2 ms·
I know you said you understand the reasoning, but for those who don't... On the surface, prohibiting encryption seems antiquated and annoying, but if it weren'
by tlrobinson 10y ago
I know you said you understand the reasoning, but for those who don't...
On the surface, prohibiting encryption seems antiquated and annoying, but if it weren't there would be no way to enforce the other regulations, like prohibiting transmissions for commercial purposes, which I think most hams would agree is a good restriction.
That said, if you really wanted to you could encrypt data and hide it using steganography or stuff it in what you claim is an authentication signature or something. It would be illegal but entirely unenforceable.
I could see allowing encryption, at least for the higher class licenses (extra + general?), as long as you are still required to identify your callsign unencrypted.
I also think the restriction on commercial purposes could be loosely interpreted to allow loading webpages with ads or buying something on an ecommerce site, as long as the primary purpose of the transmissions aren't commercial. But again, that would be difficult to enforce if encryption were allowed.
- fapjacks 10y agoHigher class licenses open up more experimental spectrum usage. Inventing your own communication protocol/mode will give you some privacy, insofar as getting your message above the lowest-hanging fruit of other digital transmissions.