A subtle, yet significant, shift has taken hold in Boulder, one that has profound implications for how its citizens receive vital information and hold their public servants accountable.
Late last month, the Boulder Police Department (BPD) made the decision to encrypt its communications, effectively drawing a curtain over a primary channel of real-time public access and media scrutiny.
The move, while defended by the department as a necessary step for security and operational efficiency, has ignited a fierce debate about transparency, trust, and the fundamental role of law enforcement in a democratic society.
For decades, the staccato bursts of police radio traffic have served as an unfiltered lifeline between first responders and the public, primarily through the diligent ears of journalists.
These scanners, often relegated to the background noise of newsrooms, were not merely a source of sensational headlines but a critical tool for breaking news on everything from devastating wildfires and flash floods to active shootings and fatal accidents.
Beyond the immediate dissemination of public safety information, they offered an invaluable, if imperfect, window into the actions of law enforcement, acting as a crucial mechanism for accountability.
BPD spokesperson Dionne Waugh articulated the department’s rationale, citing legitimate security concerns and the enhanced efficiency for large-scale operations.
The open nature of traditional police scanners, Waugh explained, posed potential risks.
Furthermore, BPD’s transition to encrypted communication aligns it with several other local agencies, including the Boulder County Sheriff’s Office, BVSD, and the Denver Police Department, promising smoother inter-agency coordination – a truly essential capability given that crime and natural disasters rarely respect jurisdictional boundaries.
However, the path BPD has chosen to navigate this transition has sparked considerable alarm.
While the department did offer an encrypted radio to the Boulder Camera, the local newspaper, it came tethered to an “absurd” 10-page contract.
This agreement would have compelled reporters and editors to adhere to the department’s rules, stipulating 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).”
It also prohibited sharing tactical information that might endanger officers, a practice journalists already strenuously avoid.
Crucially, signing the contract would have rendered the Camera liable for any damages arising from radio use.
Understandably, the Camera’s editors, much like their counterparts at the Denver Post when faced with a similar contract from the Denver Police Department in 2019, rightfully declined to sign.
This refusal underscores a fundamental tension: the media’s role is to inform the public, not to operate under the restrictive editorial control of the very institutions they are meant to scrutinize.
When pressed by Camera reporters on whether BPD would commit to proactively sharing details of specific ongoing crimes or police activities, such as shootings or fatal crashes, Waugh offered a non-committal response.
“We will continue to prioritize information that’s related to keeping our community safe,” she wrote, adding that “The release of information will also continue to be evaluated in line with best practices in law enforcement public information sharing.”
For many, this vague assurance is simply not enough.
While Boulder police undoubtedly strive to protect the community, the notion that any police department operates without flaw, impervious to public oversight, is untenable.
The media has historically been a vital partner in public safety, disseminating critical information like evacuation orders or shelter-in-place directives in real-time.
With encrypted communications, the public will now be reliant solely on social media updates and official media briefings – a process where the “when, how and why” of information release becomes entirely opaque.
This shift risks creating a void where critical information once flowed freely, potentially hindering public safety rather than enhancing it.
This local development, while seemingly confined to Boulder, resonates with a growing national unease.
A 2017 national study revealed a pervasive trend of police public information officers actively attempting to control narratives about their departments.
In an era where trust in institutions, particularly law enforcement, is under constant scrutiny, such moves can be perceived as part and parcel of a broader “terrifying national trend” towards reduced transparency and diminished public accountability.
America has been undergoing a long-overdue reckoning with its police departments, confronting issues of prejudice and abuse.
The fear, for many, is that the pendulum is now swinging back, empowering law enforcement agencies to act with less public oversight, becoming less beholden to the citizens they are sworn to serve.
It seems the encryption genie is out of the bottle, and a return to open public access for BPD scanners is unlikely.
However, the media, as representatives of the public interest, still deserves access.
While officer safety from potential “bad actors” listening to open scanners is a legitimate concern, though seemingly rare, concern over media access makes little sense.
Journalists operate with the utmost caution and respect for the safety of first responders.
A workable solution, a blueprint for compromise, already exists.
In 2019, Longmont Public Safety also encrypted its radios.
After initially attempting to impose a restrictive contract on the Longmont Times-Call, the department ultimately provided the newspaper with a radio scanner, free of charge and without any contractual strings attached.
This handshake agreement continues to this day, with Longmont police radio traffic playing near-constantly in the Times-Call’s newsroom – a testament to a collaborative approach that prioritizes both security and transparency.
At the very least, BPD owes it to the community it serves to provide local media outlets with contract-free access to its encrypted scanner.
Such access would not only ensure Boulderites receive essential information but also maintain a crucial accountability tool, demonstrating that their police department is indeed acting in good faith and in the best interest of those it serves.
If BPD is unwilling to take this critical step, the community must pressure the City Council to intervene.
As a public agency, BPD is beholden to the citizens of Boulder.
It must be willing to work with community partners on public safety and, unequivocally, demonstrate that it has nothing to hide.
A Florida county’s attempt to remove surveillance infrastructure revealed a network of unpermitted devices, exposing deep fractures in the oversight of automated monitoring systems.
New research highlights how opportunistic infostealer malware is exploiting browser-based password managers to compromise corporate credentials at an unprecedented scale.
A hacker collective has successfully reverse-engineered a ubiquitous surveillance device, exposing the fragility of the infrastructure monitoring American roadways.
