Slashdot Mirror
Pasadena Police Encrypt, Deny Access To Police Radio
An anonymous reader writes "There is media (but not public?) outcry over the Pasadena, CA police switch from analog radio that can be picked up by scanners to encrypted digital radio that cannot. 'On Friday, Pasadena police Lt. Phlunte Riddle said the department was unsure whether it could accommodate the media with digital scanners. Riddle said the greatest concern remains officer safety. "People who do bank robberies use scanners, and Radio Shack sells these things cheap," Riddle said. "We just had a robbery today on Hill Avenue and Washington Boulevard," Riddle said. "The last thing I want to do is to have the helicopter or the officers set up on the street and the criminals have a scanner and know where our officers are." Just prior to the switch over, city staffers said they would look into granting access to police radio chatter, most likely by loaning media outlets a scanner capable of picking up the secure signal.'"
So, the police have a legitimate reason for securing their network, and have discussed options accommodating other stake-holders who might be inconvenienced by improving their system's security. It sounds to me like the police are handling this sanely and fairly. What's the problem here?
Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
Scanners are fun.
Until you are the one dialing 911 --- and fielding calls the next day --- the next week --- from every friend, neighbor and relation who picked up on the response.
The press never "loans" their confidential sources to the police.
What does that even mean?
Are you saying that the press never shares information with the police? I find that to be incredibly unlikely. Are you saying that they have "confidential" information they don't share with the police? Possibly, but don't you have confidential information you don't share with the police? (Such as the ounce of weed you keep hidden behind the plates? Or the details of the red light you ran through the other day?)
I'm sort of surprised that the police are so willing to be accommodating here too -- "They bought the radios, why not use them" makes perfect sense here. But the idea that the press doesn't share, why should the police? seems very strange -- as I'm pretty sure the press does share.
Now only criminal organizations with the fund and resources to have a police officer or five on the take will have access to vital information. What is the lowly freelance hoodlum supposed to do?
the cops are supposed to work for the public interest, but they don't. they work for the state's and thus not for us. the media is supposed to keep tabs on the government's activities, but they're really in it for their own personal gain and glory these days. I think if public money gets pumped into it, it should be accountable to the public should individuals take an interest. in this era of standing up for your rights = terrorist, locking up the radio broadcasts is just one more step towards an opaque state that can do whatever it wants.
I wouldn't object to a delay, say 15 minutes, before public availability, if the data is streamed directly onto a public access server not controlled by the police force (perhaps a service bureau that acts as a neutral third party). That would meet the public's right to the information, and also the need for the police to not let the bank robbers listen in while the police are saying "you two go around the back, you go up on the roof, and we'll go in the front door on five ... one ... two ... three ... four ... FIVE!".
It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
who the hell modded this flamebait!? It's absolutely spot on, they're supposed to be publicly transparent - including radio comms - since they're paid for with PUBLIC MONEY!
No they are not meant to be totally transparent. That's a great way to get innocent people killed, and totally destroy the effectiveness of police.
Being paid by public money doesn't entitle every bank robber, drug dealer, or murderer listen into police comms.
If the press gets to listen, then everybody gets to listen, because the press can't keep a secret. The big competition becomes which radio station can get it on the air first.
Use just a tiny bit of common sense before you post.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Who goes on five? Three is the magic number, my friend.
If you think this will prevent the bank robbers from listening, you are naive beyond salvation.
The only thing this will do is prevent the public and media from listening to what your watchers are doing. ONLY THAT!
if now the robbers tune in with a $5 radio, tomorrow they will tune in with a $5000 radio or $5000 bribe, or a loot share for more people eying the police and reporting to them with $5 radios.
anyway, they will get around it. because well, that's the minimal investment on their part. the big investment is they risking their lives or freedom behind bars. and that they are already committing.
The interceptor needs to be in the cell, needs to have the equipment to intercept the communication (not as easy to get as a police scanner), and needs to know what to pick up. That's many orders of magnitude more secure, even if it's only because of the needle-in-a-haystack effect.
The bigger question should be how much personal information with respect to those accused/victims/witnessing crimes is indiscriminately broadcast over police radio.
No, that is simply a very good argument for encrypting everything and never releasing details of any of it to the public.
I really don't see why "the media" should have access to confidential police information that Mr X of Y address has been questioned on suspicion of Z if it turns out to be a mistake and he is released without charge later. You only need Z to be "rape" or "possession of child pornography" and Mr X is in serious trouble, even if he is totally innocent.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it