Officers Who Oppose Encryption
The narrative that "all police want encryption" is false. Many officers, chiefs, and law enforcement professionals understand that transparency builds trust—and that encryption undermines the community policing they believe in.
When departments push for encryption, they often claim to speak for all officers. But across the country, law enforcement voices are challenging this narrative— arguing that open communications serve both public safety and professional policing.
These aren't just critics. They're experienced officers, respected chiefs, and law enforcement professionals who understand that community trust isn't built through secrecy.
What Officers Are Saying
"Open radio is one of our best accountability tools. When officers know the public can hear them, they maintain professionalism. That's not a burden—that's good policing."
"I've been in this profession for 25 years. The push for encryption started right after 2020—right when people started recording us and listening to us. That's not a coincidence, and we shouldn't pretend it is."
"Community policing means the community can see what we do. You can't build trust while hiding your operations. It's that simple."
"The officer safety argument doesn't hold up. We've had open radio for decades without officers being ambushed because of scanner traffic. The real reason for encryption is avoiding scrutiny."
"Our department rejected encryption twice. The chief understood that the community trusted us because we were transparent. That trust is worth more than any perceived tactical advantage."
"Fire departments don't encrypt. EMS doesn't encrypt. Why do police need to hide from the public? The answer tells you everything about what some departments are really worried about."
A Professional Tradition of Openness
For most of policing history, open radio communications were considered a feature, not a flaw. Departments understood that public access served important functions:
Professionalization
Open communications encouraged professional conduct. Officers knew they represented the department publicly every time they keyed the radio.
Community Partnership
Citizens who monitored scanners often called in tips, reported suspicious activity, and served as force multipliers for patrol officers.
Transparency Without Cost
Before encryption technology, openness was the default. Departments operated successfully for 70+ years without hiding their communications.
Institutional Legitimacy
Open operations demonstrated that police had nothing to hide—reinforcing public trust in law enforcement as an institution.
The Community Policing Contradiction
Many departments that have adopted encryption also claim to embrace "community policing" philosophy. But these positions are fundamentally incompatible.
Community Policing Principle
- Police and community as partners
- Transparency and open communication
- Accountability to the public
- Building trust through visibility
- Community involvement in safety
Encryption Reality
- Information asymmetry between police and public
- Secrecy and closed operations
- Reduced public oversight
- Hidden from community view
- Community excluded from awareness
"You can't claim community partnership while refusing to let the community see what you're doing. Pick one."
What Pro-Transparency Officers Worry About
Erosion of Accountability
Officers who value professional standards know that external oversight maintains those standards. Without public monitoring, internal problems become harder to identify and correct.
Loss of Community Trust
Trust takes years to build and moments to destroy. Officers understand that encryption sends a message: "We don't want you to know what we're doing."
Unfair Media Coverage
When journalists can't monitor police activity, coverage becomes reactive—based only on complaints and controversies. Officers lose the opportunity for balanced reporting on the work they do.
Protection of Bad Actors
Encryption protects all officers equally—including those who shouldn't be protected. Professional officers know that sunlight is the best disinfectant for misconduct.
Public Safety Impacts
Officers who work alongside the public understand that scanner access helps citizens stay safe. Taking away that tool harms the communities officers serve.
Misdirected Priorities
Encryption costs millions. Officers question whether those resources would better serve training, equipment, or community programs that actually improve policing.
Departments That Chose Transparency
Not every department follows the encryption trend. Many have explicitly rejected it, citing community trust, accountability, and the lack of evidence that open radio harms officer safety.
Rejection After Review
Some departments conducted thorough reviews of encryption proposals and rejected them, finding insufficient evidence of benefit and clear costs to community relationships.
Hybrid Approaches
Other departments adopted tactical encryption for specific operations while keeping routine communications open—proving that the "all or nothing" framing is false.
Community Pressure Response
In several jurisdictions, community opposition to encryption proposals led departments to maintain transparency—demonstrating that public voice matters.
Why Many Officers Stay Silent
If many officers oppose encryption, why don't more speak publicly? The answer reveals important dynamics within law enforcement culture.
Career Concerns
Speaking against department policy—especially on politically charged issues— can damage careers. Officers learn early that public disagreement carries costs.
Union Positions
Police unions often officially support encryption, framing it as officer protection. Officers who disagree may feel unsupported or isolated.
Institutional Loyalty
The "thin blue line" culture discourages public criticism of policing practices. Even officers who disagree internally may not speak externally.
Retirement Concerns
Officers approaching retirement may avoid controversy that could affect pensions or post-career employment. Speaking out is often left to the retired.
The officers quoted on this page—many speaking anonymously or only after retirement— represent a larger, silent constituency within law enforcement that understands transparency serves everyone.
A Message to Officers
If you're a law enforcement professional who believes in transparency and accountability—you're not alone. Many of your colleagues share these values, even if they can't speak publicly.
Your voice matters. When officers speak in favor of transparency, it challenges the narrative that "all police want encryption."
Your experience counts. Retired officers, in particular, can share perspectives without career consequences. Your insights help the public understand policing from the inside.
Your profession benefits. Public trust in policing is at historic lows. The path to rebuilding that trust runs through transparency, not secrecy.
If you'd like to share your perspective—anonymously or on the record—we'd like to hear from you. Stories from inside law enforcement help the public understand that this isn't an anti-police position. It's a pro-accountability position that many officers share.
Share Your StoryThe Real Divide
The encryption debate isn't police vs. public. It's a debate within law enforcement about what kind of profession policing should be.
On one side: departments that believe secrecy protects them from scrutiny.
On the other: officers who understand that transparency protects them and the public—by ensuring that good policing is visible, accountable, and trusted.
The officers speaking out for transparency aren't undermining their profession. They're fighting for the version of it they believe in.