8 ms·

This is a very cool project! I would be concerned about unintentionally running afoul of FCC regulations since encryption is not allowed on US amateur frequenc

This is a very cool project! I would be concerned about unintentionally running afoul of FCC regulations since encryption is not allowed on US amateur frequencies, that means using something like SSH or loading an SSL webpage with this modem would be a violation. I would also be very concerned with the OS background processes that may use encryption by default.

jessemillar 8y ago
Excellent concerns! Do you have any resources you could link to on relevant FCC regulations? I'm a curious bugger.
- diggan 8y ago
  I found this resource, hopefully it can point you to the right answer: https://rsaxvc.net/blog/2014/2/1/Encryption_and_Amateur_Radio.html https://rsaxvc.net/blog/2014/2/1/Encryption_and_Amateur_Radi...
- gonzoflip 8y ago
  https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=d4b3c60d2d60000a147f885bdee88264&mc=true&node=pt47.5.97&rgn=div5#se47.5.97_1309 https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=d4b3c60d2d60000a14... specifically §97.309 (4) (b)
  - gorkish 8y ago
    This part of the regs have nothing to do with encryption. This is the so called "documented protocol" requirement. §97.113(4) is the relevant main rule that would govern encryption. There are various exceptions to this through the rest of the document such as spread spectrum, space stations, and telemetry/radio control all having some special case language.
    - gonzoflip 8y ago
      Well, I stand corrected. I had admittedly just googled it myself. I had known the ban on encryption was pretty accepted in the amateur radio community. Thanks for the correction.
- gorkish 8y ago
  It's pretty dry but you are welcome to read Part 97 R&R https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2009-title47-vol5/pdf/CFR-2009-title47-vol5-part97.pdf https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2009-title47-vol5/pd... The legal definition prohibiting encryption is in §97.113(4) and says that "messages encoded for the purpose of obscuring their meaning" are prohibited. This is generally accepted to be a blanket prohibition of "encryption" in the sense that SSH, SSL, TLS, VPN type traffic would be prohibited. However, there are some interesting and positive nuances because the rule specifically doesn't ban "crypto". For instance, it is my belief that cryptography for the purpose of authentication or message signing/integrity checking is completely permissable. That is to say that you can even technologically allow things like TLS and HTTPS so long as you force a NULL cipher; so you get message integrity but no encryption so some observer could see all the traffic but not be able to interfere.
  - geofft 8y ago
    More broadly, the purpose of the ham radio allocation is learning / experimentation / personal use between hams / etc., not production services (and not even personal use between a ham and a non-ham, e.g., while listening in on ham frequencies doesn't require a license, a ham intentionally broadcasting to those listeners is not authorized under their license). These rules predate the world in which encryption for everything is commonplace, and they envision a world in which encryption means that other people can't learn from your communications practice. These rules are also written to discourage actual commercial users from using the ham frequencies, to keep the frequencies clear for hams. Now that we live in a world where my writing this message to you (and, in fact, to the world, publicly under my name) goes over an encrypted channel and it would be unthinkable if it didn't, and where my texts to my friends about where to get dinner happen over an end-to-end secure messenger, and where most competent cryptography is developed in public, it's not clear the rules make sense any more. But that's where they come from. BTW, one ham has argued that encryption for the purpose of using a standard protocol like WPA/802.1x (or, probably, SSH or SSL) that is otherwise compliant with the intent of the amateur service is legal, because the purpose of the encryption is not obscuring their meaning, the obscured meaning just a side effect of other goals: http://www.n5dux.com/ham/files/pdf/Data%20Encryption%20is%20Legal.pdf http://www.n5dux.com/ham/files/pdf/Data%20Encryption%20is%20...
edoo 8y ago
They don't allow any prototyping or experimenting on the amateur bands either. That is why this is using the unlicensed ISM bands. I want to see it adapted for the lower frequency ISM bands. I just got into ham and SDR this last year and I'm looking forward to making a super long distance super low speed link to my buddies on the other coast as a backup comm channel in case the primaries go down.
- ihuman 8y ago
  > They don't allow any prototyping or experimenting on the amateur bands either. That is why this is using the unlicensed ISM bands. What do you mean? This is running on 433MHz, which is within the 70cm amateur band (420-450mhz)
  - edoo 8y ago
    Oh, 433.92 is only ISM in EU/Africa.
    - ihuman 8y ago
      I didn't know that. I'm not too familiar with amateur radio around the world. I know people were able to contact other people around the world, so I assumed the bands were similar.
      - macintux 8y ago
        Most long-distance communications happen in the high frequency bands (3-30 MHz) due to its different propagation characteristics. I haven’t researched the global commonalities, but I’d wager there’s more consistency in HF than the higher frequencies (VHF, UHF).
- geofft 8y ago
  Who is "they"? Unless I'm confused (which is certainly possible), the 433 MHz ISM allocation doesn't exist in the US. There's only the 420-450 MHz ham allocation. Is there also a ban on encryption in the countries where it exists, or is that an FCC-only thing?
jhart99 8y ago
More than just encryption, this will run afoul of FCC part 97.305(c) and 97.307(f)(6) which says on the 70cm band that the maximum symbol rate cannot exceed 56kbaud and the bandwidth cannot exceed 100kHz. However the underlying transceiver chip can also work on the 33cm band where these limits no longer apply.
- badpizza 8y ago
  Original author seems to be based in France, so I don't think FCC limits are being into consideration. Would be interesting if there exists an equivalent limitation by EU regulations. At international level, encryption in ham bands is forbidden (at least).
saul_goodman 8y ago
"I would be concerned about unintentionally running afoul of FCC regulations since encryption is not allowed on US amateur frequencies, that means using something like SSH or loading an SSL webpage with this modem would be a violation. I would also be very concerned with the OS background processes that may use encryption by default." And I wouldn't. Not trying to be an arse here... but more importantly, who cares? Someone has to discover whats happening and actually care that a rule is being violated. There really are not many hams that have the skill to figure out what is happening when they hear this on their precious 70cm band and THEN realize encryption is happening on top of the network layer. Sure, they exist, but they are also generally busy doing real things that matter rather than volunteering for the Amateur Auxiliary. Queue: the relentless flood of pitch forks that "CRYPTION IS AGAINST THE RULE OF LAW ON MY HAM BANDS".
- Johnny555 8y ago
  If encryption is allowed, then there can no longer be any restrictions on the use of ham bands - you won't be able to tell the difference between someone calling for help or doing disaster relief and a pizza place using ham radios for dispatch. But to answer your question "who cares?", hams care, and I'd be surprised if people sending encrypted transmissions are not soon discovered - and if you knowingly violate the regulations, you run the risk of losing your ham license. If you're not licensed, (or even if you are for egregious or repeat violators), there are various enforcement actions the FCC can take including significant fines, equipment confiscation, and other criminal penalties.
- gonzoflip 8y ago
  I mean, the FCC does not really have a track record of enforcing violations. You could probably do whatever you want, until some hams fox hunt you and tell Uncle Sugar you are breaking the rules. Even then, the FCC is likely to only give you a warning rather than a punishment. That being said these bands are out there for the public to use, the government has set aside a pretty decent portion of the available usable frequencies for use of the public. In my opinion is just in poor taste to not follow the rules here. In these days when you can get a Baofeng HT for $25, there are already all sorts of unlicensed people stomping all over others just to be jerks.
Waterluvian 8y ago
I understand the gist of this rule. But it seems confusing, at least on a technicality. What is encryption? Can I speak a language only known by me and one other person over HAM radio?
- Johnny555 8y ago
  The regulation prohibits "messages encoded for the purpose of obscuring their meaning, except as otherwise provided herein" so if you and your friend made up your language to keep your communications obscured, then it seems that it would not be allowed. If you happen to speak a language that's not commonly known in the area then that would likely be fine.
  - Waterluvian 8y ago
    Aha. "for the purpose of..." Clears it up. Turns it into an argument about intent.
  - DEADBEEFC0FFEE 8y ago
    No white lies, hair splitting or exaggerating.
- mikestew 8y ago
  I think it is also important to understand the "no commercial business" part of it, too. That why the meaning is not to be "obscured", lest you mean to do business over amateur frequencies. In short, if the traffic is encrypted, how would we know that, say, Verizon isn't off-loading traffic to amateur bands?
- wglb 8y ago
  The way to think of it is that the FCC needs to monitor communication. (Possibly also other arms of the government.) If they can't eavesdrop, then that is an issue.
comboy 8y ago
Wait, but 433Mhz is what all IoT stuff uses. So there cannot be safe IoT appliances in the US by law?
- wmf 8y ago
  Within the same band, licensed hams have different rules than the general public; e.g. hams can use higher power. It looks like 433 MHz is unlicensed in Europe so IoT devices can use it at low power. In the US 900 MHz is used instead.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

jessemillar 8y ago

Excellent concerns! Do you have any resources you could link to on relevant FCC regulations? I'm a curious bugger.

diggan 8y ago
I found this resource, hopefully it can point you to the right answer: https://rsaxvc.net/blog/2014/2/1/Encryption_and_Amateur_Radio.html https://rsaxvc.net/blog/2014/2/1/Encryption_and_Amateur_Radi...
gonzoflip 8y ago
https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=d4b3c60d2d60000a147f885bdee88264&mc=true&node=pt47.5.97&rgn=div5#se47.5.97_1309 https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=d4b3c60d2d60000a14... specifically §97.309 (4) (b)
- gorkish 8y ago
  This part of the regs have nothing to do with encryption. This is the so called "documented protocol" requirement. §97.113(4) is the relevant main rule that would govern encryption. There are various exceptions to this through the rest of the document such as spread spectrum, space stations, and telemetry/radio control all having some special case language.
  - gonzoflip 8y ago
    Well, I stand corrected. I had admittedly just googled it myself. I had known the ban on encryption was pretty accepted in the amateur radio community. Thanks for the correction.
gorkish 8y ago
It's pretty dry but you are welcome to read Part 97 R&R https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2009-title47-vol5/pdf/CFR-2009-title47-vol5-part97.pdf https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2009-title47-vol5/pd... The legal definition prohibiting encryption is in §97.113(4) and says that "messages encoded for the purpose of obscuring their meaning" are prohibited. This is generally accepted to be a blanket prohibition of "encryption" in the sense that SSH, SSL, TLS, VPN type traffic would be prohibited. However, there are some interesting and positive nuances because the rule specifically doesn't ban "crypto". For instance, it is my belief that cryptography for the purpose of authentication or message signing/integrity checking is completely permissable. That is to say that you can even technologically allow things like TLS and HTTPS so long as you force a NULL cipher; so you get message integrity but no encryption so some observer could see all the traffic but not be able to interfere.
- geofft 8y ago
  More broadly, the purpose of the ham radio allocation is learning / experimentation / personal use between hams / etc., not production services (and not even personal use between a ham and a non-ham, e.g., while listening in on ham frequencies doesn't require a license, a ham intentionally broadcasting to those listeners is not authorized under their license). These rules predate the world in which encryption for everything is commonplace, and they envision a world in which encryption means that other people can't learn from your communications practice. These rules are also written to discourage actual commercial users from using the ham frequencies, to keep the frequencies clear for hams. Now that we live in a world where my writing this message to you (and, in fact, to the world, publicly under my name) goes over an encrypted channel and it would be unthinkable if it didn't, and where my texts to my friends about where to get dinner happen over an end-to-end secure messenger, and where most competent cryptography is developed in public, it's not clear the rules make sense any more. But that's where they come from. BTW, one ham has argued that encryption for the purpose of using a standard protocol like WPA/802.1x (or, probably, SSH or SSL) that is otherwise compliant with the intent of the amateur service is legal, because the purpose of the encryption is not obscuring their meaning, the obscured meaning just a side effect of other goals: http://www.n5dux.com/ham/files/pdf/Data%20Encryption%20is%20Legal.pdf http://www.n5dux.com/ham/files/pdf/Data%20Encryption%20is%20...

edoo 8y ago

They don't allow any prototyping or experimenting on the amateur bands either. That is why this is using the unlicensed ISM bands. I want to see it adapted for the lower frequency ISM bands. I just got into ham and SDR this last year and I'm looking forward to making a super long distance super low speed link to my buddies on the other coast as a backup comm channel in case the primaries go down.

ihuman 8y ago
> They don't allow any prototyping or experimenting on the amateur bands either. That is why this is using the unlicensed ISM bands. What do you mean? This is running on 433MHz, which is within the 70cm amateur band (420-450mhz)
- edoo 8y ago
  Oh, 433.92 is only ISM in EU/Africa.
  - ihuman 8y ago
    I didn't know that. I'm not too familiar with amateur radio around the world. I know people were able to contact other people around the world, so I assumed the bands were similar.
    - macintux 8y ago
      Most long-distance communications happen in the high frequency bands (3-30 MHz) due to its different propagation characteristics. I haven’t researched the global commonalities, but I’d wager there’s more consistency in HF than the higher frequencies (VHF, UHF).
geofft 8y ago
Who is "they"? Unless I'm confused (which is certainly possible), the 433 MHz ISM allocation doesn't exist in the US. There's only the 420-450 MHz ham allocation. Is there also a ban on encryption in the countries where it exists, or is that an FCC-only thing?

jhart99 8y ago

More than just encryption, this will run afoul of FCC part 97.305(c) and 97.307(f)(6) which says on the 70cm band that the maximum symbol rate cannot exceed 56kbaud and the bandwidth cannot exceed 100kHz. However the underlying transceiver chip can also work on the 33cm band where these limits no longer apply.

badpizza 8y ago
Original author seems to be based in France, so I don't think FCC limits are being into consideration. Would be interesting if there exists an equivalent limitation by EU regulations. At international level, encryption in ham bands is forbidden (at least).

saul_goodman 8y ago

"I would be concerned about unintentionally running afoul of FCC regulations since encryption is not allowed on US amateur frequencies, that means using something like SSH or loading an SSL webpage with this modem would be a violation. I would also be very concerned with the OS background processes that may use encryption by default." And I wouldn't. Not trying to be an arse here... but more importantly, who cares? Someone has to discover whats happening and actually care that a rule is being violated. There really are not many hams that have the skill to figure out what is happening when they hear this on their precious 70cm band and THEN realize encryption is happening on top of the network layer. Sure, they exist, but they are also generally busy doing real things that matter rather than volunteering for the Amateur Auxiliary. Queue: the relentless flood of pitch forks that "CRYPTION IS AGAINST THE RULE OF LAW ON MY HAM BANDS".

Johnny555 8y ago
If encryption is allowed, then there can no longer be any restrictions on the use of ham bands - you won't be able to tell the difference between someone calling for help or doing disaster relief and a pizza place using ham radios for dispatch. But to answer your question "who cares?", hams care, and I'd be surprised if people sending encrypted transmissions are not soon discovered - and if you knowingly violate the regulations, you run the risk of losing your ham license. If you're not licensed, (or even if you are for egregious or repeat violators), there are various enforcement actions the FCC can take including significant fines, equipment confiscation, and other criminal penalties.
gonzoflip 8y ago
I mean, the FCC does not really have a track record of enforcing violations. You could probably do whatever you want, until some hams fox hunt you and tell Uncle Sugar you are breaking the rules. Even then, the FCC is likely to only give you a warning rather than a punishment. That being said these bands are out there for the public to use, the government has set aside a pretty decent portion of the available usable frequencies for use of the public. In my opinion is just in poor taste to not follow the rules here. In these days when you can get a Baofeng HT for $25, there are already all sorts of unlicensed people stomping all over others just to be jerks.

Waterluvian 8y ago

I understand the gist of this rule. But it seems confusing, at least on a technicality. What is encryption? Can I speak a language only known by me and one other person over HAM radio?

Johnny555 8y ago
The regulation prohibits "messages encoded for the purpose of obscuring their meaning, except as otherwise provided herein" so if you and your friend made up your language to keep your communications obscured, then it seems that it would not be allowed. If you happen to speak a language that's not commonly known in the area then that would likely be fine.
- Waterluvian 8y ago
  Aha. "for the purpose of..." Clears it up. Turns it into an argument about intent.
- DEADBEEFC0FFEE 8y ago
  No white lies, hair splitting or exaggerating.
mikestew 8y ago
I think it is also important to understand the "no commercial business" part of it, too. That why the meaning is not to be "obscured", lest you mean to do business over amateur frequencies. In short, if the traffic is encrypted, how would we know that, say, Verizon isn't off-loading traffic to amateur bands?
wglb 8y ago
The way to think of it is that the FCC needs to monitor communication. (Possibly also other arms of the government.) If they can't eavesdrop, then that is an issue.

comboy 8y ago

Wait, but 433Mhz is what all IoT stuff uses. So there cannot be safe IoT appliances in the US by law?

wmf 8y ago
Within the same band, licensed hams have different rules than the general public; e.g. hams can use higher power. It looks like 433 MHz is unlicensed in Europe so IoT devices can use it at low power. In the US 900 MHz is used instead.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]