9 ms·

It's safe only because nobody cares enough about ham radio to bother skimming anything. I've been pushing for encryption for years but just posting this well g

by edrxty 5y ago

It's safe only because nobody cares enough about ham radio to bother skimming anything. I've been pushing for encryption for years but just posting this well get a bunch of elmers posting upset replies. It's frustrating constantly being under the thumb of a generation that will not yield to progress

vitaflo 5y ago
I have yet to hear what “progress” encryption enables that operating via and open protocol doesn’t.
83457 5y ago
How would encryption work?
- jrockway 5y ago
  Encrypted communication is not allowed on the ham radio bands.
  - logfromblammo 5y ago
    One could still run a numbers station? There's no way to prove the code words have any meaning beyond what is obvious.
    - unoti 5y ago
      > One could still run a numbers station? There's no way to prove the code words have any meaning beyond what is obvious. I'm not so sure one could, legally. A number station would broadcast regularly a one-way communications, with no clear meaning. Here's an excerpt of the law from FCC part 97, which is actually surprisingly short and readable. It prohibits: "messages encoded for the purpose of obscuring their meaning, except as otherwise provided herein; obscene or indecent words or language; or false or deceptive messages, signals or identification. (5) Communications, on a regular basis, which could reasonably be furnished alternatively through other radio services. (b) An amateur station shall not engage in any form of broadcasting, nor may an amateur station transmit one-way communications except as specifically provided in these rules..." https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/chapter-I/subchapter-D/part-97 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/chapter-I/subchapter-D...
    - hmrr 5y ago
      That’s a sure way of ending up with several old men yielding yagis like swords descend upon your house.
abfan1127 5y ago
FCC rules won't allow encryption. I'm not sure why the rules were made originally.
- tjohns 5y ago
  Ham radio relies on self-policing within the community to ensure compliance with the rules - the biggest one being "no commercial use". The "no commercial use" rule ensures companies aren't using the limited ham radio spectrum as a workaround to getting their own dedicated license and frequency allocation. If encryption were allowed, there'd be no way for other users to verify whether traffic is commercial or not.
  - alibarber 5y ago
    I always thought that encryption not being allowed was a way to discourage illegal commercial use of it. No business wants their comms in the clear with no means of verifying the sender of the message - so ham radio would be useless to them.
    - fragmede 5y ago
      But even not-for-business, I don't want someone else to be able to impersonate others, so signatures/verification still needs to be supported. Otherwise someone who's good at voice impersonations of others could wreak havok.
      - tjohns 5y ago
        There is no rule against using digital signatures for authentication. Your actual message just has to be in the clear. The exact wording is in 97.113: "No amateur station shall transmit... messages encoded for the purpose of obscuring their meaning".
- Enginerrrd 5y ago
  Because way back when long range radio was a plausible way for spies to communicate back to the homeland.
sseagull 5y ago
I am hoping they explained why. Most people who complain about the encryption regulation just completely disregard the reason for encryption in the first place (ie, all other regulations become unenforceable if encryption is allowed).
- jjoonathan 5y ago
  Do they? Maybe we need to figure out the essential subset of regulations that preserves the most essential aspects of the system while still permitting encryption. I have no doubt it will be a huge mess and take a few tries to get right. We should get started already -- if we don't, HAM will die, and it will deserve to die.
  - sseagull 5y ago
    Mostly. Ham is meant for play, not as a primary means of communication or for commercial purposes. If everything is encrypted, how could you tell? How could you even tell that the users were licensed?
    - jjoonathan 5y ago
      By not encrypting the call signs because unencrypted call signs aren't the problematic restriction. It's the content restrictions that are stifling in the modern world. Also: progress has changed the landscape. HFDF used to be difficult for the military but now it's easy for hobbyists, and not just in last-mile form, but in coordinated always-on infrastructure form. The regulations were not written with this in mind. With an active community this fact alone might obviate the need for many a regulation.
    - nyanpasu64 5y ago
      And I'm not broadcasting my legal name and mailing address so i can "play" with radio transmissions.
- edrxty 5y ago
  The unenforceable argument isn't really a thing. If we look at some common encryption standards, the call sign is in the clear as it has to be for routing. In the case where someone is swearing with their friends over an encrypted channel, it's just not a problem, no child will hear the swears without a quantum supercomputer. In the case where a business is illegally using ham bands to avoid paying license fees, they can already do this, nobody is actually checking. You can encrypt P25 on the bands all day long because nobody has radios that work with that digital mode and nobody will spend the time running signal analysis to figure out that A) it's P25, B) it's encrypted and C) where it's coming from. If it became rampant the FCC has the tools to very quickly figure out all of these things and if the broadcasts don't have a call sign and are coming from a business premises then it's obviously breaking the law anyway. If it could be a problem, it already would be. All the Chinese digital business radios support encryption now. We're just not allowed to use it because people are scared of bogeymen
detaro 5y ago
Don't conflate "it's extremely obviously not legal" with "people don't like it" (the latter camp you can always ignore, they fundamentally can't do that much in most cases except not support you. See e.g. the whining about pretty much any digital mode ever). But encryption on ham bands falls in the first bucket, which is a problem, and I doubt that's simply a "we need to advocate for changing it" matter. Fun fact: in parts of the world, you can transmit pretty much whatever you want on CB, nobody is stopping you from running encrypted digimodes there. And for slow transmissions, one can probably squeeze something through ISM bands, despite the limitations there. And you probably could develop a good mode on ham bands that has the foundations and does signatures but not encryption, and can switch to encrypted on other bands.

by edrxty 5y ago

vitaflo 5y ago

I have yet to hear what “progress” encryption enables that operating via and open protocol doesn’t.

83457 5y ago

How would encryption work?

jrockway 5y ago
Encrypted communication is not allowed on the ham radio bands.
- logfromblammo 5y ago
  One could still run a numbers station? There's no way to prove the code words have any meaning beyond what is obvious.
  - unoti 5y ago
    > One could still run a numbers station? There's no way to prove the code words have any meaning beyond what is obvious. I'm not so sure one could, legally. A number station would broadcast regularly a one-way communications, with no clear meaning. Here's an excerpt of the law from FCC part 97, which is actually surprisingly short and readable. It prohibits: "messages encoded for the purpose of obscuring their meaning, except as otherwise provided herein; obscene or indecent words or language; or false or deceptive messages, signals or identification. (5) Communications, on a regular basis, which could reasonably be furnished alternatively through other radio services. (b) An amateur station shall not engage in any form of broadcasting, nor may an amateur station transmit one-way communications except as specifically provided in these rules..." https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/chapter-I/subchapter-D/part-97 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/chapter-I/subchapter-D...
  - hmrr 5y ago
    That’s a sure way of ending up with several old men yielding yagis like swords descend upon your house.

abfan1127 5y ago

FCC rules won't allow encryption. I'm not sure why the rules were made originally.

tjohns 5y ago
Ham radio relies on self-policing within the community to ensure compliance with the rules - the biggest one being "no commercial use". The "no commercial use" rule ensures companies aren't using the limited ham radio spectrum as a workaround to getting their own dedicated license and frequency allocation. If encryption were allowed, there'd be no way for other users to verify whether traffic is commercial or not.
- alibarber 5y ago
  I always thought that encryption not being allowed was a way to discourage illegal commercial use of it. No business wants their comms in the clear with no means of verifying the sender of the message - so ham radio would be useless to them.
  - fragmede 5y ago
    But even not-for-business, I don't want someone else to be able to impersonate others, so signatures/verification still needs to be supported. Otherwise someone who's good at voice impersonations of others could wreak havok.
    - tjohns 5y ago
      There is no rule against using digital signatures for authentication. Your actual message just has to be in the clear. The exact wording is in 97.113: "No amateur station shall transmit... messages encoded for the purpose of obscuring their meaning".
Enginerrrd 5y ago
Because way back when long range radio was a plausible way for spies to communicate back to the homeland.

sseagull 5y ago

I am hoping they explained why. Most people who complain about the encryption regulation just completely disregard the reason for encryption in the first place (ie, all other regulations become unenforceable if encryption is allowed).

jjoonathan 5y ago
Do they? Maybe we need to figure out the essential subset of regulations that preserves the most essential aspects of the system while still permitting encryption. I have no doubt it will be a huge mess and take a few tries to get right. We should get started already -- if we don't, HAM will die, and it will deserve to die.
- sseagull 5y ago
  Mostly. Ham is meant for play, not as a primary means of communication or for commercial purposes. If everything is encrypted, how could you tell? How could you even tell that the users were licensed?
  - jjoonathan 5y ago
    By not encrypting the call signs because unencrypted call signs aren't the problematic restriction. It's the content restrictions that are stifling in the modern world. Also: progress has changed the landscape. HFDF used to be difficult for the military but now it's easy for hobbyists, and not just in last-mile form, but in coordinated always-on infrastructure form. The regulations were not written with this in mind. With an active community this fact alone might obviate the need for many a regulation.
  - nyanpasu64 5y ago
    And I'm not broadcasting my legal name and mailing address so i can "play" with radio transmissions.
edrxty 5y ago
The unenforceable argument isn't really a thing. If we look at some common encryption standards, the call sign is in the clear as it has to be for routing. In the case where someone is swearing with their friends over an encrypted channel, it's just not a problem, no child will hear the swears without a quantum supercomputer. In the case where a business is illegally using ham bands to avoid paying license fees, they can already do this, nobody is actually checking. You can encrypt P25 on the bands all day long because nobody has radios that work with that digital mode and nobody will spend the time running signal analysis to figure out that A) it's P25, B) it's encrypted and C) where it's coming from. If it became rampant the FCC has the tools to very quickly figure out all of these things and if the broadcasts don't have a call sign and are coming from a business premises then it's obviously breaking the law anyway. If it could be a problem, it already would be. All the Chinese digital business radios support encryption now. We're just not allowed to use it because people are scared of bogeymen

detaro 5y ago

Don't conflate "it's extremely obviously not legal" with "people don't like it" (the latter camp you can always ignore, they fundamentally can't do that much in most cases except not support you. See e.g. the whining about pretty much any digital mode ever). But encryption on ham bands falls in the first bucket, which is a problem, and I doubt that's simply a "we need to advocate for changing it" matter. Fun fact: in parts of the world, you can transmit pretty much whatever you want on CB, nobody is stopping you from running encrypted digimodes there. And for slow transmissions, one can probably squeeze something through ISM bands, despite the limitations there. And you probably could develop a good mode on ham bands that has the foundations and does signatures but not encryption, and can switch to encrypted on other bands.