anywhere between 5-30 minutes. This prevents criminals from gaining any useful information

Police often argue that people with scanners may be able to compromise sensitive scenes and situations by posting situations on social media. This can be easily mitigated by the use of encrypted tactical channels. Most departments have more than one radio channel, and SWAT, Search Warrants, Surveillance, and high risk events are usually encrypted anyways. This is an acceptable compromise. It provides the security and safety police need in high risk situations, while leaving the primary police channels open to the public.

Police also argue that sensitive victim information, or private information can be exposed by leaving scanners open to the public. For example, when police want to run someone’s name, DOB, SSN, plates, or ID/DL numbers and get the person’s criminal history, that information should not (and legally cannot) be available to the public. This is a case in which encrypted secondary channels can be utilized. If an officer wants to run a name, or otherwise convey sensitive information, they can do so on the alternate encrypted channel. Also, most officers do not run sensitive information over the radio these days. The mobile computers (MDTs) in their vehicles can be used to run plates, names, and send messages to dispatchers and other officers. Police also often have cell phones, where a phone call can (and is often) used to convey sensitive information or any information that does not belong on the radio. 

In the past, “rogue radios” were a problem that police had to deal with, leading to encryption. In old, analog systems, anyone with a cheap handheld radio could talk on the police channels, disrupting police communications. This used to be an obvious problem, but with the advent of digital radio standards such as P25, that problem is solved. 

Some pro-encryption advocates will argue that real time access is not needed, and they suggest FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) as a replacement. FOIA allows anyone to get public records such as 911 audio, radio traffic, police reports, bodycam footage, etc. Many FOIA requests will get denied, with the department citing “an active and ongoing investigation” to block any information being released about an incident. All FOIA requests typically take 5 business days or more, which means there is a one week delay between the incident and when anyone can know what happened. Can you imagine if all the local news was delayed by a week? That is an unacceptable delay for journalists and public information. To refer back to a  misinformed public, trying to correct a rumor a week after it has taken hold is an impossible challenge. Simply put, the average person is not going to care about an incident that happened a week ago, if they even remember it. There is also the issue that if citizens don’t know an incident occurred, they won’t know what to FOIA, as FOIA usually requires relatively specific terms in order to be considered not “overly burdensome” to the agency.

CONCLUSION

Publicly available scanner audio increases transparency, allows media to do their job, increases public awareness, safety and trust, while saving costs. Any arguments against scanner encryption can be solved by digital modes like P25, alternate tac channels, using MDTs or phones, or in the most extreme case, a 5-15 minute delay. There is no coherent argument for full-time encryption for primary local police dispatch channels with no delayed broadcast. 

A COUPLE EXAMPLES

More posts