504
submitted 10 months ago by fne8w2ah@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] otter@lemmy.ca 27 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I don't quite get these comments, I think our emergency services went encrypted a while back in Vancouver Canada and I'm surprised NY wasn't already encrypted?

What about keeping the communications encrypted for the privacy and safety of people involved, and storing the records for a set amount of time. Anyone with access to the live feed can access the backups during that time, and report issues as needed.

I'm not familiar with the issues with the police department, so maybe a better compromise would be to open up the feeds publicly after a set amount of time?

[-] doppelgangmember@lemmy.world 27 points 10 months ago

I'll put it simple.

American cops are not equivalent to Canadian cops. US cops use tax payer money to pay lawsuits but are allowed a special police union as well. No other public servants get a union to do their bidding while tax payers foot the bill.

Open the channels. What's there to hide. In emergency events, yes it could be an issue. But people also need to know where serious events might be occurring in their areas.

[-] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 4 points 10 months ago

I'd much rather have some real accountability measures than the accidental accountability occasionally provided by broadcasting their communications.

[-] Krauerking@lemy.lol 6 points 10 months ago

How about both? The governmental systems are supposed to be open so that they can be observed to be truthful and trustworthy, and then keep checking anyways.

[-] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I don't think things like names of suspects or victims should be made public.

[-] iknowitwheniseeit@lemmynsfw.com 7 points 10 months ago

The American legal system has made a conscious decision to require public trials (so accused are public) with the right to face your accuser (so victims are public). This does remove privacy, but the idea is that the trade off is worth it to avoid people being "convinced" in secret trials.

You may disagree with this trade off, but it's baked in and changing it would be a big difference. Some exceptions exist, I think, but IANAL.

[-] SapientLasagna@lemmy.ca 1 points 10 months ago

Obviously nobody should disappear into secret jails, but victims and witnesses are not on trial, and should have their privacy protected.

Having random people listening to police comms is no substitute for a competent regulator.

[-] thecrotch@sh.itjust.works 4 points 10 months ago

Fine, roll that out before you take away what we have

[-] AdamEatsAss@lemmy.world 20 points 10 months ago

Historically in the USA many police agencies have tried to cover-up and hide evidence of wrongdoing by on duty officers. Some people viewed the open radio policy as a way to monitor the police to make sure they're not breaking the law themselves. I personally have never tried to listen in to a police radio so it doesn't bother me much but some people are upset about it.

[-] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 3 points 10 months ago

Hey I love snooping on shit and watching reality shows as much as the next guy but I couldn't be that mad about the police wanting to have a secure way of communicating

[-] Rolder@reddthat.com 2 points 10 months ago

I wouldn’t imagine that radio communications contain much evidence of wrongdoing. All the real illegal shit happens in person.

[-] KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 10 months ago

Police interactions are public information. If you go to a police station and do a FOIA request, you get all that info anyway. Why would it need to be kept secret before the point it is requested?

Apart from the fact that many departments deny legal FOIA requests and force people to take legal action to get the information they are legally entitled to.

Oh wait. Maybe that’s why they want encryption.

[-] BirdyBoogleBop@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Isn't personal information taken out of FOIA requests first? I can see why victims wouldn't their names and addresses given freely out. Heck I think suspects should get the same amount of privacy too.

[-] KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 10 months ago

Suspects would already be covered, FOIA requests usually aren’t released before a case is closed, and you ideally don’t close a case half finished.

Yes, some information is redacted from FOIA requests, but it’s normally not stuff that would be broadcast over a radio. For instance, they may blur the faces of bystanders, or mute a section where someone is giving the officer personal info. But again, there would be no reason to broadcast this info over the radio regardless.

this post was submitted on 04 Jan 2024
504 points (97.9% liked)

Technology

59080 readers
3757 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS