[Scan-DC] Lanier Defends Police Radio Encryption

[JOHN ANTONELLI]

Her points hold no water.  Scanners have been around forever and criminals can get them as easily and in the same place they get their Iphone.  No one ne questions that the surveilance channel or the SWAT channel should be encrypted at times but I pay for these police nad I should be able to see what they do.  As for criminals, using a scanner in the commission of a crime means 10 more years in the can.  Problem solved.   


From: Alan Henney <alan at henney.com>
>To: Scan DC <Scan-DC at mailman.qth.net>
>Sent: Monday, November 7, 2011 10:09 PM
>Subject: [Scan-DC] Lanier Defends Police Radio Encryption
>
>
>http://dcist.com/2011/11/lanier_defends_police_radio_encrypt.php
>
>DCIST
>
>November 7, 2011 Monday 4:35 PM EST 
>
>Lanier Defends Police Radio Encryption
>
>LENGTH: 661 words
>
>Photo by rjs 1322 
>
>During a D.C. Council hearing on Friday, D.C. Police Chief Cathy Lanier cited new police radio scanning technologies and constantly emerging threats as reasons underpinning MPD's recent decision to encrypt radio communications. 
>
>"In order for police to do our jobs," Lanier said, "we need to communicate vital communications immediately and without hesitation. However, as anyone who has listened to police radio communications knows, this may include very detailed and sensitive information about victims, witnesses or suspects. Through the encryption, we can help to deter crime, as criminals have used scanners to track police activity and plan their crimes." 
>
>Lanier stressed that new mobile technologies like scanner apps for phones made the move even more vital, and cited a number of cases where police suspected that criminals used scanners to stay ahead of police. A rash of carjackings in Capitol Hill in 2010 was facilitated by mobile scanners, she said, as was an alleged drug operation run out of a laundromat in the Seventh District, which covers Ward 8.
>
>"When a potential criminal can ask how they can evade capture and there's an app for that, it's time to change our practices," she told Councilmember Phil Mendelson (D-At Large), who chaired the hearing.
>
>Representatives of local media outlets, including the Washington Post, WTOP and WTTG/Fox 5, said that Lanier's decision dramatically limited their ability to communicate vital information about crime, traffic and emergencies to the public. They noted that police could already communicate on private channels before full-scale encryption went into effect, that there have been limited examples of criminals using scanners and that MPD had proven slow and unreliable in providing information about crimes and emergencies as they happen. (A former Prince George's County security official recently argued that the encrypted radios make it harder for MPD and neighboring jurisdictions to communicate in times of emergency.)
>
>Despite their complaints and Mendelson's prodding, though, Lanier did not seem particularly fond of any resolution that would allow the media the unfettered access that it enjoyed for so long. 
>
>She opposed giving select media outlets access to scanners that could listen in on encrypted communications, and offered only to use existing tools like Twitter, the DC Alert system and a single open citywide channel to allow access to critical information regarding traffic and emergencies. 
>
>She said that under her directive, MPD had stepped up its use of Twitter -- she claimed that its feed had 24 tweets in September, and 524 in October -- but a veteran WTOP traffic reporter raised the specter of Pete Piringer, a former public information officer who ran the popular D.C. Fire/EMS Twitter account until he was recently reassigned for unclear reasons.
>
>At one point, Lanier seemed to budge, saying that she'd acquiesce to allowing the media access to radio communications, but only if they were delayed and if police could scrub sensitive information from them.
>
>The undercurrent throughout the hearing was less about radios and more about trust. The media representatives hinted that they simply didn't have faith in the police's ability to share vital information in a timely manner, to which Lanier asked for patience and the benefit of the doubt. Moreover, Lanier and the media disagreed on who can better judge what the public needs to know. Lanier also fired back at claims that encrypted radios would make it harder for the media to fish out bad cops, to which she stated that "bad reporters" also exist.
>
>No resolution is yet on the horizon, though senior D.C. officials are planning on a second meeting with media representatives in the coming days. Mendelson hinted that he may call a second hearing to further flesh out the conflict, which didn't seem to please a visibly impatient Lanier.
>
>"Great, just what I need," she acidly remarked as the hearing concluded.
>
>______________________________________________________________
>Scan-DC mailing list
>Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/scan-dc
>Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>Post: mailto:Scan-DC at mailman.qth.net
>
>This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>
>
>