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.
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.
We live in a society. Compromises need to be made. If they end up being in the wrong direction, then we correct.
The answer to solving this problem isn’t to burn the system to the ground, and it’s also probably not to keep letting the crazies get involved in crime scenes. It’s also not to give police carte blanche or obscure the information of it’s needed.
His suggestion was a reasonable first step.
Now. Can the NYPD be trusted to do the right thing when they get a FOIA request? Probably not without being forced. They don’t have a great track record of transparency. But that’s no reason to remain stuck in the past.
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?
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.
What is the purpose of encrypting comms?
To keep criminals from monitoring the police and getting a head start
Lol the police are a response team. The criminals always have a head start.
Not with a hidden investigation.
You wanna leak comms while undercover?
Who’s dumb enough to use comms at all while uc? If so why aren’t u using aliases. Smooth brain thinking right there.
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.
Removed by mod
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.
Removed by mod
How is he bootlicking?
We live in a society. Compromises need to be made. If they end up being in the wrong direction, then we correct.
The answer to solving this problem isn’t to burn the system to the ground, and it’s also probably not to keep letting the crazies get involved in crime scenes. It’s also not to give police carte blanche or obscure the information of it’s needed.
His suggestion was a reasonable first step.
Now. Can the NYPD be trusted to do the right thing when they get a FOIA request? Probably not without being forced. They don’t have a great track record of transparency. But that’s no reason to remain stuck in the past.
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?
Removed by mod
Such an edgy “rebel”
Removed by mod
I think it says the idea of allowing media or a delayed stream to the public was talked about but nothing was decided.
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.