Anyone aware of any court challenges to the FCC banning the use of "codes"
(encryption/decryption) on radio.

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.

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.)

John

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

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

Are you joking man?

Why would terrorists use radio, even with the narrowest directive antennas and
broadcast to who-knows-who?

The FCC thinks them too ignorant to figure out the internet is a much better
vector?

I suspect there is much more on Al Jazerras' website than meets the eye... but,
who knows?

John

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


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

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

John Smith wrote:
Are you joking man?

I wish I was

But nothing that a hare brained sheme could say they might do will be
granted now


Why would terrorists use radio, even with the narrowest directive antennas and
broadcast to who-knows-who?

Is it? After all the FCC can't seem to find the folks breaking the
rules now

and doing something that looks stupid is a classic in threat analisys
work

Good examples of it are in "the longest day" a german general was
pointing out how silly his plan for wining a wargame was Normandy bad
wether and low tide, which turned out to be what the Allies did

Using radio would be a soft target approuch


The FCC thinks them too ignorant to figure out the internet is a much better
vector?

I suspect there is much more on Al Jazerras' website than meets the eye... but,
who knows?

Only Al quaeda knows for sure, if even they do

John

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


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

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

Ohhh, those boys in the NSA are smart alright (well, unless they got the job
because they are a relative/friend of someone who is somebody) and, I am sure
they have their tools, but if they even move to claim that encryption of data
by methods such as PGP and its equiv--I am afraid I would have to consider the
possibility they were lying...

John

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


John Smith wrote:
Are you joking man?

I wish I was

But nothing that a hare brained sheme could say they might do will be
granted now


Why would terrorists use radio, even with the narrowest directive antennas
and
broadcast to who-knows-who?

Is it? After all the FCC can't seem to find the folks breaking the
rules now

and doing something that looks stupid is a classic in threat analisys
work

Good examples of it are in "the longest day" a german general was
pointing out how silly his plan for wining a wargame was Normandy bad
wether and low tide, which turned out to be what the Allies did

Using radio would be a soft target approuch


The FCC thinks them too ignorant to figure out the internet is a much better
vector?

I suspect there is much more on Al Jazerras' website than meets the eye...
but,
who knows?

Only Al quaeda knows for sure, if even they do

John

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


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

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

From: "John Smith" on Thurs 28 Jul 2005 09:45

Anyone aware of any court challenges to the FCC banning the use of "codes"
(encryption/decryption) on radio.

Only in the applicable parts of Title 47 C.F.R.

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.

The National Telecommunications and Information Agency (NTIA)
handles the specific formats and contents of the Internet.
The FCC can only govern the "common carrier" aspects of ISPs
and data line tariffs.

As to "codes," the FCC has sometimes (by some) been considered
"insane" for requiring a morse code test for any license having
below-30-MHz operating privileges. Especially so when the same
FCC did NOT require those privileged to operate using morse code
over and above any other mode. That, in itself, is a bit daft.

In Part 97 you will find TRULY DAFT requirements on Spread
Spectrum...STILL there. [Hans Brakob will furnish the correct
Parts and sub-parts for the edification of all]

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.)

Radio amateurs and the "amateur community" have for yarns and yarns
considered themselves very legal. They OBEY THE LAW. The LAW
says that encryption is a no-no for radio amateurs.

Hold up example: The late Colonel Rudolph Abel of the KGB, under
a cover name as an "artist" with a "hobby of amateur radio"
operating in NYC around the late 1950s-early 1960s. His HF radio
was used to send-receive encrypted information from the KGB. He
was exchanged for Francis Gary Powers, the missle-shot-down pilot
of a U-2. Abel used "one-time pads" for encipherment, virtually
unbreakable by anything since the encryption key was obtained from
natural random noise (or of "noisy" KGB clerk-typists)(take your
pick).

It's irrelevant whether Abel actually held any sort of amateur
radio license (he probably had a cover for one, no details on
that) but that was his cover excuse for having/using an HF radio
when arrested. Amateur radio in espionage activities! Not a
good PR thing but so long ago that most have forgotten it or
never knew.

The FCC just doesn't "trust" radio amateurs. :-)

To radio amateurs those "spies" are really "CBers," the spawn
of satan and are all responsible. :-)

bit bat

Len:

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...

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.)

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

Well, murder mysteries are good to...

John

wrote in message
oups.com...
From: "John Smith" on Thurs 28 Jul 2005 09:45

Anyone aware of any court challenges to the FCC banning the use of "codes"
(encryption/decryption) on radio.

Only in the applicable parts of Title 47 C.F.R.

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.

The National Telecommunications and Information Agency (NTIA)
handles the specific formats and contents of the Internet.
The FCC can only govern the "common carrier" aspects of ISPs
and data line tariffs.

As to "codes," the FCC has sometimes (by some) been considered
"insane" for requiring a morse code test for any license having
below-30-MHz operating privileges. Especially so when the same
FCC did NOT require those privileged to operate using morse code
over and above any other mode. That, in itself, is a bit daft.

In Part 97 you will find TRULY DAFT requirements on Spread
Spectrum...STILL there. [Hans Brakob will furnish the correct
Parts and sub-parts for the edification of all]

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.)

Radio amateurs and the "amateur community" have for yarns and yarns
considered themselves very legal. They OBEY THE LAW. The LAW
says that encryption is a no-no for radio amateurs.

Hold up example: The late Colonel Rudolph Abel of the KGB, under
a cover name as an "artist" with a "hobby of amateur radio"
operating in NYC around the late 1950s-early 1960s. His HF radio
was used to send-receive encrypted information from the KGB. He
was exchanged for Francis Gary Powers, the missle-shot-down pilot
of a U-2. Abel used "one-time pads" for encipherment, virtually
unbreakable by anything since the encryption key was obtained from
natural random noise (or of "noisy" KGB clerk-typists)(take your
pick).

It's irrelevant whether Abel actually held any sort of amateur
radio license (he probably had a cover for one, no details on
that) but that was his cover excuse for having/using an HF radio
when arrested. Amateur radio in espionage activities! Not a
good PR thing but so long ago that most have forgotten it or
never knew.

The FCC just doesn't "trust" radio amateurs. :-)

To radio amateurs those "spies" are really "CBers," the spawn
of satan and are all responsible. :-)

bit bat

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

Anyone aware of any court challenges to the FCC banning the use of "codes"
(encryption/decryption) on radio.

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.

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.)

John

Don't know of any court cases, But The FCC rules do permit unspecified
codes on the amateur band.

Todd N9OGL

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)

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