Nobody would be opposed to the NYPD having an authenticated channel for their communications. Having an encrypted one diminishes the public’s oversight during a time of already diminished oversight.
Comparing the public’s right to privacy with a government agency’s desire to further escape accountability is a category error.
(More to the point: the precipitating factor for all of this was Eric Garner’s death at the hands of the NYPD; they would not have been held accountable had someone not noticed their chatter as he was being killed[1]. Timeliness of public access absolutely matters.)
[1]: https://gothamist.com/news/nypd-is-spending-390-million-on-a...
Bringing that into this is pointless, especially since I doubt this is E2EE in the same sense that private chats are.
Most recording are not by default public record either. Oftentimes it needs to be censored before being released to protect sensitive information, like subject addresses, license numbers, etc.
Different standards apply in different situations. The devil is always in the details with drawing the line. Simply noticing a difference and making it rhyme is not a criticism. "sirens for me, speed limits for thee" isn't a clever point.
Individual rights are not applicable to gov entities. Gov entities can levy fines and apply criminal charges. You're comparing apples to oranges. Every time gov moves power away from the people they're doing it for the benefit of those in power. Not for you. Even if it works now it will be abused the second the current governance is replaced.
NY, like most big cities, is already incredibly corrupt. If you believe adding more power on top is proper then you're playing football with people's lives.
Laws against murder "take power from the people" too.
The question should always be what you, a person wants.
Even abuse, assuming it happens is a tradeoff. Is it worth it? I usually think no, but it isn't something you can take an idealist all or nothing approach on.
“Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.”
― Frederick Douglass
The people most likely to benefit from the recordings are the ones in contact. The recordings are a terrible small piece of information and are generally self-censored. Better of recording everything in person.
Indeed, this information can transpire in court, but it shouldn't be the People's only avenue to RECEIVE such intel. If this were to be the case, the courts would have leverage to transparency, whereas the People should have both.
You shouldn't NEED the court to start your search on proving damage from the State. You don't NEED to wait for a courthouse summons to know your rights were violated. If your prerequisites to be upset are explicitly the actions and behaviors that occur in judicial proceedings, then this country is far gone. If that's the one area you want to protect to the largest extent, then bad actors will use every other step before that one (including arrest) against you - and that's where radio comms come in.
"If your prerequisites to be upset are explicitly the actions and behaviors that occur in judicial proceedings"
Not sure where you're getting that from. As I stated before, in person recording should have more and better information. This does not require a court.
Accountability doesn’t need to be real time - every word is recorded, either centrally or by multiple body cam mics. All those recordings are accessible where accountability really matters - in court.