5 ms·

This is very cool! I had an idea for something like this a few years back, would love to experiment! Any idea where this falls in terms of broadcast regulatio

This is very cool! I had an idea for something like this a few years back, would love to experiment! Any idea where this falls in terms of broadcast regulations? From what I can recall in the US, data must be in the clear and not encrypted on ham frequencies, although I am not a licensed ham so can't say for sure. Love this!

wglb 8y ago
You are correct. Additionally, no commerce is allowed, so connecting this to the actual internet would be fraught with risk.
- goda90 8y ago
  So encryption isn't allowed, but is there any way to authenticate information sent over packet radio? Open communication has plenty of uses, but some of those can be spoiled by bad actors impersonating others. Edit: I found this article on authentication that supposedly is fine, but I'm not licensed so I don't know how valid it is. https://rietta.com/blog/2009/08/17/authentication-without-encryption-for/ https://rietta.com/blog/2009/08/17/authentication-without-en...
  - nominatronic 8y ago
    There's no problem in principle with using public key cryptography to sign messages sent by ham radio. So authentication is possible although it's not common in practice. It's encrypting the content of messages that's not permitted.
    - kawfey 8y ago
      Legally speaking, it's "messages encoded for the purpose of obscuring their meaning" [0] that's illegal, which is fraught with conflicting interpretations and loopholes. [0] https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=f9e42063714bbba9b7bb83ef26e844ca&mc=true&node=pt47.5.97&rgn=div5#se47.5.97_1113 https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=f9e42063714bbba9b7...
  - vonuebelgarten 8y ago
    > So encryption isn't allowed, but is there any way to authenticate information sent over packet radio? Open communication has plenty of uses, but some of those can be spoiled by bad actors impersonating others. You are not allowed to encrypt data on ham bands (this seems to happen Worldwide, it is also true here in Brazil), but there is no restriction on use of cryptographic primitives for authentication. But some countries (France, AFAIK) also require the protocol specs to be openly available, what should not be a problem in this field. Digital signatures are Ok as long as the content of the message is not hidden (i.e. all listeners can receive and decode the information) and the transmission is identified (as usual in ham).
  - nickysielicki 8y ago
    Cryptography is not categorically illegal on the ham bands, and in the case of satellite/remote operation, it's encouraged (possibly required?) that you have some secure mechanism of controlling your radio. In the general case, there is nothing illegal about sending a PGP-signed email over Winlink, for example. But the message itself must be in the clear. It's just about the fear of foreign spies obfuscating their messages and Red Scare fearmongering. Of course, in a world with Tor and $30 TracFones with unlimited data, this concern is totally ridiculous. But it is what it is, for now.
    - jimktrains2 8y ago
      Well, also so that businesses don't monopolize the free ham bands instead of purchasing licenses for bands that allow encryption.
- theWheez 8y ago
  Agh, damn government ruining all our fun! I kid, I understand the reasoning but I wish there was some longer-range frequency band with similar restrictions to 2.4GHz
  - packet_nerd 8y ago
    Isn't there a 900MHz band with similar restrictions to 2.4GHz? That would be a bit longer range.
- billh 8y ago
  It's a little bit more relaxed than "no commerce allowed". Communications in which the operator has a pecuniary interest are prohibited[1]. But, personal communication with a business is allowed. Ordering a pizza via phone patch is allowed but soliciting orders for your pizza shop is not.[2] There are other issues that would make connecting to the internet problematic that are prohibited by §97.113. Things like cryptography, obscene or indecent words or language; false or deceptive messages ... 1. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/97.113 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/97.113 §97.113(A)(3) 2. http://www.arrl.org/phone-patch-guidelines http://www.arrl.org/phone-patch-guidelines

wglb 8y ago

You are correct. Additionally, no commerce is allowed, so connecting this to the actual internet would be fraught with risk.

goda90 8y ago
So encryption isn't allowed, but is there any way to authenticate information sent over packet radio? Open communication has plenty of uses, but some of those can be spoiled by bad actors impersonating others. Edit: I found this article on authentication that supposedly is fine, but I'm not licensed so I don't know how valid it is. https://rietta.com/blog/2009/08/17/authentication-without-encryption-for/ https://rietta.com/blog/2009/08/17/authentication-without-en...
- nominatronic 8y ago
  There's no problem in principle with using public key cryptography to sign messages sent by ham radio. So authentication is possible although it's not common in practice. It's encrypting the content of messages that's not permitted.
  - kawfey 8y ago
    Legally speaking, it's "messages encoded for the purpose of obscuring their meaning" [0] that's illegal, which is fraught with conflicting interpretations and loopholes. [0] https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=f9e42063714bbba9b7bb83ef26e844ca&mc=true&node=pt47.5.97&rgn=div5#se47.5.97_1113 https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=f9e42063714bbba9b7...
- vonuebelgarten 8y ago
  > So encryption isn't allowed, but is there any way to authenticate information sent over packet radio? Open communication has plenty of uses, but some of those can be spoiled by bad actors impersonating others. You are not allowed to encrypt data on ham bands (this seems to happen Worldwide, it is also true here in Brazil), but there is no restriction on use of cryptographic primitives for authentication. But some countries (France, AFAIK) also require the protocol specs to be openly available, what should not be a problem in this field. Digital signatures are Ok as long as the content of the message is not hidden (i.e. all listeners can receive and decode the information) and the transmission is identified (as usual in ham).
- nickysielicki 8y ago
  Cryptography is not categorically illegal on the ham bands, and in the case of satellite/remote operation, it's encouraged (possibly required?) that you have some secure mechanism of controlling your radio. In the general case, there is nothing illegal about sending a PGP-signed email over Winlink, for example. But the message itself must be in the clear. It's just about the fear of foreign spies obfuscating their messages and Red Scare fearmongering. Of course, in a world with Tor and $30 TracFones with unlimited data, this concern is totally ridiculous. But it is what it is, for now.
  - jimktrains2 8y ago
    Well, also so that businesses don't monopolize the free ham bands instead of purchasing licenses for bands that allow encryption.
theWheez 8y ago
Agh, damn government ruining all our fun! I kid, I understand the reasoning but I wish there was some longer-range frequency band with similar restrictions to 2.4GHz
- packet_nerd 8y ago
  Isn't there a 900MHz band with similar restrictions to 2.4GHz? That would be a bit longer range.
billh 8y ago
It's a little bit more relaxed than "no commerce allowed". Communications in which the operator has a pecuniary interest are prohibited[1]. But, personal communication with a business is allowed. Ordering a pizza via phone patch is allowed but soliciting orders for your pizza shop is not.[2] There are other issues that would make connecting to the internet problematic that are prohibited by §97.113. Things like cryptography, obscene or indecent words or language; false or deceptive messages ... 1. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/97.113 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/97.113 §97.113(A)(3) 2. http://www.arrl.org/phone-patch-guidelines http://www.arrl.org/phone-patch-guidelines