I use the word "perception" in these discussions for a very specific purpose. But that purpose is not to imply that no real or rational thought is going into the process. Just based on the expense involved, there IS some rational thought processes taking place that drive the decisions.Jlanfn wrote:I think you raise an important point that the decision to encrypt is based on the perceptions of the agency's decision-making entities...
...Relying primarily upon perceptions of the threats or simply copying the actions of others are certainly not objective thought processes.
By saying "perception", what I'm trying to say is, based on available statistics, previous events, predicted trends, and whatever other sources are out there, law enforcement can make a rational argument that, sooner or later, they will be facing a threat that could be partially mitigated by encrypting their communications. The decision could be based on the possibility, or the probability of such an event, not necessarily that it's actually happened to them, and they know it will happen again.
The perceived event doesn't need to be a catastrophic terrorist act. It could be street gangs using smart phone apps or scanners. It could be drug cartels enforcing their own strange codes of ethics against snitches, or who knows what. Having people listening in HAS caused problems, and the potential for it causing HUGE problems can be very real. Encryption becomes another tool to solve a particular problem that may or may not happen. Drug cartels and even some organized crime (gangs, etc.) has technical capability rivaling some governments. Robust encrypted communications will become essential when dealing with those people.
From the point of view of scanner listeners, the prospect is disturbing. From the point of view of law enforcement, and system administrators, most don't care one bit about scanner listeners one way or the other. The radio is THEIR tool to use, and they will use it as they see fit.
And I agree with that point of view.