5 ms·

Could you give an example of how the regs stifle? If you can avoid obscenities you can talk about whatever you like. Your political views, the asking price for

Could you give an example of how the regs stifle? If you can avoid obscenities you can talk about whatever you like. Your political views, the asking price for your unused HT, whatever.

godelski 7y ago
The encrypted communication the parent is likely referring to isn't about speech. An example of something that would need encryption is something like accessing a server through radio. Or "iot" like devices, except we'll say HAMOT. I'm definitely not opening a server without encryption. Lots of applications for controlling devices you'd also want to encrypt so that they can't be hijacked.
- howard941 7y ago
  Are you sure you have to encrypt? Those uses call for authentication.
  - godelski 7y ago
    Do I really want to authenticate without encryption? I understand that to be a bad idea.
    - howard941 7y ago
      Are you maybe thinking about it being a bad idea to decrypt without validating message integrity (i.e. decrypt without having or checking the message authentication code)? You absolutely can authenticate without encryption, it's one of the few ways you'll be able to get away with restricting access to functions and features legally on the ham bands. One time passwords and challenge/response authentication procedures are some alternatives.
      - godelski 7y ago
        Well if I can use a key and otp that makes it safer. But I'm more thinking how do you send a password safely. On the internet we don't want to do that with http. As I understand it, if you send your password without encryption you are sending your password with plain text. I don't see why this is different with electrical signals traveling through the air vs electrical signals traveling through cables. I figure we'd want to use the same security practices regardless of what medium that signal is being sent through.
        kortex 7y ago
        Diffie Hellman. There are all kinds of schemes for Alice and Bob to share keys over a hostile channel. A brief secrets exchange isn't the same as an encrypted pipe. Once you have authentication, you can send whatever control signals you want in the clear, as long as they are signed. Message: set foo to baz Author: kortex Checksum: 0x1337ace5 Sig: 0xdeadbeef The endpoint checks for message integrity and authentication, and executes or rejects. The difference is cables are waveguides from A to B. Radio is a common bus.
        godelski 7y ago
        Diffie Hellman is encryption > (wiki) encryption is the process of encoding a message or information in such a way that only authorized parties can access it and those who are not authorized cannot. >> 97.113 (4) “…messages in codes or ciphers intended to obscure the meaning thereof..." You are obscuring the message that is the password. Cipher >>> 2 a: a method of transforming a text in order to conceal its meaning >>> 4 : a combination of symbolic letters >>>> (wiki) Diffie–Hellman key exchange (DH)[nb 1] is a method of securely exchanging cryptographic keys over a public channel You definitely want to obscure and hide your password for authentication. I guess it depends how you interpret the rules though. Is a cryptographic signature a message in codes or ciphers the more important part or is it about the content of the message? At a minimum I think this should be clarified more. That being said, if I am using radio to control certain devices I may not want that content to be public (and where I can still abide by the part of not using radio for illegal activities).
Mediterraneo10 7y ago
> Could you give an example of how the regs stifle? As I pointed out just a few days ago, probably most hams worldwide interpret the regs as discouraging any polemic discussion like politics or religion. Since so many hams are elderly, there is also some distrust of foreigners lingering from the Cold War era. So communications, especially international communications, are so often limited to merely exchanging signal reports, maybe some gear talk or weather info, and then it’s 73. Besides that, amateur radio is a hobby that attracts a lot of socially-awkward anoraks, who are very self-conscious about entering into any conversation deeper than just talking about their gear. Sure, there is a community of eager ragchewers, but it is not so big comparatively, and even most of those ragchewers probably limit their deep conversations to people from the same country (or even to people from their own local club scene).
- tlrobinson 7y ago
  I guess you’re not familiar with 14.313 MHz... (It’s been called the 4chan of ham radio)
  - Mediterraneo10 7y ago
    And that hangout represents how many hams worldwide? Let’s have a sense of perspective.
- howard941 7y ago
  Speaking of the cold war, the supposed limited conversations of signal report, wx, DSV and 73 reminds me of all of my Soviet-era QSOs with stations on the other side of the iron curtain. Not today - although I did have one of your wham bam thank you mam QSOs with a Cuban station last year - in the 21st century you'll talk as long as the band stays open about anything with all but the Cubans and Chinese. You're wrong about how most hams interpret the regs, for whatever purposes, offensive in your ageism and stereotypes of hams who are no more or less awkward than your average high performing HNer. I don't know where you developed these beliefs but they don't reflect reality. How do you know the ragchew community is not so big? I am indeed a random guy on the internet but one who's been hamming for more than 40 years. Copyedits.

Could you give an example of how the regs stifle? If you can avoid obscenities you can talk about whatever you like. Your political views, the asking price for your unused HT, whatever.

godelski 7y ago

The encrypted communication the parent is likely referring to isn't about speech. An example of something that would need encryption is something like accessing a server through radio. Or "iot" like devices, except we'll say HAMOT. I'm definitely not opening a server without encryption. Lots of applications for controlling devices you'd also want to encrypt so that they can't be hijacked.

howard941 7y ago
Are you sure you have to encrypt? Those uses call for authentication.
- godelski 7y ago
  Do I really want to authenticate without encryption? I understand that to be a bad idea.
  - howard941 7y ago
    Are you maybe thinking about it being a bad idea to decrypt without validating message integrity (i.e. decrypt without having or checking the message authentication code)? You absolutely can authenticate without encryption, it's one of the few ways you'll be able to get away with restricting access to functions and features legally on the ham bands. One time passwords and challenge/response authentication procedures are some alternatives.
    - godelski 7y ago
      Well if I can use a key and otp that makes it safer. But I'm more thinking how do you send a password safely. On the internet we don't want to do that with http. As I understand it, if you send your password without encryption you are sending your password with plain text. I don't see why this is different with electrical signals traveling through the air vs electrical signals traveling through cables. I figure we'd want to use the same security practices regardless of what medium that signal is being sent through.
      - kortex 7y ago
        Diffie Hellman. There are all kinds of schemes for Alice and Bob to share keys over a hostile channel. A brief secrets exchange isn't the same as an encrypted pipe. Once you have authentication, you can send whatever control signals you want in the clear, as long as they are signed. Message: set foo to baz Author: kortex Checksum: 0x1337ace5 Sig: 0xdeadbeef The endpoint checks for message integrity and authentication, and executes or rejects. The difference is cables are waveguides from A to B. Radio is a common bus.
        godelski 7y ago
        Diffie Hellman is encryption > (wiki) encryption is the process of encoding a message or information in such a way that only authorized parties can access it and those who are not authorized cannot. >> 97.113 (4) “…messages in codes or ciphers intended to obscure the meaning thereof..." You are obscuring the message that is the password. Cipher >>> 2 a: a method of transforming a text in order to conceal its meaning >>> 4 : a combination of symbolic letters >>>> (wiki) Diffie–Hellman key exchange (DH)[nb 1] is a method of securely exchanging cryptographic keys over a public channel You definitely want to obscure and hide your password for authentication. I guess it depends how you interpret the rules though. Is a cryptographic signature a message in codes or ciphers the more important part or is it about the content of the message? At a minimum I think this should be clarified more. That being said, if I am using radio to control certain devices I may not want that content to be public (and where I can still abide by the part of not using radio for illegal activities).

Mediterraneo10 7y ago

> Could you give an example of how the regs stifle? As I pointed out just a few days ago, probably most hams worldwide interpret the regs as discouraging any polemic discussion like politics or religion. Since so many hams are elderly, there is also some distrust of foreigners lingering from the Cold War era. So communications, especially international communications, are so often limited to merely exchanging signal reports, maybe some gear talk or weather info, and then it’s 73. Besides that, amateur radio is a hobby that attracts a lot of socially-awkward anoraks, who are very self-conscious about entering into any conversation deeper than just talking about their gear. Sure, there is a community of eager ragchewers, but it is not so big comparatively, and even most of those ragchewers probably limit their deep conversations to people from the same country (or even to people from their own local club scene).

tlrobinson 7y ago
I guess you’re not familiar with 14.313 MHz... (It’s been called the 4chan of ham radio)
- Mediterraneo10 7y ago
  And that hangout represents how many hams worldwide? Let’s have a sense of perspective.
howard941 7y ago
Speaking of the cold war, the supposed limited conversations of signal report, wx, DSV and 73 reminds me of all of my Soviet-era QSOs with stations on the other side of the iron curtain. Not today - although I did have one of your wham bam thank you mam QSOs with a Cuban station last year - in the 21st century you'll talk as long as the band stays open about anything with all but the Cubans and Chinese. You're wrong about how most hams interpret the regs, for whatever purposes, offensive in your ageism and stereotypes of hams who are no more or less awkward than your average high performing HNer. I don't know where you developed these beliefs but they don't reflect reality. How do you know the ragchew community is not so big? I am indeed a random guy on the internet but one who's been hamming for more than 40 years. Copyedits.