3 ms·

If you -- in perfectly good faith -- accidently disrupt vital services, like emergency com's or air traffic control, potentially endangering human lives, then t

by jascii 7y ago

If you -- in perfectly good faith -- accidently disrupt vital services, like emergency com's or air traffic control, potentially endangering human lives, then the identification requirement allows us (as in society) to contact you to remedy the situation. Without the identification requirement it would take a lot longer to track you down, puting human lives at risk.

teddyh 7y ago
That’s the official dogma, and you’re parroting it perfectly. In reality, I sincerely doubt the problem would be that bad. Communications technology has advanced since 1960.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- jascii 7y ago
  Physics still holds true; if I create a signal in a certain spectrum, it will raise the noise floor for other signals in that spectrum limiting effective communication. It did so in the 60's, it does so now. No amount of calling it "dogma" or "parroting" is going to change that..
  - 1996 7y ago
    If someone is transmitting "signal in a certain spectrum" in a way that cause you harm, step 1) get on the mike and tell to that person their transmission is causing problem, step 2) they stop. No snitching or gov id required. I agree with the other person, this is just parroting the official position. The world has changed, and pseudonymous communication is a valid alternative: HAMs could simply be required to provide an email - good enough to add a layer of anonymity, and not sufficient to stop law enforcement.
    - jascii 7y ago
      "get on the mike" what frequency? Modulation? What makes you think I am monitoring anything after say a relay got stuck keeping my gear permanently -unbeknown to me- in transmit. A reliable out of band back channel is needed. Currently that is what it is. I am not saying there are no better alternatives possible, go ahead design them and start the political process.. Pseudonymity? Yeah, that's working so well on the internet. Trolling and Spam are not a problem at all. Lets see how that works in a much more resource constrained environment like our radio spectrum.
      - 1996 7y ago
        > I am not saying there are no better alternatives possible, go ahead design them and start the political process.. Read again what I wrote above: email. Hell, add twitter or a phone number on top of that if you really want. That's still a good extra layer of anonymity. And sorry, but I won't design anything now - I won't touch HAM even with a 10 ft pole, let alone engage in politics. I'm not saying that to hurt you. I just assume you care about HAM and wonder why younger people are not interested anymore, as discussed in the original article. The problem is that several of your core values have become show stoppers for people like me. Address the big 3 problems I listed, and maybe you'll have more success interesting more people to HAM. Personally, I don't care anymore. I now prefer unlicensed spectrum.
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]

by jascii 7y ago

teddyh 7y ago

That’s the official dogma, and you’re parroting it perfectly. In reality, I sincerely doubt the problem would be that bad. Communications technology has advanced since 1960.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
jascii 7y ago
Physics still holds true; if I create a signal in a certain spectrum, it will raise the noise floor for other signals in that spectrum limiting effective communication. It did so in the 60's, it does so now. No amount of calling it "dogma" or "parroting" is going to change that..
- 1996 7y ago
  If someone is transmitting "signal in a certain spectrum" in a way that cause you harm, step 1) get on the mike and tell to that person their transmission is causing problem, step 2) they stop. No snitching or gov id required. I agree with the other person, this is just parroting the official position. The world has changed, and pseudonymous communication is a valid alternative: HAMs could simply be required to provide an email - good enough to add a layer of anonymity, and not sufficient to stop law enforcement.
  - jascii 7y ago
    "get on the mike" what frequency? Modulation? What makes you think I am monitoring anything after say a relay got stuck keeping my gear permanently -unbeknown to me- in transmit. A reliable out of band back channel is needed. Currently that is what it is. I am not saying there are no better alternatives possible, go ahead design them and start the political process.. Pseudonymity? Yeah, that's working so well on the internet. Trolling and Spam are not a problem at all. Lets see how that works in a much more resource constrained environment like our radio spectrum.
    - 1996 7y ago
      > I am not saying there are no better alternatives possible, go ahead design them and start the political process.. Read again what I wrote above: email. Hell, add twitter or a phone number on top of that if you really want. That's still a good extra layer of anonymity. And sorry, but I won't design anything now - I won't touch HAM even with a 10 ft pole, let alone engage in politics. I'm not saying that to hurt you. I just assume you care about HAM and wonder why younger people are not interested anymore, as discussed in the original article. The problem is that several of your core values have become show stoppers for people like me. Address the big 3 problems I listed, and maybe you'll have more success interesting more people to HAM. Personally, I don't care anymore. I now prefer unlicensed spectrum.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]