▲ 504 ▼ NYPD faces backlash as it prepares to encrypt radio communications | New York | The Guardian (www.theguardian.com) submitted 2 years ago by fne8w2ah@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world 134 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] nodsocket@lemmy.world 18 points 2 years ago (15 children) What is the purpose of encrypting comms? permalink fedilink source hideshow 15 child comments replies: [–] SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.world 26 points 2 years ago (3 children) To keep criminals from monitoring the police and getting a head start permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Dkarma@lemmy.world 15 points 2 years ago (2 children) Lol the police are a response team. The criminals always have a head start. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Not with a hidden investigation. You wanna leak comms while undercover? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Dkarma@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago Who's dumb enough to use comms at all while uc? If so why aren't u using aliases. Smooth brain thinking right there. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Wahots@pawb.social 24 points 2 years ago (9 children) In prior articles on this, religious nutjobs would listen to police radio and visit the active crime scene and start praying in the middle of the chaos. People and police started getting really sick of their shit during an emergency. Other flavors of morons would also show up to watch shit go down. Sometimes, private information would also get said on the radio such as names or addresses, which could lead to harassment or true crime nuts showing up to private homes. I kinda get why making channels private for everyone but reporters (for transparency) is happening. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] Mango@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago (7 children) I kinda get it, but at the same time I think it should be our right to monitor police. I'm not sure how to reconcile the personal info part though. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] SeriousBug@infosec.pub 10 points 2 years ago (6 children) Agreed. But I think the right to monitor the police doesn't have to mean real-time access to police radio. The radio could be recorded, like body cam footage, and released on demand with FOIA. FOIA allows redactions when needed, so sensitive information like victims names and addresses could be redacted. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [+] TseseJuer@lemmy.world -20 points 2 years ago* (5 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [+] Tyfud@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] c0mbatbag3l@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Tell me, has the currently unencrypted radios kept the cops from doing shady and unethical shit so far? No? Well then it seems like they already have ways to break the rules outside of what the citizen is currently capable of monitoring, yes? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] TseseJuer@lemmy.world -10 points 2 years ago [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent [–] SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Such an edgy "rebel" permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] TseseJuer@lemmy.world -8 points 2 years ago [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent [–] Spaceballstheusername@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago I think it says the idea of allowing media or a delayed stream to the public was talked about but nothing was decided. permalink fedilink source parent [–] atrielienz@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Imagine an active shooter situation where the shooter was carrying or had access to a police scanner and could listen in on what they knew and their movements. I don't like this idea because I think cops need more media scrutiny than less. But I do understand why it may be necessary in some scenarios. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.world 26 points 2 years ago (3 children) To keep criminals from monitoring the police and getting a head start permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Dkarma@lemmy.world 15 points 2 years ago (2 children) Lol the police are a response team. The criminals always have a head start. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Not with a hidden investigation. You wanna leak comms while undercover? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Dkarma@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago Who's dumb enough to use comms at all while uc? If so why aren't u using aliases. Smooth brain thinking right there. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Dkarma@lemmy.world 15 points 2 years ago (2 children) Lol the police are a response team. The criminals always have a head start. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Not with a hidden investigation. You wanna leak comms while undercover? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Dkarma@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago Who's dumb enough to use comms at all while uc? If so why aren't u using aliases. Smooth brain thinking right there. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Not with a hidden investigation. You wanna leak comms while undercover? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Dkarma@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago Who's dumb enough to use comms at all while uc? If so why aren't u using aliases. Smooth brain thinking right there. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Dkarma@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago Who's dumb enough to use comms at all while uc? If so why aren't u using aliases. Smooth brain thinking right there. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Wahots@pawb.social 24 points 2 years ago (9 children) In prior articles on this, religious nutjobs would listen to police radio and visit the active crime scene and start praying in the middle of the chaos. People and police started getting really sick of their shit during an emergency. Other flavors of morons would also show up to watch shit go down. Sometimes, private information would also get said on the radio such as names or addresses, which could lead to harassment or true crime nuts showing up to private homes. I kinda get why making channels private for everyone but reporters (for transparency) is happening. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] Mango@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago (7 children) I kinda get it, but at the same time I think it should be our right to monitor police. I'm not sure how to reconcile the personal info part though. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] SeriousBug@infosec.pub 10 points 2 years ago (6 children) Agreed. But I think the right to monitor the police doesn't have to mean real-time access to police radio. The radio could be recorded, like body cam footage, and released on demand with FOIA. FOIA allows redactions when needed, so sensitive information like victims names and addresses could be redacted. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [+] TseseJuer@lemmy.world -20 points 2 years ago* (5 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [+] Tyfud@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] c0mbatbag3l@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Tell me, has the currently unencrypted radios kept the cops from doing shady and unethical shit so far? No? Well then it seems like they already have ways to break the rules outside of what the citizen is currently capable of monitoring, yes? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] TseseJuer@lemmy.world -10 points 2 years ago [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent [–] SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Such an edgy "rebel" permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] TseseJuer@lemmy.world -8 points 2 years ago [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent [–] Spaceballstheusername@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago I think it says the idea of allowing media or a delayed stream to the public was talked about but nothing was decided. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Mango@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago (7 children) I kinda get it, but at the same time I think it should be our right to monitor police. I'm not sure how to reconcile the personal info part though. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] SeriousBug@infosec.pub 10 points 2 years ago (6 children) Agreed. But I think the right to monitor the police doesn't have to mean real-time access to police radio. The radio could be recorded, like body cam footage, and released on demand with FOIA. FOIA allows redactions when needed, so sensitive information like victims names and addresses could be redacted. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [+] TseseJuer@lemmy.world -20 points 2 years ago* (5 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [+] Tyfud@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] c0mbatbag3l@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Tell me, has the currently unencrypted radios kept the cops from doing shady and unethical shit so far? No? Well then it seems like they already have ways to break the rules outside of what the citizen is currently capable of monitoring, yes? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] TseseJuer@lemmy.world -10 points 2 years ago [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent [–] SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Such an edgy "rebel" permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] TseseJuer@lemmy.world -8 points 2 years ago [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SeriousBug@infosec.pub 10 points 2 years ago (6 children) Agreed. But I think the right to monitor the police doesn't have to mean real-time access to police radio. The radio could be recorded, like body cam footage, and released on demand with FOIA. FOIA allows redactions when needed, so sensitive information like victims names and addresses could be redacted. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [+] TseseJuer@lemmy.world -20 points 2 years ago* (5 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [+] Tyfud@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] c0mbatbag3l@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Tell me, has the currently unencrypted radios kept the cops from doing shady and unethical shit so far? No? Well then it seems like they already have ways to break the rules outside of what the citizen is currently capable of monitoring, yes? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] TseseJuer@lemmy.world -10 points 2 years ago [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent [–] SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Such an edgy "rebel" permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] TseseJuer@lemmy.world -8 points 2 years ago [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent
[+] TseseJuer@lemmy.world -20 points 2 years ago* (5 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [+] Tyfud@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] c0mbatbag3l@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Tell me, has the currently unencrypted radios kept the cops from doing shady and unethical shit so far? No? Well then it seems like they already have ways to break the rules outside of what the citizen is currently capable of monitoring, yes? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] TseseJuer@lemmy.world -10 points 2 years ago [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent [–] SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Such an edgy "rebel" permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] TseseJuer@lemmy.world -8 points 2 years ago [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent
[+] Tyfud@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] c0mbatbag3l@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Tell me, has the currently unencrypted radios kept the cops from doing shady and unethical shit so far? No? Well then it seems like they already have ways to break the rules outside of what the citizen is currently capable of monitoring, yes? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] TseseJuer@lemmy.world -10 points 2 years ago [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Such an edgy "rebel" permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] TseseJuer@lemmy.world -8 points 2 years ago [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Spaceballstheusername@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago I think it says the idea of allowing media or a delayed stream to the public was talked about but nothing was decided. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] atrielienz@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Imagine an active shooter situation where the shooter was carrying or had access to a police scanner and could listen in on what they knew and their movements. I don't like this idea because I think cops need more media scrutiny than less. But I do understand why it may be necessary in some scenarios. permalink fedilink source parent