4 ms·
They actually never explicitly say no encryption. I can't find the section right now but it says something like "no obstructing the purpose of your transmission
by twiclo 3y ago
They actually never explicitly say no encryption. I can't find the section right now but it says something like "no obstructing the purpose of your transmission". So theoretically you could add a header to every packet that says "purpose: testing hardware" and you'd be fine. It's only other groups, not the FCC, who have interpreted that to mean no encryption.
- emptybits 3y ago> I can't find the section right now but it says something like "no obstructing the purpose of your transmission". So theoretically you could add a header to every packet that says "purpose: testing hardware" and you'd be fine. I think Section 97 is what you're referring to. If so, it's not obstruction of purpose the FCC forbids; it's obstruction of meaning. Section 97: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/chapter-I/subchapter-D/part-97 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/chapter-I/subchapter-D...
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- chriscjcj 3y agoI'm not an experienced ham; I only have my technician license. Throughout part 97, there is a repeated prohibition of transmitting "messages encoded for the purpose of obscuring their meaning." If I understand it correctly, there are many accepted ways to encode a message, but those encoding methods are (and must be) published and publicly accessible. I think that encrypting a message so that only certain people could decipher it would fall under the category of "messages encoded for the purpose of obscuring their meaning." Yes, you could encrypt a message with a published standard, but to be legal I think there would have to be some specific exceptions made to allow it because it ultimately runs afoul of the spirit of that rule.