OPINION
FROM DAVE PRICE
Daily post editor
According to Sally Lieber, Councilor for Mountain View, police scanners played an important role in the civil rights and anti-Vietnam war movements.
And this historical form of police transparency should not be thrown in the trash can of history, Lieber told her colleagues in the council on March 23.
“I know some of us recently had the chance to attend the memorial service for Fred Hirsch of the Plumbers Union,” said Lieber of the United Farm Workers Union (UFW) and the South Bay workers activist who died in December at the age of 87 Civil Rights Movement and the importance of scanners as a tool for these movements as well as the anti-war movement. “
“It was a primary tool to stop and slow down racial injustice,” said Lieber.
The police scanners not only enabled demonstrators to know where the police were, but also enabled the public to keep an eye on the protests. And the police tend to act when they know the public is watching them.
Last summer, during the Black Lives Matter protests, the website Broadcastify, which is re-broadcasting police radio, reported that it had a record audience.
Rather asked the other six council members to put the encryption issue on their agenda.
Who is responsible for the police?
Mountain View Police Chief Chris Hsiung himself decided – without public hearings or consultation with the council – to encrypt his department’s radio communications. The bosses in Palo Alto and Los Altos made the same decision. Menlo Park and Atherton are also moving in that direction.
“I have received a lot of comments from the community that the police make their own policy and the city council is not involved,” said Lieber.
If you ask me, the police shouldn’t have their own guidelines. They should be asked to give their opinion on the proposed action, but the final decision should be that of the councilors. That’s why we elect council members – to set the policy.
It is now up to the other council members to decide whether to monitor the police. The Palo Alto City Council will discuss this on April 5th. But Mountain View? We will see.
Rather, it should be commended for attempting to reaffirm the proper role of the Council in monitoring the police.
Back up personal data
In the past two months since police switched to encrypted radios and publicly debated the problem, a myth has emerged: encrypting all police radio frequencies is the only way to protect residents’ personal information.
That has never been the problem.
Nobody argues that the police should disclose personal information over the air.
The question is whether police should be allowed to take the ultimate step of encrypting all transmissions or take a more transparent approach that only obscures confidential information but allows the public to hear the remaining police radio activity.
An October memo from the California Department of Justice offers cities two alternatives:
1. full encryption or
2. a system whereby broadcasts remain available to the public but officers switch to a different frequency that is encrypted to discuss confidential information. They could also use their phones to discuss such information with the dispatchers, as they have for many years.
Other departments have figured out how to use public frequencies and separate encrypted channels for confidential information. Most famous is the Chicago Police Department, the second largest urban police force in the country.
An article in the Chicago Sun-Times dated June 2, 2020 (paragraphs 14-17) indicates that while the department has some encrypted frequencies, most officials use radios that are not encrypted. One benefit of this approach is that other law enforcement agencies can listen to Chicago cops to improve coordination.
“The Chicago Police Department’s Emergency Management and Coordination Office recognizes the benefits of unencrypted wireless systems, both for transparency and inter-jurisdictional cooperation,” said office director Dan Casey to technical website Builtin .com in an article dated June 23, 2020.
I firmly believe that, with the guidance of their city councils, local law enforcement agencies can find a balanced approach to keeping the transmission public, other than confidential information. The most extreme alternative is not always the best choice.
Editor Dave Price’s column appears on Mondays. His email address is [email protected].
Comments are closed.