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.'"

Comments

So?

[Kell Bengal]

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?

Re:So?

[errandum]

The problem is the status quo. People got used to have access to something (and I'm sure some have a legitimate reason for it), so it is conisdered bad form to remove said feature. That's the way I see it, at least.

Re:So?

[johngaunt]

My only problem with this scheme, and I work for the local constabulatory as a civilian, is that they hope to give preferential treatment to the 'press'. If they won't let Joe Citizen have access to, then no one should. Just because you work for a paper or TV or Radio station doesn't make you better or more able to access information than anyone else. Maybe it's different in California, but where I live, there is no law granting the 'press' special powers or privilege to information that is denied to everyone else.

Re:So?

[Z00L00K]

Why not present the radio traffic time lapsed on the web?

A delay of up to an hour wouldn't hurt the news agencies that much and still would keep any criminals off track.

It also allows for the possibility to further delay or even cut traffic in special cases.

Re:So?

[symbolset]

I'm actually surprised it took them this long. Operational security is important, and bad guys listening on scanners has been a fiction theme for what, 25 years? It's been well proven to happen in practice too.

And no, for the commenter above, time delay doesn't work. Even response times, the names and numbers of units, processes and practices are all operational security elements that can be exploited by criminals and these would be revealed by a time-delayed online stream. Besides, providing it requires public moneys put to a use outside the police department budget.

I'm as suspicious of some members of the police as the next guy, and feel they generally need good supervision. But transmitting their radio signals in the clear is a simple detriment to the public safety mission.

Re:So?

[walshy007]

Even response times, the names and numbers of units, processes and practices are all operational security elements that can be exploited by criminals and these would be revealed by a time-delayed online stream.

By this logic, the public should have no method of determining their local police forces typical response times, how well or under staffed they are, etc. Being able to not reveal a thing to the public might do wonders for the security of the police, but without some oversight how can you tell if the police are doing their job well or not?

Re:So?

[EdIII]

In other words.... Operational Security is for military operations. Last time I checked we lived in a free society in which our military is 100% separated from civilians. By that I mean that a Colonel armed with a gun can't walk around the streets and start ordering civilians to do anything, unlike some parts of the world.

Operational Security does not apply to law enforcement. Once you take away the tremendous bullshit of the War on Drugs, just how much "Operational Security" is really required on a day-to-day basis? I suspect a hell of lot less than anything that would justify it.

The public safety mission is harmed when you take away oversight and accountability. Radio signals in the clear is part of oversight and accountability. The public has every right to know response times, unit numbers, processes, practices, methodologies, etc. After all, they work for us.

Is the proper balance being struck here? Somehow I doubt it.

Now in situations in which a SWAT team is actually required I don't object to some Operational Security during that particular operation and full disclosure afterwards. Those situations are fairly rare when compared against all crime, once you exclude all the aforementioned bullshit of the drug war.

Law enforcement will never be able to justify to me why their actions cannot be 100% transparent.

Re:So?

[psiclops]

or if there were something that the police thought the public should be aware of for their own safety then perhaps they could just i dunno, tell the media?

Re:So?

[Gription]

Ding,ding,ding,ding! We have a winner!!!

Government unobserved very quickly starts to smell very bad. Often government only has to obfuscate their actions in plain sight to hide their actions. The City of Bell in Los Angeles is a prime example. Take an organization that is granted extraordinary powers, self regulated, and (when caught out) investigates itself and you have a recipe for disaster. The only protection that the public has to protect itself is to be able to observe in a meaningful manner the actions of the police.

Do you think that police are good and magically 'special' so they can be trusted? It is a pretty well excepted fact that a single person, observed, will tend to make choices that we would describe as moral simply because they are being observed. You put together a group of like minded people and then you can start to see really questionable behavior. When you get really large masses of people in a hierarchy then you can get truly obscene, despotic behavior. Question any police officer you know and you will find seeds of this. They have a culture ingrained with the idea that the laws don't really apply to them combined with equal parts of "they are a brotherhood that stands apart" and the fact that they investigate themselves.

Ask any police officer you know if they have chosen to not give a 'brother officer' a traffic citation simply because they are a police officer ("One of the brotherhood"). They will say things like "professional courtesy" and if pressed for a better reason will come up with something like, "I don't give them a ticket because this is someone that I might have to count on to back me up in an emergency situation at a moments notice". Really!??? The police officer's excuse breaks down to, "a policeman might be so unreliable and sophomoric to not pitch in during an emergency situation because someone gave them a traffic ticket"? I don't believe that answer for a minute even though the officer probably believes it, because it has been ingrained in him through the culture of his department and training.
Let's break it down:
- They can choose which laws apply to their brotherhood.
- They have a culture of protecting their own before they protect the public. (all people are this way)
- They are put in situations where on an average day they see the worst in humanity and the normal human thing to do is to anticipate/expect/look-for that behavior out of of every new person they meet.
- They have a culture of secrecy.
- And then they investigate themselves and only they can decide to send one of their own in front of a judge.
- - - - - - - - -

Trust your government as far as you can spit upwind in a hurricane. A government unobserved is a recipe for tyranny... and the baking time till ready is almost instantaneous. Remember that Morality is a function of consciousness, and a government (or corporation) is not conscious so it cannot make moral choices. They may appear moral or the actions may agree with your moral choices but that doesn't make them moral choices.
It is actually just a big process populated by people wanting to justify their own positions and to a large part by people who think citizens are accountable to 'The Process instead of the other way around. A big thing to look for are governments that think that the constituents are their source of revenue. This tells you what the people at the top think the relationship is. And everyone else in the hierarchy is sucking from the teat above them so you know how the Kool-Aid is distributed.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

We've had enough UK precedence, thank you.

Re:So?

[peawormsworth]

The public safety mission is harmed when you take away oversight and accountability. Radio signals in the clear is part of oversight and accountability. The public has every right to know response times, unit numbers, processes, practices, methodologies, etc. After all, they work for us.

Law enforcement will never be able to justify to me why their actions cannot be 100% transparent.

Save your battle for the right to take video of the police in public. Laws that prevent you from filming anyone in public is a real issue. This is work communication and rarely if ever do I hear of it being used to for oversight of the police. Videos of police abuse is the number 1 way to find the few bad apples in the force who cannot handle the authority they are entrusted with.

Perhaps there is an argument to have all police radio communication recorded and make it available to the courts and requests from the public for release later. I just dont think real time eavesdropping on the police will make a difference in watching over the police for abuse.

Re:So?

[Joce640k]

The way the police are headed recently we need every single control and check possible over what they say and do. Letting them censor their own communications is a bad idea.

*Everything* the police does should be made public. If it was up to me I'd have every public servant walking around with a video camera on his shoulder recording everything they say/do. We need to watch the watchmen.

OTOH, yes, letting criminals listen in real time isn't good - it helps them get away. There's a better solution then 'encrypt everything' though...

Re:So?

[Plunky]

The reasoning the police give for having privacy is a lot more realistic: to deny criminals the ability to track police actions.

Except, that reasoning may seem sound, but the people they want to block are not criminals until they have been charged and convicted by a court of law. What they actually want: to deny all people the ability to track police actions.

Its up to you if you accept that this is proper, but history shows that some amount of oversight is desireable, even necessary.

Re:So?

[Joce640k]

'encrypt everything' is a perfectly fine solution

I dunno. It sounds good in theory but history shows that as soon as you do it people will start thinking of ways to hide the embarrassing stuff in the name of 'security'.

It's just the way their minds work. Look at how much resistance there currently is to recording police when they're on duty.

Best to keep as much stuff as possible in plain sight. Not hidden, under control of the privileged few.

Re:Why is this news?

[epyT-R]

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.

Re:Why is this news?

[garyebickford]

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!".

Re:Why is this news?

[icebike]

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.

Re:We the people...

[tehcyder]

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.