The anti-cop Left is all freaked out about an Oakland Police Department proposal to fully encrypt all of its radio and dispatch feeds so that the public can’t listen them.
The news, which my colleague Jack Saunders reported on over at CBO’s Facebook page, was first announced in April. When enacted, it means that newsrooms and private citizens who previously were able to monitor police scanners will no longer be able to do so.
Woke reaction was swift in denouncing the move. An anonymous group has been posting flyers all around Lake Merritt “demand[ing] that OPD reject full encryption of police radio communications” in order to “keep Oakland accountable.” The flyers begin with “We, the concerned residents of Oakland,” but do not identify who “We” are, nor do they contain the name or contact information of any group or individual. The flyer does mention change.org, a website for anyone to start a petition, which the anti-encryption people have done; it currently contains 157 signatures. The “Petition Starter” is identified as Angela Barron. On her Instagram page, Barron calls herself “a freelance breaking news videographer.” She seems to have made the anti-encryption fight her own personal mission; on her Facebook page four days ago, she wrote, “Tomorrow I am meeting with Oakland D2 Councilperson’s Chief of Staff to discuss opposing OPD’s plans to encrypt all scanner communications.” The District 2 council member is Charlene Wang. The flyer’s author/s maintain that the new encryption policy will allow “OPD alone to control the narrative…The claim that scanner access puts sensitive data at risk simply doesn’t add up.”
I asked Huy Nguyen, president of the Oakland Police Officers Association, what he makes of all this. His reply, in full via email:
Thank you for reaching out. I understand the concerns being raised, and I want to be very clear: the safety of our community members and our officers is — and always must be — the top priority.
While transparency is important, we also have to acknowledge the realities of today’s environment. Anyone with a smartphone can now monitor police communications in real time — including those who may use that access to harm others or avoid apprehension. We are not hiding information from the public or the media, but we can’t afford to compromise safety by allowing open, immediate access to sensitive operational details.
To be clear: the communications are not gone — they are simply no longer available in real time. This delay helps prevent bad actors from using our dispatch traffic to anticipate and counter our response. The tragic loss of Officer Tuan Le is a painful reminder of what’s at stake, though we’re unable to share the full details publicly.
* * * * * *
I can well understand OPD’s reluctance to share this information with the public. The issue of whether or not to encrypt local police, sheriff and other public safety department communications has assumed increasing controversy in recent years, especially since Internet and broadband services have become so widely available. Last year, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) broadened its Criminal Justice Investigation Services security policy to “require that land mobile radio (LMR) communications that contain FBI CJI [Criminal Justice Information] be encrypted.” The document in which the updated policy was published is long (217 pages) and dense, no doubt the subject of many lawyers and analysts working on it, and I don’t claim to fully understand it. But it does seem to mandate encryption “to protect personal information being transmitted over the air,” as a press release from the Douglas County (Kansas) Law Enforcement Center says.
I mention Douglas County because its own Sheriff, Jay Armbrister, complained about the policy, showing that not all public safety groups are on the same side. “This is not our choice at the local level,” he explained. “It is an unfunded mandate from the federal government. But not complying would undermine our ability to function as law enforcement agencies.” For its part, OPD seems to have fully embraced the FBI guidance, and that brings us back to the current situation here.
Sgt. Nguyen’s statement expresses the situation well. There are simply too many bad guys in Oakland who monitor OPD communications and use the data “to avoid apprehension.” We love the word “transparency,” and every politician promises to be transparent, but some communications need to be protected from public access if the police are going to be able to do their jobs. As Sgt. Nguyen emphasizes, “[W]e can’t afford to compromise safety by allowing open, immediate access to sensitive operational details.”
I don’t know what the Left is so upset about. Either they’re in favor of maintaining law and order, or they’re not. Their position in this matter indicates that they’re not. As usual, the Left is siding with criminals, as did Pamela Price. There’s really no other way to interpret their opposition to encryption.
Steve Heimoff