K4YZ wrote:
an old friend wrote:
John Smith wrote:
Anyone aware of any court challenges to the FCC banning the use of "codes"
(encryption/decryption) on radio.

No I am not

It seems insane that encrypted data is exchanged freely on the internet and yet
regulations prevent its use on amateur radio, how such can be prevented on one
specific form of communications seems insane.

As I understand the matter it comes in part from concerns that Spies
would use Ham radio to do thier deeds

Today with al queada I can't see the FCC budging on this one


Very sophisticated means are even used to embed text/voice data in video and
binary pictures which is virtually impossible to detect/decrypt with the even
the fastest computers--within practical time periods (like millions of
years--let alone lifetimes.)

I have heard of this never studied it could something like that be used
to embed same in something like SSTV

John

OTOH Your mention PGP I suppose based on the discusions of the USE of
PSK 31 and other modes you could argue the use PGP would be legal is
the non encoded parts of the tranmision in addition to your Call sign
contained the addresses where both of the keys could be found. The
addresses would have to be acesable over say the internet but it should
be legal

You're only problem here, Mark, is that PSK31 is not an encryption
technique. Otherwise I agree with your above assessment (esp
w/reference to Al-Queda)

PSK31 is an encryption/encoding method as is morse encoded cw both
legal becuase they are published (and morse is of course enshined by
name in the rule book) the rules are rather vague on where the line
drwn in these matters esp as technolgy advances so fast to make one
year unbreakable code, todays public key


Alothough the FCC is liable to try to make a fight of it, one that
isn't worth it to me at anyrate

Probably true.

73

Steve, K4YZ

"an old friend" wrote


PSK31 is an encryption/encoding method


PSK31 is a modulation method, not an encryption method. No cryptography is
involved.

Good luck on this one now!

73, de Hans, K0HB

K=D8HB wrote:
"an old friend" wrote


PSK31 is an encryption/encoding method


PSK31 is a modulation method, not an encryption method. No cryptography =
is
involved.

gee I need more than the word of the people who developed it

and when are you going to stop taking things out of context?

never?
=20
Good luck on this one now!
=20
73, de Hans, K0HB

"an old friend" wrote

gee I need more than the word of the people who developed it

The people who developed it did not call it an encryption method. (For the
simple reason that no cryptology is involved.)

73, de Hans, K0HB

Len:

They would "spy" on my wireless lan to get my credit card number, bank account
info, passwords, etc....

.... now don't disappoint me man, there is good reason to hide your business
other than the fact I am an Al Qaeda member... I know you just had a moment of
confusion there because of all the guys playing "secret radio spy police here."

ROFLOL!!!!!

John

wrote in message
oups.com...
From: John Smith on Jul 28, 8:17 pm


Well, it is going to be difficult to argue with you, we seem to be in
agreement
on a couple of points, and not so far distant on a couple of others where we
could not work out some common grounds, however, since you answered the "call
of the WILD TROLL" (don't be afraid--just kidding here goes...

That's about all I've "heard" in this newsgroup...calls of the
wild trolls! :-)

I just turned over my wireless lan, and yep, there is a type acceptance tag
with an VERY impressive FCC notation on it and some VERY impressive numbers,
I
am in awe! (like a war, all shock and awe, yep, that is me.) But, and back
to
the real world, I communicate over this device in "encrypted code" so that
others cannot read the data off my wan/lan, or gain access and send data over
it... I choose a key for all of this and it is a 2048 bit code (million
years
or so and a bank of supercomputers could gain access to my net, if they got
lucky, avg time.)

Yes, and...?

Why WOULD anyone "spy" on your WLAN?


Now, the important question here, just what kind of felony am I guilty of
here,
feel free to list titles, paragraphs and sub-paragraphs--heck, if I am going
to
be a criminal here, I'd enjoy hearing about it in vivid detail. If possible,
make it read like a Jessie James novel from the wild west! PLEASE!!!! I am a
sucker for old westerns! grin

No, I'm not going to strip off certain sub-Parts and make like
a communications lawyer. For one, Phil Kane would get a hissy
fit and make rude noises. Hans Brakob would put on his manager's
hat and try to be a snarly manager type by taking things out of
context and making OTHER rude noises. All othere would just
make ruder noises.

It's all in Part 97, Title 47 C.F.R. Part 97 is one of the
smallest of all Parts. The up-to-date version (supposedly)
is at the ARRL website. The last version published (printed
with real ink on real paper) is viewable at the Government
Printing Office website...and you can get the appropriate
updates as printed in the Federal Register there also...

Well, murder mysteries are good to...

For fun reading, try the Janet Evanovich series on "Stephanie
Plum." The latest softcover is "Ten Big Ones." The new
hardcover is "Eleven on Top." Funny, funny stuff, lots
better than some of the fantasies parading around in here.


dad mom

K=D8HB wrote:
"an old friend" wrote

gee I need more than the word of the people who developed it

The people who developed it did not call it an encryption method. (For t=
he
simple reason that no cryptology is involved.)

they found it nessary to to say why it was not an Ilegal method of
encryption and the subject of enryption comes up about anytime anyone
discusses the mode in detail esp when it was introduced

and nobdy but you is talking about crptology=20
=20
73, de Hans, K0HB

"an old friend" wrote

they found it nessary to to say why it was not an Ilegal
method of encryption .....

Well there you have it! It's not a method of encryption. The developers agree
with me!

Thanks for making my case.

73, de Hans, K0HB

From: K=D8=88B on Jul 29, 12:46 pm


"an old friend" wrote

gee I need more than the word of the people who developed it

The people who developed it did not call it an encryption method. (For the
simple reason that no cryptology is involved.)

Tsk, tsk, TSK! You FORGOT to mention the "papers" on the ARRL
website describing Peter Martinez' PSK31. [that's not like you]

You are skirting a very grey line on "cryptology." PSK31 is
NOT about "intentional obscuration of the meaning of a
communications," the boilerplate statement in Part 97 on
what can be sent or not sent by radio amateurs.

On the other hand, PSK31 is sufficiently UNLIKE conventional
TTY codings that it cannot be decoded by any TTY machinery
or even Hellschreiber.

Too many have the emotional labeling of "cryptology" in regards
to secrets and spies. In checking out Webster's New World
Dictionary, Prentice-Hall 1989, it defines "cryptography" as
"the art of writing or deciphering messages in code." Tsk, that
would apply to morse codes, wouldn't it? :-)
=20
dit bit

wrote:
From: K=D8=88B on Jul 29, 12:46 pm


"an old friend" wrote

gee I need more than the word of the people who developed it

The people who developed it did not call it an encryption method. (For =
the
simple reason that no cryptology is involved.)

Tsk, tsk, TSK! You FORGOT to mention the "papers" on the ARRL
website describing Peter Martinez' PSK31. [that's not like you]

You are skirting a very grey line on "cryptology." PSK31 is
NOT about "intentional obscuration of the meaning of a
communications," the boilerplate statement in Part 97 on
what can be sent or not sent by radio amateurs.

On the other hand, PSK31 is sufficiently UNLIKE conventional
TTY codings that it cannot be decoded by any TTY machinery
or even Hellschreiber.

and most artical I have read deal quickly with showing the PSK 31 which
Is a modulation different than most and an encoding of the character
different than most, that everyond kept talking about why is wasn't an
ilgeal code

Too many have the emotional labeling of "cryptology" in regards
to secrets and spies. In checking out Webster's New World
Dictionary, Prentice-Hall 1989, it defines "cryptography" as
"the art of writing or deciphering messages in code." Tsk, that
would apply to morse codes, wouldn't it? :-)

indeed it does as has been pointed out to hands in this or other
threads to Hans

a point or 2 about Morse as it compares to PSK 31

When someone says PSK 31 they mean the modulation and the character set

much like Morse Code you have the modulation which is assumed to be
OOKed CW, but doesn't have to realy (we have MCW sounds of dit and dah
on FM voice, or maybe alsoused to ID anautoumatic SSB to for all I
know)and the letter set

One could send Morse by FSK keying makeing it sound more like RTTY than
anything any ham would reconize and Morse, but one always means int eh
ARS the very specail mode/letter set
=20
dit bit

an_old_friend:

Really, deep inside, I am a decent human being, or would like to think I am.

Your text has degraded here old friend, if you live alone, time to see a doctor
and get a check-up, you may have suffered a light stroke...

I am not being flippant about this, and all joking has been set aside, but I
really do get a sense something is wrong, and fear for your health...

You may ignore my advice if you choose, but I have a real concern...

If I had just sat here without mentioning this, and something undesirable would
happen to you, it would truly cause me great grief to know, so no need to flame
me back. I really have considered my own mental health in all this too...

Warmest regards,
John

"an old friend" wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
From: K?B on Jul 29, 12:46 pm


"an old friend" wrote

gee I need more than the word of the people who developed it

The people who developed it did not call it an encryption method. (For the
simple reason that no cryptology is involved.)

Tsk, tsk, TSK! You FORGOT to mention the "papers" on the ARRL
website describing Peter Martinez' PSK31. [that's not like you]

You are skirting a very grey line on "cryptology." PSK31 is
NOT about "intentional obscuration of the meaning of a
communications," the boilerplate statement in Part 97 on
what can be sent or not sent by radio amateurs.

On the other hand, PSK31 is sufficiently UNLIKE conventional
TTY codings that it cannot be decoded by any TTY machinery
or even Hellschreiber.

and most artical I have read deal quickly with showing the PSK 31 which
Is a modulation different than most and an encoding of the character
different than most, that everyond kept talking about why is wasn't an
ilgeal code

Too many have the emotional labeling of "cryptology" in regards
to secrets and spies. In checking out Webster's New World
Dictionary, Prentice-Hall 1989, it defines "cryptography" as
"the art of writing or deciphering messages in code." Tsk, that
would apply to morse codes, wouldn't it? :-)

indeed it does as has been pointed out to hands in this or other
threads to Hans

a point or 2 about Morse as it compares to PSK 31

When someone says PSK 31 they mean the modulation and the character set

much like Morse Code you have the modulation which is assumed to be
OOKed CW, but doesn't have to realy (we have MCW sounds of dit and dah
on FM voice, or maybe alsoused to ID anautoumatic SSB to for all I
know)and the letter set

One could send Morse by FSK keying makeing it sound more like RTTY than
anything any ham would reconize and Morse, but one always means int eh
ARS the very specail mode/letter set

dit bit