The New York police department (NYPD) is facing serious backlash after announcing additional details about its plan to encrypt its radio communications system, which experts warn will limit transparency and accountability.
NYPD radio signals have been publicly accessible since 1932, allowing journalists and civilians to listen to police communications, Gothamist reported. The NYPD will now be encrypting its radio channels for the first time ever. Police radio encryption is already underway in several US cities, including Chicago and Denver.
Since starting in July, 10 precincts have already “gone dark”, or fully encrypted their radio systems. The entire “upgrade” to a new, encrypted radio system will be completed by December 2024 and cost an estimated $400m, a hefty price tag as several city agencies have been forced to swallow major budget cuts.
Critics of encryption say that the public radio channels are necessary for police accountability, press freedom and public safety.
Albert Fox Cahn, the executive director of the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project (Stop), a New York-based civil rights organization, called planned encryption a “disturbing attack on transparency and public oversight of the police”.
“Radio monitoring is one of the few ways that we can get an unfiltered look at how the NYPD is policing,” Cahn said.
Several police-involved killings have been uncovered by the press after listening to police radios, Cahn said. Video of an NYPD officer killing Eric Garner in 2014 was obtained due to a call on the police radio, Gothamist reported. The police killings of Amadou Diallo in 1999 and Sean Bell in 2006 were also uncovered due to police radio communications.
“Without public radio, we will simply be at the mercy of police to tell us when they killed someone. There’ll be no one else who knows,” Cahn said.
Press freedom advocates have also argued that encrypting police radios will prevent journalists from accurately reporting or covering police misconduct, ultimately allowing the NYPD to decide what should be considered news.
Todd Maisel, founder of New York Media Consortium, a group of eight media organizations against radio encryption, says: “Having the NYPD controlling the narrative is the worst possible scenario.
“They’re not going to tell you stories about anything that didn’t go well,” he added.
Public access to radio is also necessary to keep the public safe during citywide emergencies and major events.
Maisel said that during Hurricane Sandy in 2012, when more than 200 people died, he was able to provide public safety updates on social media by listening to the police radio.
“The NYPD will put out a tweet or an email when they feel like it,” Maisel said, referring to the NYPD’s lackluster communication with the public.
Daniel Schwarz, senior privacy and technology strategist with the New York Civil Liberties Union, said access to police radio also kept protestors safe during 2020 protests for George Floyd in New York.
“[The radio] was crucial for protesters to understand how law enforcement [was] responding to their protests, and [to] sometimes avoid dangerous interactions,” Schwarz said.
The NYPD has already paid out millions of dollars in settlements over its use of force against protesters.
The NYPD has argued that encrypting its radio system is necessary to prevent criminals from gaining information. The encryption plans also have support from Mayor Eric Adams, who said during a July press conference that “bad guys” are listening to the police radios, the New York Times reported.
But the NYPD already has the ability to encrypt tactical radio channels, Cahn said, calling the NYPD’s reasons for encrypting citywide communications “completely groundless”.
Cahn added that police have been unable to provide “concrete examples” of criminals abusing the radio system, especially to justify citywide encryption.
“The idea that you need to hide every aspect of [every] police deployment in the city to prevent this fever dream scenario is ludicrous,” he said.
The NYPD has said during the latest hearing on encryption that it may offer access to journalists or a time-delayed access for the public. But Schwarz noted that such plans have been vague and “rushed”.
“They started to roll out [and] it seems totally rushed without already being prepared to offer that access to members of the media or delayed broadcasts for the public,” Schwarz said.
Schwarz also criticized the idea of the NYPD only granting certain members of the media access to the channel, noting that such designation could keep out media that aren’t seen as legitimate or that have been overly critical of the police.
“Who will count as a representative of the media? What [will] that process look like, and who could potentially [be] locked out?” he asked.
Cahn added that Adams’s support of encryption follows a pattern of the mayor not working to keep NYPD transparent.
“I really do think that we have a fundamental rule-of-law issue under Eric Adams, where the NYPD continues to be enabled to lawlessly pursue this surveillance agenda without abiding by the protections that already exist under law,” Cahn said.
As of now, New York state legislators have introduced a bill that would offer members of the media a radio channel, and give the general public access to a time-delayed radio.
But critics say more must be done by the city council and other legislators to ensure that radio communications stay public, not just available to a select few.
“We’re dealing with human beings who are armed with guns, and wield extraordinary power with the public,” Maisel said. “Without checks and balances, the public is going to be at a great loss.”
