By Daily Camera editorial | openforum@dailycamera.com | Boulder Daily Camera
Late last month, the citizens of Boulder lost a crucial tool of transparency when the Boulder Police Department began encrypting its communications.
While most people are probably most familiar with police scanners from movies and TV, reporters doggedly listen in to the communications between first responders in order to keep the public apprised of any and all breaking news. It is via the scanner that reporters often break the news about wildfires, floods, shootings and so much more -- everything the public has a vested interest in knowing about in a timely manner.
Just as importantly, reporters are also using the radio to help keep our law enforcement officers accountable for their actions.
But a virtue for those on the outside is often seen as an inconvenience for those on the inside.
According to BPD spokesperson Dionne Waugh, the open nature of the police scanner posed security concerns and was less efficient for big operations.
Additionally, many other local agencies, including the Boulder County Sheriff's Office, BVSD, and the Denver Police Department, all use the same method of encrypted communication, meaning BPD will now have an easier time communicating with them -- something that is truly essential. Natural disasters and crime don't tend to pay much attention to jurisdictional boundaries, so efficient communication with other agencies is a must.
So, BPD made the switch to encrypted communications and shut the public out.
The department did offer an encrypted radio to the Camera, but it came with an absurd requirement that editorial staff sign a 10-page contract that would have meant reporters and editors must follow the department's rules, or lose access entirely.
The contract stipulated that news organizations would not disclose what it heard "in any manner, prior to the conclusion of law enforcement operational activities at the scene(s)," and said the Camera could not in any way share tactical information that might lead to an officer's harm -- something reporters and editors already strenuously avoid doing.
If the Camera signed the contract, it would also be held liable for any damages that could have arisen from using the radio.
Rightfully, Camera editors chose not to sign. Back in 2019, when the Denver Police Department switched to encrypted communications, a similar contract was offered to the Denver Post; editors there also rightfully declined to sign.
When asked by Camera reporters if Boulder police would commit to proactively sharing the details of specific types of ongoing crimes or police activities such as shootings, police shootings or fatal crashes, BPD spokesperson Waugh did not commit to any such information-sharing.
"We will continue to prioritize information that's related to keeping our community safe," Waugh wrote. "The release of information will also continue to be evaluated in line with best practices in law enforcement public information sharing."
That's not enough.
We believe our police department strives every day to protect our community, but it would be absurd to claim that it -- or any police department -- is perfect and in need of no public oversight.
And when it comes to sharing vital real-time information about public safety issues, BPD should recognize that the media has been a partner in that work, keeping the public informed about evacuation orders or shelter in place orders. With communications encrypted, the public will only get updates about ongoing public safety issues from social media updates and media briefings -- when, how and why law enforcement release information will be an entirely opaque process.
Cutting off a crucial source of information for our community will do nothing to improve the safety of Boulderites.
And when it comes to transparency, a national study from 2017 found that police public information officers tried fervently to control narratives about their departments.
Of course, we can recognize the rationale for switching to encrypted communications. Officer safety is imperative. So too is the need to communicate seamlessly with other local agencies.
But in an age of encroaching authoritarian rule and disregard for transparency and the public interest, it's hard not to see BPD's actions as part and parcel with a terrifying national trend. For more than a decade, America has been undergoing a reckoning with our police departments, facing clearly for the first time their prejudices and abuses. Boulder is no exception. But now, amid the reactive Trump era, it feels like the pendulum is swinging back in the wrong direction, as though our law enforcement agencies once again feel empowered to act with impunity, beholden to no one -- especially not the citizens they purport to serve.
Now that the encryption genie is out of the bottle, there is very likely no going back. Public access to BPD scanners is surely gone forever. But as representatives of the public, the media deserve access.
Concern for officer safety over potential bad actors listening to an open scanner is legitimate -- even if such instances appear to be vanishingly rare. But concern over media access makes no sense at all. When a journalist reports on activity on the police scanner, they do so with the utmost caution and respect for the safety of the first responders involved.
Back in 2019, Longmont Public Safety encrypted its radios. After initially asking the Longmont Times-Call to sign a contract stipulating what the paper could use the radio for, the department gave the Times-Call a radio scanner free of charge and without a contract. That handshake agreement is ongoing, and Longmont police radio traffic plays near-constantly in the Times-Call's newsroom.
At the very least, BPD owes it to its community -- the community it serves -- to provide local media outlets with contract-free access to its encrypted scanner. Such access would provide Boulderites with essential information and a key accountability tool -- and with evidence that our police department is acting in good faith and in the best interest of those it serves.