Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Encryption Communications

NYPD Considers Using Encryption To Block Public From Radio Scanner Broadcasts (gizmodo.com) 126

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Gizmodo: The NYPD says it wants to reimagine its current police communication system and transition to encrypted messages by 2024, according to a recent amNY report confirmed by Gizmodo. While law enforcement has spent years fighting to make encryption less accessible for everyday people, police think they need a little more privacy. Critics worry a turn towards encryption by law enforcement could reduce transparency, hamstring the news media, and potentially jeopardize the safety of protestors looking to stay a step ahead.

According to amNY, the NYPD's new plan would allow law enforcement officers discretion on whether or not to publicly disclose newsworthy incidents. That means the NYPD essentially would get to dictate the truth unchallenged in a number of potentially sensitive local stories. The report suggests police are floating the idea of letting members of the news media monitor certain radio transmissions through an NYPD-controlled mobile app. There's a catch though. According to the report, the app would send radio information with a delay. Users may also have to pay a subscription fee to use the service, the paper said.

The NYPD confirmed its planning a "systems upgrade" in the coming years in an email to Gizmodo. "The NYPD is undergoing a systems upgrade that is underway and that will be complete after 2024," a spokesperson for the Deputy Commissioner of Public Information said. "This infrastructure upgrade allows the NYPD to transmit in either an encrypted or non-encrypted format," the NYPD said. "Some parts of the city have had the necessary equipment installed and the Department will begin testing the technology in these areas later this year. We are currently evaluating encryption best practices and will communicate new policies and procedures as we roll out this upgraded technology." The spokesperson claimed the department intends to listen to and consider the needs of the news media during the transition process.
"The entire public safety news coverage system depends on scanners, and if scanners and scanner traffic are no longer available to newsrooms then news reporting about crime, fire -- it's going to be very hit or miss," CaliforniansAware General Counsel Terry Francke told the Reporters Committee in a blog post.

"Cutting off the media from getting emergency transmissions represents the clearest regression of the NYPD policy of transparency in its history," New York Press Photographers Association President Bruce Cotler said in an interview with amNY. "We believe shutting down radio transmissions is a danger to the public and to the right of the public to know about important events."

Gizmodo notes that New York joins a growing list of cities considering encrypting radio communications. "Denver, Baltimore, Virginia Beach, Sioux City, Iowa, and Racine, Wisconsin have all moved to implement the technology in recent years."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

NYPD Considers Using Encryption To Block Public From Radio Scanner Broadcasts

Comments Filter:
  • As a LEO supporter (Score:5, Insightful)

    by grasshoppa ( 657393 ) on Friday September 30, 2022 @10:33PM (#62928339) Homepage

    Absolutely not. I get the arguments of why they want to, and none of them are compelling enough to overrule the "public oversight" argument.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 30, 2022 @10:43PM (#62928371)

      Why would you support them? To them you’re just a person who hasn’t yet committed a crime. Cops are nearly immune to wrongdoing, under no obligation to protect you, and can arrest you if they merely *believe* they are correct. When the tables are turned the story becomes ignorance of the law is no excuse. Five months of training is all you need. People need longer schooling and a license just to cut hair. Cops are the biggest organized gang in the country.

      • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

        by b0s0z0ku ( 752509 )
        Because it's America ... you have to give lip service to supporting "heroes" to be seen as a decent person?
      • Why would you support them? To them you’re just a person who hasn’t yet committed a crime. Cops are nearly immune to wrongdoing, under no obligation to protect you, and can arrest you if they merely *believe* they are correct.

        I foresee a few possibilities:
        * "Yes but they are hurting the people I want them to but don't you call me a racist!"
        * "They only hurt the peasantry, not their betters."
        * "[Profoundly ignorant statement about how police actions are justified.]"

      • by JeffOwl ( 2858633 ) on Saturday October 01, 2022 @08:47AM (#62928955)

        Why would you support them?

        One can support "police" without supporting all police officers or departments. Like I support free speech without supporting what every person says. As to why... 1. Because they do the stuff that regular people are not willing to do. Person assaulting random folks on the street? Are you going to start dealing with that? Guy beating his GF while all the neighbors listen to her scream without interviewing. Are you going to stop him, only to be attacked by both of them? Jackass road raging fires off a couple shots into your car. We going to make that everyone's responsibility to deal with on their own? You want more vigilantes? You think that will somehow work better and they would treat people better? 2. If you don't have police you are going to get more private security who will be less transparent than the police, and will increase the divide between rich and poor. And who is going to stop armed private security if they get out of line? Vigilantes again? 3. Because there are (or were) 800,000 of them in the USA, of course there are bad ones, as there are with any group that size, but this idea that you somehow know how the majority of them behave based on what you, as an individual, experience or see in the news is ignorance. If the police have no public support then the good ones will continue to get out of the career (as has been happening in many cities) and you will only have those with no other options.

        • Guy beating his GF while all the neighbors listen to her scream without interviewing.

          Who was doing the interview(s)? The GF, the guy, or some passerby? Just curious...

      • by Shaiku ( 1045292 )

        My local police and sheriff use analog FM which means I can listen to everything they're doing (except when they call each other on their cell phones), and listening has given me a much better understanding of who they are and how they do their jobs. It changed my opinion from being very suspicious and untrusting to actually respecting them. That doesn't mean that every individual is perfect or that the institution wouldn't cover-up some mistakes, but I have listened to many calls where they back off and

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      The public doesn't seem to care about "public oversight". If they did, our "closed door" government would be pried wide open, on the contrary, we have more secrecy every day, and people just shrug their shoulders and reelect the same old bums (over/under is about 90%), hoping for a piece of the pie

    • by lsllll ( 830002 )
      I don't listen to police radio, so I don't really know what they say over the air. While I'm with you in regard to public oversight, there are probably instances where they already hide their communication via other means (probably cell phones), like serving search warrants as such. The question is would it be easier if they had a button on their Walkie Talkies to encrypt the communication. I'd be okay with that as long as a) it was used very sparingly and b) it was being recorded at headquarters and obt
    • by b0s0z0ku ( 752509 ) on Friday September 30, 2022 @11:20PM (#62928421)
      It's OK not to support law enforcement as practiced in the US. I'm not a fan, I didn't find them heroic (even after 9/11), and I'm not ashamed of it.
    • As a LEO supporter

      I don't see what low Earth orbit has to do with this. Are you against boosting the orbit of Hubble? Supporting a LEO implies that you'd prefer to see it dive into the Pacific Ocean. Such barbarism.

    • Police will die. Ask ACT fire brigade(Australia). They abandoned ultra expensive radio project that 1) Had a much shorter effective range, 2) More blackout areas of no reception, 3) More unreliable, 4) Shorter battery life, 5)Failed purpose - Radio Amateurs with software defined radios were easily able to write decoders, 6) Shorter working life, 7) Budget money wasted when it could be spent better elsewhere - such as training. 8) Bought and announced before any actual in the field evaluation. 9) Is there an
    • What is REALLY funny is that every LEO agency that I am aware of already has encrypted comms for channels that cover sensitive transmissions. That drug raid? Not called over unencrypted comms. Telling a sniper to take a shot? Encrypted. In short, everything that needs to be encrypted already is. This is just about a lack of transparency from the police.

  • by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Friday September 30, 2022 @10:35PM (#62928343) Homepage Journal

    "The entire public safety news coverage system depends on scanners, and if scanners and scanner traffic are no longer available to newsrooms then news reporting about crime, fire -- it's going to be very hit or miss," CaliforniansAware General Counsel Terry Francke told the Reporters Committee in a blog post.

    It doesn't have to be that way. The cops can simply issue radios to newsrooms. That serves the public interest, if it's done even-handedly. Which it won't be, of course, but the idea that encrypted radio necessarily means newsrooms can't receive the signals is false.

    In my area the sheriff's office uses encrypted radio, but the fire doesn't. It would be nice to keep up with what is going on with the cops, but at least I have access to the most important information.

    • by Arethan ( 223197 ) on Friday September 30, 2022 @11:09PM (#62928413) Journal

      The cops can simply issue radios to newsrooms.

      And who gets to be the arbiter, selecting which newsrooms are worthy of these radios?

      If this goes anything like concealed carry permits, the difference of reality between "MAY ISSUE" and "SHALL ISSUE" legislation will be stark.

      Open comms are important. If they want encrypted radios, we should demand unencrypted time delayed rebroadcasts without edits - and that delay should be reasonable, I'm thinking like 30min or less, but I'm open to much less.

      • And who gets to be the arbiter, selecting which newsrooms are worthy of these radios?

        The government which is represented by the relevant police force, obviously.

        If this goes anything like concealed carry permits, the difference of reality between "MAY ISSUE" and "SHALL ISSUE" legislation will be stark.

        My comment made it clear that I understand that.

        Open comms are important. If they want encrypted radios, we should demand unencrypted time delayed rebroadcasts without edits - and that delay should be reasonable, I'm thinking like 30min or less, but I'm open to much less.

        I don't think they should be allowed to use digital radio for dispatch, period. And audio records of all encrypted transmissions (for tactical use only) should be stored in perpetuity so they can be subpoenaed.

      • And who gets to be the arbiter, selecting which newsrooms are worthy of these radios?

        Maybe the same folks who get to censor things on social media? I mean we already trust them, apparently ...

      • If they want encrypted radios, we should demand unencrypted time delayed rebroadcasts without edits - and that delay should be reasonable,

        That's a GREAT idea! It counters the "tip the perp that the cops are coming" argument nicely.

    • by Tailhook ( 98486 )

      Many, many PDs already use encrypted radio

      Yes they do. This has been widespread for years. I'm amazed NYC didn't do this years ago; they got billions in federal money for security after 9/11.

      You and whatever 'news' organizations you prefer have no right to real time police radio traffic. Yes, it should be recorded and the recordings should be subject to however many borough, city, state, and federal review boards you want to pay for, but that's all.

      • Yes they do. This has been widespread for years. I'm amazed NYC didn't do this years ago; they got billions in federal money for security after 9/11.

        Not just that, but the majority of police-grade radios out there will do at least P25 if they just configure it...

      • Also I might add that CPRB are bad jokes in many if not most places. In fact for-some-reason-liberal-icon Jerry Brown signed into law an act in California that kneecapped them in the name of protecting officer privacy [lookout.co].

        California! Uber alles!

    • FWIW, the systems control receipt groups, so just giving them a radio might not achieve much. Really there should be something along the lines of RSS for accredited press or oversight groups that breaks down the most basic information like "shots fired, ## block of homeowners street, officers responding."

      • FWIW, the systems control receipt groups, so just giving them a radio might not achieve much.

        I'm not familiar with the terminology you're using (is it vendor specific?) but if you mean selective calling then it comes down to how the radio is programmed.

        • The selective calling can (as I understand it) be enforced by the head-end though.

          • You can specify which parties can receive the message. I don't know how it's enforced, it might be possible to bypass that with your own radio. But unless you have a way to get the key out of the radio and put it in another one, that's impractical. Certainly you could use this functionality to prevent the journos from getting some of your messages. The important thing is to record all messages which pass through a base station or repeater.

    • by mjwx ( 966435 )

      "The entire public safety news coverage system depends on scanners, and if scanners and scanner traffic are no longer available to newsrooms then news reporting about crime, fire -- it's going to be very hit or miss," CaliforniansAware General Counsel Terry Francke told the Reporters Committee in a blog post.

      It doesn't have to be that way. The cops can simply issue radios to newsrooms. That serves the public interest, if it's done even-handedly. Which it won't be, of course, but the idea that encrypted radio necessarily means newsrooms can't receive the signals is false.

      In my area the sheriff's office uses encrypted radio, but the fire doesn't. It would be nice to keep up with what is going on with the cops, but at least I have access to the most important information.

      Ultimately what happens is they take a lot of their conversations off the radio. It happened in Australia where a lot of radio traffic was "call number ending in 3943" precisely because of all the radio scanners out there. I think it's better to keep the radio secure, so cops can have sensitive conversations on there that are recordable subject to FOI and discovery, phone calls aren't recorded.

      The bigger issue is rather that most US police forces are not trustworthy, not that they aren't monitored (as me

    • by k6mfw ( 1182893 )
      Here in Silicon Valley ***all departments*** went encrypted with a countywide system including fire depts. I'm not sure if transit channels are encrypted they are on the same 700 MHz P25 Phase II system. Only agency left where a scanner can receive is CHP. Quite different compared to before if I hear sirens or see large collection of public safety vehicles or police helo orbiting in my area I could get some idea of what's going on. There was very little discussion after the transition (happened just before
      • Dunno, I can only speak to who's using what in Humboldt. Up here it's almost all VHF/UHF and about half of it is digital. I'm just glad that pretty much all the fire chatter for the county is on one frequency. That means I get to hear about any fire anywhere near me... or any non-fire ("not as reported") which is even nicer to know about.

        Rio Dell still uses a siren to alert emergency personnel in town, I guess they decided it was cheaper than building their own paging network and issuing pagers. It also giv

    • by k6mfw ( 1182893 )
      Another item I've heard is issues of PII (personally identifiable information) which everyone is becoming much more sensitive about i.e. databases that get hacked. So while issues of police becoming more secret being argued, another issue is stuff like DL checks reveal name and date of birth together along with address.
    • by gtall ( 79522 )

      Every bozo with a blog or podcast will claim to own a newsroom.

  • by ArchieBunker ( 132337 ) on Friday September 30, 2022 @10:38PM (#62928353)

    Are they using p25 encryption? Last I checked you could broadcast interference on the trunking frequency and the radios fall back to unencrypted without alerting.

    • by kriston ( 7886 )

      you could broadcast interference on the trunking frequency and the radios fall back to unencrypted without alerting.

      And that would be hugely illegal.

    • Re:P25? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Mister Transistor ( 259842 ) on Friday September 30, 2022 @11:08PM (#62928409) Journal

      That's not true. FYI:

      First, the digital repeaters don't care about whether the payload is encrypted or not, it's just a bit set in the headers.

      Second, if the system subscribers and console are secure-strapped (preprogammed to ignore the switch) they CAN'T fall back to clear (non-encrypted) mode, ever.

      You can still jam the system, but you need a +6dB signal advantage to guarantee FM capture.

      Ham radio Motorola Quantar owner and retired Moto design engineer here.

      • by mallyn ( 136041 )
        I think I may have met you at the Spark Museum of Electrical Invention here in Bellingham, Washington. I remember having a long talk with a retire Motorola engineer on this very topic. We were standing in main gallery where we had the old radios. Mark Allyn Bellingham, Washington
        • Sadly, no. I have never been to the Spark Museum, but it sounds really interesting and fun. It has been about 40 years since I was last in WA state, sorry - it wasn't me.

          • by mallyn ( 136041 )
            My mistake. Your colleague who did visit the museum was quite knowledgeable in the trunked radios and P25. If you should find yourself in the Pacific Northwest, it's worth a visit! Mark
  • by kriston ( 7886 ) on Friday September 30, 2022 @10:39PM (#62928357) Homepage Journal

    How is this news? Police in other jurisdictions have been encrypting their radios for several decades, even transit radios.

    • by c-A-d ( 77980 )

      if it necessary to allow open access, then a website can be used to permit the public to listen in on general dispatch. This also allows the system to be shut down in case of emergency.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        if it necessary to allow open access, then a website can be used to permit the public to listen in on general dispatch. This also allows the system to be shut down in case of emergency.

        Queue 25 years of re-authorizing a "state of emergency" so the public is prevented from knowing what their public servants are doing...

        • Public servants are teachers, firefighters, scientists. Cops, jailers, and military are just violent thugs.
        • Burma (now Myanmar) has been under a "state of emergency" scince 1988 (IIRC)

          "State of emergency", yeah that gives the bad guys in charge the right to smash a woman in the jaw with a rifle butt in front of her kids on suspicion of something or another.

      • by narcc ( 412956 )

        For various definitions of "emergency"...

      • by quall ( 1441799 )

        So would you support encryption if it the transmissions were made public 1 day later? There is no reason that a regular person would need this info in real time. Even if they heard something afoul, what will they do at that moment?

  • by slasher999 ( 513533 ) on Friday September 30, 2022 @10:42PM (#62928367)

    As indicated, this really is nothing new. As municipalities upgrade their communication systems, the providers of those systems sell on the idea that “digital is better than analog, and encryption is better than no encryption”. The buyer does have a choice. They can choose what specific channels to encrypt and which ones to leave open.

    This has been going on for many years. Encryption does shut out scanner users and users of services such as Broadcastify (which consists of users “donating” their scanner reception to the streaming service). Many people, myself included, aren’t able to monitor at least some of their local public services.

    Encrypted channels also present a problem for interoperability between agencies. An outside agency will not be able to communicate on an encrypted channel their equipment has not been provisioned for. This means added complexity as units must use a shared, open channel for shared communications.

    Ideally agencies wishing to adopt encryption should do so on a limited number of secondary, tactical channels. Encrypting dispatch and other common channels introduces more issues than it solves in most cases.

    • Objectively, isn't digital better than analog, assuming you have good enough signal coverage? Much smaller channel width for a given amount of data.
      • For varying values of "better".

        The digital signal is narrower bandwidth, but crappier audio quality. Some contend digital has a little better usable range than analog, and narrow band signals seems to go a little further than wide band ones.

        So, which is actually "better" depends on your yardstick, i.e. audio quality vs, occupied bandwidth vs. effective real-world range and reliability.

        • by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

          Narrow band signals also mean you can pack more channels into your frequency allocation.

          The problem is that FM, even narrowband FM, requires about 25kHz per channel (broadcast FM, or wide FM, is around 75kHz), which means if you have an allocation of frequencies, which everyone does, you can only pack in so many channels. If you're lucky and have a whole MHz of allocated frequencies, that's 40 channels with FM. Not all the space is used because you don't want each channel to spill over to the next channel,

      • "Good enough signal coverage" can be an issue. Our country switched to a nationwide radio network based on TETRA for police, fire PDs and ambulances. It has worked fairly well, but firemen still often carry older analog radios when they go into buildings, as they've found that the digital ones often don't work as well inside.
    • First and foremost I don't trust the press to report on police matters. The press has a long history of reporting what the police do uncritically. They do that because if they don't the police cut them off from press releases and those press releases on incredibly cheap and easy way to get eyes on news.

      As for why it's a big deal NYPD is doing this it's because they had a huge push into transparency after several major scandals and it's a blue state so that transparency is expected.

      If your criminals
  • What are they trying to hide? Criminal activity perhaps?
    • I get your point, but it's a double-edged sword as usual.

      Even reporting a regional power outage in a gun-controlled city, makes the area ripe for criminals. No more lights. No more house alarms. They don't even have to get off their ass, to go find the low-hanging fruit. You just told them.

      Not to mention the sheer amount of PII that is likely broadcast on a daily basis, including minors. Names, addresses, drivers license numbers and of course every suspected/accused crime, whether true or not, guilty

  • If you have nothing to hide...

  • In general it should be reasonable that police communications are unreadable for anyone. But in US of A they have already too much power without any control from independent power entity. So in this case it is unfortunately a hard no from me. It would be another eye shut against abuse of power.
  • by OneOfMany07 ( 4921667 ) on Saturday October 01, 2022 @12:48AM (#62928525)

    Record at all times while on duty, for every employee. If they're able to order other people around and arrest them, then I want to know what they're doing and saying at all times while "on duty". And maybe more.

    Off duty behavior reflects on the police department too. Like intimidating people with a badge flash. "Do you know who I am?"

    "If you're not doing anything wrong, then why does it matter if I record you?"

  • by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Saturday October 01, 2022 @02:34AM (#62928601)

    something very standard in law enforcement in much of the western world?

    When did America catching up with the late 90s become "news"?

    • something very standard in law enforcement in much of the western world?

      When did America catching up with the late 90s become "news"?

      Maybe the real news is why is one the countries' largest police agencies, still sitting in the early 90s?

      I wonder how many times New York taxpayers, have paid for a "communications refresh" already? Perhaps we should ask a former disgraced leader or seven about that shit. I'd love to see an audit right about now.

      • Well I wouldn't go that far when talking about encryption. This is something that can be turned on and off at will at the base stations and by a quick software update to the portables and mobiles when they are at the station. The reality is P25 (and TETRA in Europe) despite being over 20 years old are still the latest and greatest standard for critical communications for emergency services the world over.

        The world is slowly migrating to some LTE based services (and 5G introduced a whole host of features mea

  • Fewer gawkers at accident sites, fires etc. is a good thing.

  • not just digital encryption, but they can use the cellular system frequencies and tech and radio police scanners wont even get those frequencies, a large chunk of the 800 MHZ band is blocked and missing from radio police scanners (blocked and locked out and gone)
    • a large chunk of the 800 MHZ band is blocked and missing from radio police scanners (blocked and locked out and gone)

      Heh heh, police scanners. Those are for housewives.

  • There should be a website with EVERY incident reported as it happens. Maybe don't include exact address and names if it's residential but rather whole apartment building or the street/block. If it's a fire then the exact address of course. If there is a swatting or forced entry then it has to be on the website seconds before they take action with at least a couple different news media individuals from different outlets (say 4 people) on site already but not in the way.

  • I worked for several years at a radio shop where we did all the "stuff" for the local police departments. I'd doubt that many crooks are using analog radio scanners, and even that can be easily thwarted by police by using cellular, etc., when "going in for the kill" when it comes to raids.

    Encrypted equipment is more expensive, forever, requires more power on both ends, increases communication delays, is harder/more expensive to repair (meaning more e-waste) and discourages multi-department interoperab
  • Call me shocked.

  • by denny_deluxe ( 1693548 ) on Saturday October 01, 2022 @10:17AM (#62929079)
    Because precious snowflake police are tired of being held accountable for anything.
  • That's what surprises me.
  • Someone should have jumped on the LEO thread to ask what Low Earth Orbit has to do with it? (Just checking for Funny and disappointed as usual. Not actually interested in the story...)

  • Encrypted Police Radio isn't new, lot's of cities have already done it.

    So how much of an impact on crime does it make?
    What advantages/disadvantages have been observed?

  • Project 25 Phase 2 is a system used nationwide, which requires both an expensive scanner and technical expertise to program it. Any government agency seeking to completely block the public out of communications should be suspect. If NYPD wants to prevent the public from knowing what they're doing, my first question would be - what are they planning to do that they don't want the public to know about?

  • The cops want to be opaque as much as possible. Don't forget about the guy who was raped with a plunger handle by the cops right there in the city of New York.

  • There are pros and cons to encrypting the chatter, but it boils down to trust.
    In many other countrys it is already encrypted, and police is required to post a datastream of events to media and private citizen alike. Because the police in these countrys have trust, and continually earn this trust, this works.

    This blocks criminals from getting live info on exactly what police are doing and as such reduce the risk to the police of their information being misused.
    In US, and especially NY, the police does not

Were there fewer fools, knaves would starve. - Anonymous

Working...