this post was submitted on 04 Jan 2024
489 points (97.3% liked)

Technology

59373 readers
8012 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Critical_Insight@feddit.uk 30 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Surprised it's not encrypted in the first place. You haven't been able to listen to police communications in Finland since the 90's. I would assume most of Europe is the same way.

[–] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Apparently Americans feel like this is a way of keeping taps on what their police do.

It's interesting. One argument for encrypting is that it keeps private info of the people involved private. But some retort that they can just use other means to communicate that info. But wouldn't that mean that it doesn't help keeping taps on the police doing shady shit since they can just use those more secure means of communicating anyway?

[–] NocturnalEngineer@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

They're getting away with shady shit now, via the unencrypted channels, hiding behind qualified immunity and get away with literal murder.

The question should be how successful is it holding the police accountable based solely on their radio communications. I'd imagine the answer is "not fucking likely".