When police departments encrypt their communications, they often frame it as a neutral policy change. But the impact is far from neutral. Some communities have resources to work around information blackouts; others don't.

This page examines how encryption creates equity issues that rarely appear in policy discussions—and why vulnerable community members have the most to lose.

Deaf and Hard of Hearing Communities

For deaf and hard of hearing individuals, scanner access via text-based feeds and visual applications provides critical safety information that other alert systems can't match.

Why Scanners Matter

  • Real-time text feeds of police activity
  • Visual information when audio alerts aren't accessible
  • Detailed context that brief text alerts can't provide
  • Continuous monitoring during developing situations

What Encryption Takes Away

  • Text-based scanner services can't function without access
  • Deaf individuals left with only visual alarm systems
  • No detailed information about nearby emergencies
  • Dependence on hearing family/neighbors for updates
"When there's an active shooter situation near my workplace, I can't hear sirens or announcements. The scanner app on my phone—with its text feed—was how I stayed safe. Now that they've encrypted, I find out about emergencies hours later, or not at all."
— Deaf community member

Blind and Visually Impaired Communities

Audio scanner streams are highly accessible for blind and visually impaired individuals—they provide the same real-time information as sighted monitoring without visual barriers.

Why Scanners Matter

  • Audio streams work seamlessly with screen readers
  • No visual interface required to access information
  • Can monitor while performing other tasks
  • Immediate awareness without waiting for news coverage

What Encryption Takes Away

  • An accessible real-time information source
  • Replaced by news apps that require visual navigation
  • Social media sources with poor screen reader support
  • Independence in accessing public safety information

Mobility-Impaired Individuals

For individuals with mobility impairments, evacuation during emergencies requires significantly more planning and lead time. Scanner access provides the early warning necessary for safe evacuation.

Why Scanners Matter

  • Extra warning time for slower evacuation
  • Information about which routes are accessible
  • Awareness of elevator/power outages affecting escape
  • Ability to request assistance proactively

What Encryption Takes Away

  • Critical lead time for evacuation planning
  • Real-time updates on accessible routes
  • Ability to self-advocate during emergencies
  • Information needed to coordinate assistance

Non-English Speaking Communities

While scanner traffic is primarily in English, the real-time nature allows community members to use translation tools or rely on bilingual family members to interpret developing situations. Official alerts often arrive too late to translate and act upon.

Why Scanners Matter

  • Real-time info can be translated as it develops
  • Bilingual community members can relay information
  • Continuous updates allow for gradual comprehension
  • Addresses, numbers transcend language barriers

What Encryption Takes Away

  • Time to translate and understand emergency info
  • Community-based information networks
  • Ability for neighbors to help neighbors
  • Alternative to often inadequate multilingual alerts

Note: Many emergency alert systems fail to provide timely translations. Scanner access, while imperfect, gives communities more time and information to work with—resources that encryption eliminates.

Elderly Residents

Older adults have used police scanners for decades as a community safety tool. Many are less comfortable with smartphones, apps, and social media—the alternatives that encryption proponents suggest.

Why Scanners Matter

  • Familiar technology used for decades
  • Simple operation without smartphone complexity
  • Passive monitoring while at home
  • Community connection and awareness

What Encryption Takes Away

  • Accessible technology they understand
  • Replaced by apps many can't navigate
  • Independence in accessing safety information
  • Peace of mind from staying informed
"I'm 78 years old. I've had a scanner by my bed for 40 years. Now they tell me to download an app? I don't have a smartphone, and I don't want one. They just took away my way of staying safe in my own home."
— Elderly resident after local encryption

Low-Income Communities

Low-income residents often face higher crime rates while having fewer resources for private security or rapid information access. Scanner monitoring provides free public safety information that paid services can't match.

Why Scanners Matter

  • Free access to public safety information
  • No subscription fees or premium services required
  • Used equipment available affordably
  • Community-shared monitoring networks

What Encryption Takes Away

  • Free access to safety information
  • Replaced by paid traffic/news apps
  • Widens information gap with wealthy areas
  • Removes tool in higher-crime neighborhoods

The irony: Low-income neighborhoods often face both higher crime rates AND higher encryption adoption as urban departments lead the encryption trend. The communities that most need public safety information are often the first to lose it.

Rural Communities

In rural areas with long police response times and limited cell coverage, scanner access provides essential awareness that no alternative can match.

Why Scanners Matter

  • Critical in areas with 30+ minute response times
  • Works where cell service is spotty or absent
  • Awareness of distant but approaching threats
  • Coordination among spread-out neighbors

What Encryption Takes Away

  • Self-protection awareness in isolated areas
  • Information backup when cell service fails
  • Community mutual aid coordination
  • Early warning for wildfires, severe weather

The Equity Question

When police departments consider encryption, they rarely conduct equity impact assessments. The voices at public meetings tend to come from those with resources and mobility—not from disabled individuals, non-English speakers, or elderly residents who will be disproportionately affected.

Questions Departments Should Answer

  • How will deaf and hard of hearing residents receive equivalent information after encryption?
  • What alternative will be provided for elderly residents who don't use smartphones?
  • How will non-English speaking communities receive timely emergency information?
  • Has the department consulted with disability advocacy organizations?
  • What accommodations will be made for mobility-impaired individuals who need extra evacuation time?
  • How will low-income residents access the paid services that replace free scanner access?

In most cases, these questions aren't asked—and when they are, departments have no answers. Encryption is presented as a neutral technical decision, when in reality it has profound equity implications.

ADA and Legal Considerations

The Americans with Disabilities Act requires that public entities provide effective communication to individuals with disabilities. While scanner access isn't a government service per se, the transition to encrypted systems raises legitimate questions about accessible alternatives.

Effective Communication

If police provide public safety information through systems that deaf individuals cannot access, are they meeting their ADA obligations? When encryption eliminates accessible scanner feeds, what replaces them?

Program Access

Public safety information is a public program. Encryption may create barriers to access that disproportionately affect disabled residents—barriers that didn't exist before the policy change.

Reasonable Modifications

Have departments considered modifications that would maintain access for disabled residents? Hybrid systems, media access, or text-based feeds could provide alternatives without full decryption.

Advocating for Your Community

1

Bring Equity Into the Discussion

When encryption is proposed, ensure that disability, language access, and economic impact are part of the conversation. Ask for formal equity assessments before policy changes.

2

Connect with Advocacy Organizations

Disability rights organizations, immigrant advocacy groups, and senior organizations have standing to raise these concerns. Their voices carry weight in policy discussions.

3

Document Disparate Impact

After encryption, document how it affects vulnerable community members. These real-world examples can support policy changes and potential legal challenges.

4

Demand Accessible Alternatives

If encryption proceeds, demand that departments provide accessible alternatives—not just apps that many community members can't use.

Encryption Isn't Neutral

The decision to encrypt police communications is often presented as a simple technical or security matter. But the impacts fall unequally on different community members.

Those with resources, technology skills, and full physical abilities can work around encryption. Those without these advantages—the elderly, disabled, non-English speaking, and economically disadvantaged—bear the heaviest burden.

Any genuine assessment of police encryption must include its equity implications. When we fail to consider who loses access to public safety information, we fail the community members who need that access most.