4 ms·

I want to agree with encryption but I think we’d see tunneling unapproved use though approved use. I don’t use my license enough to know is cryptographic signi

I want to agree with encryption but I think we’d see tunneling unapproved use though approved use. I don’t use my license enough to know is cryptographic signing is kosher but if it’s not that would be cool. If the idea is an “if you have a license, send whatever data you want because it’s encrypted” limited allocation then I might be into that. Sharing the spectrum would be complicated.

vorpalhex 3y ago
Yeah that's why I suggest a small subset of the UHF spectrum - it's naturally range limited to your local repeaters and it has the room to carve some space for whatever encrypted traffic is flowing. Whether that space is used for meshtastic, AREDN, etc is up to the local band plan. Leave some for experimenters. Even APRS (which I realize is usually vhf) would benefit - sms over aprs meant all your phone numbers were public.
- giantrobot 3y ago
  If you are transmitting an encrypted signal and I am not the recipient, I just see it as noise. There's no way for me to know its not noise. Since I have no insight into the transmission other than it's noise I don't have any idea when I get to use the shared medium you decided you wanted to monopolize. IIRC there's more bandwidth in just the 2.4GHz ISM band than all of the ham bands combined. If you want to blast noise (what your encrypted signal appears as) use ISM bands. Don't blast noise on ham bands.
thrtythreeforty 3y ago
Signatures on a cleartext transmission should be okay, I think. The FCC prohibits obscured meaning and as long as the encoding scheme is published (and you're courteous and follow the band plan) then I don't think there's anything forbidding making traffic un-forgeable with cryptography.
- myself248 3y ago
  That's my understanding as well. But I'd also bet a dollar that someone fails to understand the difference and gets their undies in a massive twist about it.

vorpalhex 3y ago

Yeah that's why I suggest a small subset of the UHF spectrum - it's naturally range limited to your local repeaters and it has the room to carve some space for whatever encrypted traffic is flowing. Whether that space is used for meshtastic, AREDN, etc is up to the local band plan. Leave some for experimenters. Even APRS (which I realize is usually vhf) would benefit - sms over aprs meant all your phone numbers were public.

giantrobot 3y ago
If you are transmitting an encrypted signal and I am not the recipient, I just see it as noise. There's no way for me to know its not noise. Since I have no insight into the transmission other than it's noise I don't have any idea when I get to use the shared medium you decided you wanted to monopolize. IIRC there's more bandwidth in just the 2.4GHz ISM band than all of the ham bands combined. If you want to blast noise (what your encrypted signal appears as) use ISM bands. Don't blast noise on ham bands.

thrtythreeforty 3y ago

Signatures on a cleartext transmission should be okay, I think. The FCC prohibits obscured meaning and as long as the encoding scheme is published (and you're courteous and follow the band plan) then I don't think there's anything forbidding making traffic un-forgeable with cryptography.

myself248 3y ago
That's my understanding as well. But I'd also bet a dollar that someone fails to understand the difference and gets their undies in a massive twist about it.