4 ms·

Edit: I think I got confused by reading an article a long time ago referencing the command & control exemption mentioned in another comment. I should've kept my

Edit: I think I got confused by reading an article a long time ago referencing the command & control exemption mentioned in another comment. I should've kept my mouth shut about a legal matter I couldn't properly articulate/didn't fully understand or at least put IANAL, my bad. --- original comment: --- This regulation is often misunderstood. The requirement is that it must be possible to decode the signal; the signal cannot be scrambled. It is totally legal to, for instance, have an HTTPS connection tunneled over an internet radio link, as long you could decode the radio message - it's not illegal for a message to carry an encrypted payload. By the same token, steganography wouldn't be illegal either. This regulation isn't trying to stop you from sending secret messages, it's making it possible to introspect the messages to determine what protocol and call signs are involved. It's about managing the spectrum and figuring out who to complain to if there's interference, not about controlling cryptography.

detaro 4y ago
That's wrong. The prohibition is exactly on non-understandable meaning of messages, recognizable protocol and call signs is not enough.
- MandieD 4y ago
  It’s also part of why a lot of amateur radio-related sites still serve unencrypted HTTP, either optionally or exclusively. (The other part of why is that there are an awful lot of valuable amateur radio sites that haven’t been updated in 15-20 years)
  - detaro 4y ago
    or are ran by people who can't be bothered to figure this new-fangled HTTPS stuff out
    - LarryMullins 4y ago
      Or people who buy into the "nothing to hide" nonsense, influenced by a HAM culture of not encrypting things that emerged from the rule against it.
- maxbond 4y ago
  [dead]
progman32 4y ago
Can you post a citation for that? Everything I've heard indeed claims that any encryption is no go except for a narrow band of critical applications.
teraflop 4y ago
FCC regulations say: "No amateur station shall transmit: [...] messages encoded for the purpose of obscuring their meaning". https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/97.113 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/97.113 This isn't entirely unambiguous, and people can and do argue about how it applies to things like proprietary data protocols that aren't publicly documented. But I think it's clear that encryption, such as that used by HTTPS, is intended to be banned by this clause.
- zikduruqe 4y ago
  But you can obscure command and control signals to space based stations. You don't want people knowing how to reprogram or turn off your satellite. 47 CFR § 97.211 - Space telecommand station. (b) A telecommand station may transmit special codes intended to obscure the meaning of telecommand messages to the station in space operation.

detaro 4y ago

That's wrong. The prohibition is exactly on non-understandable meaning of messages, recognizable protocol and call signs is not enough.

MandieD 4y ago
It’s also part of why a lot of amateur radio-related sites still serve unencrypted HTTP, either optionally or exclusively. (The other part of why is that there are an awful lot of valuable amateur radio sites that haven’t been updated in 15-20 years)
- detaro 4y ago
  or are ran by people who can't be bothered to figure this new-fangled HTTPS stuff out
  - LarryMullins 4y ago
    Or people who buy into the "nothing to hide" nonsense, influenced by a HAM culture of not encrypting things that emerged from the rule against it.
maxbond 4y ago
[dead]

progman32 4y ago

Can you post a citation for that? Everything I've heard indeed claims that any encryption is no go except for a narrow band of critical applications.

teraflop 4y ago

FCC regulations say: "No amateur station shall transmit: [...] messages encoded for the purpose of obscuring their meaning". https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/97.113 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/97.113 This isn't entirely unambiguous, and people can and do argue about how it applies to things like proprietary data protocols that aren't publicly documented. But I think it's clear that encryption, such as that used by HTTPS, is intended to be banned by this clause.

zikduruqe 4y ago
But you can obscure command and control signals to space based stations. You don't want people knowing how to reprogram or turn off your satellite. 47 CFR § 97.211 - Space telecommand station. (b) A telecommand station may transmit special codes intended to obscure the meaning of telecommand messages to the station in space operation.