Berkeley Council Gives Police Department Permission to Encrypt Radio Communications, Limiting Public Access to Scanner Activity.
The Berkeley City Council has voted 8-1 to allow the police department to encrypt its radio communications, effectively limiting public access to scanner activity. The decision reverses a city policy adopted in 2021 that prohibited encryption in most cases.
Police Chief Jennifer Louis cited state and federal privacy requirements, officer safety concerns, and the need to prevent potential suspects from evading arrest as reasons for the change. She also pointed out that switching between encrypted and unencrypted channels would be challenging due to staffing shortages and the need to protect sensitive information.
Opponents of full encryption, including pedestrian and bike advocates and independent police oversight organizations, expressed concern that the decision would strip away a valuable tool for monitoring police activity and remain informed during emergencies. Andrea Prichett, founder of Berkeley Copwatch, echoed these concerns, stating that the public's access to information about police activity was being taken away.
However, the council ultimately sided with the police department after Louis presented a compromise proposal that would provide near real-time logs of incident types, times, and general locations using the department's computer-assisted dispatch system. The proposal was also supported by Councilmember Cecilia Lunaparra, who had initially planned to support the policy change but decided to vote against it after listening to public input.
The decision has sparked debate about the balance between officer safety and transparency in policing. While some council members expressed concerns about the potential for crime in Berkeley if other cities remain unencrypted, others emphasized the importance of maintaining open lines of communication with the community.
As the city moves forward with implementing encryption, it remains to be seen how this will impact public access to scanner activity and the level of transparency in policing.
The Berkeley City Council has voted 8-1 to allow the police department to encrypt its radio communications, effectively limiting public access to scanner activity. The decision reverses a city policy adopted in 2021 that prohibited encryption in most cases.
Police Chief Jennifer Louis cited state and federal privacy requirements, officer safety concerns, and the need to prevent potential suspects from evading arrest as reasons for the change. She also pointed out that switching between encrypted and unencrypted channels would be challenging due to staffing shortages and the need to protect sensitive information.
Opponents of full encryption, including pedestrian and bike advocates and independent police oversight organizations, expressed concern that the decision would strip away a valuable tool for monitoring police activity and remain informed during emergencies. Andrea Prichett, founder of Berkeley Copwatch, echoed these concerns, stating that the public's access to information about police activity was being taken away.
However, the council ultimately sided with the police department after Louis presented a compromise proposal that would provide near real-time logs of incident types, times, and general locations using the department's computer-assisted dispatch system. The proposal was also supported by Councilmember Cecilia Lunaparra, who had initially planned to support the policy change but decided to vote against it after listening to public input.
The decision has sparked debate about the balance between officer safety and transparency in policing. While some council members expressed concerns about the potential for crime in Berkeley if other cities remain unencrypted, others emphasized the importance of maintaining open lines of communication with the community.
As the city moves forward with implementing encryption, it remains to be seen how this will impact public access to scanner activity and the level of transparency in policing.
Can't believe what's going on here... I mean, I get that police need some level of security, but full-on encrypting their comms? It's like they're saying "we can't be bothered with the public having a peek into our operation". And don't even get me started on the compromise proposal - near real-time logs? That sounds like just enough to keep us in the dark. What's next, encrypted social media posts? 
and it'll be super hard for us to keep tabs on what's going on.
i'm literally freaking out over this news! so the cops are gonna encrypt their radios and it's like they're taking away our right to know what's going down in berkeley lol but at the same time, i get why they need to do it, safety first, you know? but like, isn't that just a excuse for them to keep us in the dark? 
anyway, i'm gonna keep an eye on this and see how it plays out 
It's like, what's the harm in just knowing if there's a cop car on the way or not? 
We're already living under surveillance as it is 
. And let's be real, encryption is not the answer to everything 
. I mean, come on, we're just gonna make up new ways for cops to hide info from us now 
? It's like they're trying to play detective instead of serving the community 
. What's next? Encrypting our own conversations so no one can see what we're saying 
?
]
]
]
]
]
It feels like we're losing a key piece of information that could help keep us safe too.
We need to find a balance here, you know? Maybe they could've found another way to protect sensitive info without stripping us of this valuable resource. I just hope it doesn't lead to more secrecy and less accountability...
Police scanners have been a thing for ages 
. But at the same time, I get why they wanna keep stuff private 
. Officer safety is key 
. And what about the whole "transparency" thing? 
Is that gonna suffer because of this decision? 
Not sure 
, but I'm not sure where they drew the line 
. It feels like they're weighing safety against transparency 
, and that's a tough one 
. What do you guys think? 
. We're already living in a surveillance state as it is, and this just makes it harder for us to know what's going on when it comes to public safety. And now we have to rely on logs of incident types from the dispatch system? Like, I get it, officer safety is important, but don't we want our cops to be able to respond quickly to emergencies too? 
. I mean, I get why they wanna encrypt their radios, safety and all that jazz, but don't they think the public has a right to know if there's a problem brewin' in the city? It's like, we're not tryin' to pry into every single police activity or nothin', just keep an eye on things so we can stay safe too 
. I mean, don't get me wrong, I appreciate that Councilmember Lunaparra was listenin' to public input and all, but it seems like they made up their minds anyway.
.
Like, if there's an accident or something and we need emergency responders ASAP, wouldn't it be awesome if we could still get info on how they're doing it? 
but at the same time, i get why they need encryption too, especially with all the sensitive info and stuff. it's like, do you sacrifice one for the other? officer safety vs public access? 
and now they're talkin bout havin encrypted radio comms which means no more scanner activity for us poor ppl 
... that near real-time log thing sounds kinda cool 
. I'm all for transparency, even if it means some info gets shared 
. Let's keep the lines of communication open, you know? 
. Encryption limits our ability to listen in on police radio chatter, which can be super useful during emergencies ⚑️. It's also a bit dodgy that the council is siding with the police department without really considering the impact on transparency 
️, but that's not the same as getting real-time updates from the scanner 
.
. Was it just a case of politics getting in the way? 
. This is a big issue, and we need to make sure we're thinking it through 
. I want to know what's going on in my city, not some vague summary of it.
. The public's right to know is being taken away from us and it's just not fair. What's next, are they gonna start censoring our news outlets too? 
. Where was Cecilia Lunaparra when she first planned to support the policy change? Did she really think through the consequences or was she just swept up in the momentum?