Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net

   Home   Help Search  
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... 16 Next   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Once again whackers wanna screw up the hobby... Encryption  (Read 129923 times)
AA4PB
Member

Posts: 12685




Ignore
« Reply #90 on: July 14, 2013, 11:04:53 AM »

Just as the NEC (in the US, anyway) is the ultimate authority on how electrical systems can and will be set up, individual jurisdictions can add to the regulations for safety sake because of local conditions--but they can NOT annul any of the conditions that the NEC has laid out as basic regulations!

Is that so? I thought that the NEC is only a recommended code that can be adopted in part or in whole or not at all by the local jurisdiction. Most do adopt it as part of their local regulations (for the sake of convenience) but it is up to the local jurisdiction to enforce it. The National Fire Protection Association (who published the NEC) has no authority to enforce anything.
Logged
K1CJS
Member

Posts: 5879




Ignore
« Reply #91 on: July 14, 2013, 11:48:55 AM »

...If the FCC wishes to allow encryption within the amateur service, it most certainly has the sovereign power do so as long as this doesn't have implications that spill over its borders with other nations.  Only when the spillover is an issue across borders does a nation agree to partially give up its sovereignty in exchange for other nations' willingness to do the same for a common benefit.... 

And I submit that this (encryption) is potentially a big problem, and that alone should stop this proposal in its tracks.  Did you ever hear the joke about the fly in a restaurant customers soup?  He started to complain--and the waiter shushed him, saying "Not so loud, the others will want one too!"

OK, say the US does allow encryption.  Other countries will either follow suit, leave things as they are--or complain mightily that the US is breaking the ITU regulations!  In any event, the ITU regulations are now dirt underfoot--and other countries will probably start violating parts of those regulations that other countries will still want enforced.  What good are the international regulations then?

No, no, NO.  Best leave well enough alone.
Logged
K1CJS
Member

Posts: 5879




Ignore
« Reply #92 on: July 14, 2013, 11:51:41 AM »

Is that so? I thought that the NEC is only a recommended code that can be adopted in part or in whole or not at all by the local jurisdiction. Most do adopt it as part of their local regulations (for the sake of convenience) but it is up to the local jurisdiction to enforce it. The National Fire Protection Association (who published the NEC) has no authority to enforce anything.

No, the NFPA doesn't enforce it, the government does.  I suggest you look at the code and the associated documentation again.  It spells out enforcement and not undercutting its minimum regulations.  Don't believe everything you may read in wikipedia.
« Last Edit: July 14, 2013, 11:55:47 AM by K1CJS » Logged
N3HFS
Member

Posts: 208




Ignore
« Reply #93 on: July 14, 2013, 12:11:19 PM »

OK, say the US does allow encryption.  Other countries will either follow suit, leave things as they are--or complain mightily that the US is breaking the ITU regulations!
I will try once again to make it clear to you how international law (treaties) and the ITU Agreement works:

If one countries actions or regulations don't affect another's, there is no legal basis in which the other country can file a legitimate complaint.

It's much like you (as an individual) trying to bring a case before the U.S. Supreme Court - no matter how important or earth-shattering the arguments, the Court won't hear it unless you can show that you - personally - were damaged by the law in question.

If the court doesn't buy your argument that you were significantly (and usually directly) damaged in some way by the other party's actions, you are not within that court's jurisdiction. This principle applies to nations bringing complaints to an organization such as the ITU.  The ITU simply has no jurisdiction over the internal affairs of any nation!

Quote
In any event, the ITU regulations are now dirt underfoot--and other countries will probably start violating parts of those regulations that other countries will still want enforced.  What good are the international regulations then?

No, no, NO.  Best leave well enough alone.
The purpose of international agreements is mutual benefit.  There is no other reason (other than sheer coercion) for a nation to sign such an agreement!  Nations simply do not give up their sovereign power without assurance that it will receive something in return!  

If the United States wants other nations to do its bidding, you won't find such "agreements" being willingly signed onto by other countries!  Such an "agreement" is more likely to be referred to as a "surrender document."
« Last Edit: July 14, 2013, 12:14:00 PM by N3HFS » Logged
K1CJS
Member

Posts: 5879




Ignore
« Reply #94 on: July 15, 2013, 04:36:45 AM »

Just a tip, Franz,  don't be so condescending.  And don't try to 'make it clear' when you're cloudy on an issue yourself.  Your analogy of a case before the Supreme Court doesn't hold water since that court deals with in-country issues and can enforce their decisions, while the World Court deals with disagreement between nations and cannot easily enforce anything except with recommended sanctions against the offending nations.

Oh, and just where did you get the idea that the ITU has jurisdiction over anyone?  That was never said.  What WAS said is that the signatory countries have an obligation to follow those ITU rules, since they gave their tacit agreement to do so when they signed.   73.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2013, 04:52:54 AM by K1CJS » Logged
W6EM
Member

Posts: 727




Ignore
« Reply #95 on: July 15, 2013, 08:04:32 AM »

Just as the NEC (in the US, anyway) is the ultimate authority on how electrical systems can and will be set up, individual jurisdictions can add to the regulations for safety sake because of local conditions--but they can NOT annul any of the conditions that the NEC has laid out as basic regulations!

Is that so? I thought that the NEC is only a recommended code that can be adopted in part or in whole or not at all by the local jurisdiction. Most do adopt it as part of their local regulations (for the sake of convenience) but it is up to the local jurisdiction to enforce it. The National Fire Protection Association (who published the NEC) has no authority to enforce anything.

You are correct.  In many cases, current editions of the NEC are not adopted by municipalities.  CA, for example, has its own set of electrical safety orders which take precidence over clearance and working distance requirements of the NEC.  And, those are codified as state law.
Logged
W6EM
Member

Posts: 727




Ignore
« Reply #96 on: July 15, 2013, 08:28:05 AM »

....It also seems to me that while it is certainly true that such things as "trunked" repeater systems and cell phones will be the first to go down in an emergency, real "First Responders" have also now started to realize that fact and are taking steps to build their own emergency "backup" communications systems into their emergency planning.  

This includes keeping a supply of those old, analog VHF or UHF hand-helds and repeater systems charged and ready to go in such situations.  What's more, such in-house backup usually costs them next to nothing to maintain.  That's because, very often their old communications infrastructure has remained in place when they made the move to a new trunked and/or encrypted system.

.....

73,

Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF / VA3OB
kb1sf.blogspot.com

Hello, Keith.  Cogent and accurate comments as always.

I share your disdain for trunked-junk, if you recall some of my earlier rants on the subject.  The New Orleans system failure during Hurricane Katrina probably had the greatest impact so far with very real adverse consequences in loss of life, injuries and property loss.

Here’s but the latest trunked-junk failure.  Pretty embarassing for the City of Detroit: On July 5, 2013, the entire Detroit, Michigan police department trunked radio system collapsed.

 “Michigan State Police stepped in to allow Detroit's emergency system to use the state's communication system. This backup was used for several days while crews worked to restore the Detroit system.  Detroit Police Spokeswoman Sergeant Eren Stephens said that during the initial down time there had been some 60 priority one and more than 170 non-emergency calls that had backed up because of the issue.”  Amateur Radio Newsline No. 1874, July 12, 2013

Personally, I’m sick and tired of the Amateur Service being offered as a band-aid for poor choices made by local and state governments.  And, this encryption request is just one of likely many additions to morph things into an auxiliary for agencies having the stupidity to replace conventional repeater systems with failure-prone, unreliable trunked junk.

I know of one that acknowledged their “mistake.”  That was the Dallas, TX police department.  They went from a UHF conventional repeater system to a trunked system and soon went back to the conventional system.  This was several years ago.  They were lucky.  Their problems were mostly poor coverage, not a total loss of the system via single point failure.  The trunked system was given to the Dallas Animal Control to chase stray dogs wth.

73,

Lee
W6EM
Logged
KF5AFN
Member

Posts: 6




Ignore
« Reply #97 on: July 15, 2013, 05:43:43 PM »

Even as lowly tech,(for the next 2 weeks) I have the
 awareness to realize, I was granted my license by the FCC not ITU
Logged
K1CJS
Member

Posts: 5879




Ignore
« Reply #98 on: July 15, 2013, 06:32:22 PM »

I'll be sure to tell my voc. school and my boss that next time I see them. 

Who you got your license from makes no never mind, it's the agreements between countries that are being spoken of here--unless you consider yourself a separate country?
Logged
KF5AFN
Member

Posts: 6




Ignore
« Reply #99 on: July 15, 2013, 06:58:09 PM »

No CJS the OP was about encryption,which I don't agree with, you hijacked this forum to promote your views on global harmony, some of us simply come here to learn from those with more experience to better serve our communities.
Logged
K1CJS
Member

Posts: 5879




Ignore
« Reply #100 on: July 16, 2013, 05:01:00 AM »

Hijacked?  Wrong!  The 'global harmony' thing was part of the discussion about how other countries may see our (the USA) allowing encryption.  You know, hams also use HF for emergency communications--and unless specified (as some commenters have done) that encryption be limited to certain bands, allowing encryption may just open a pandora's box of problems.  
« Last Edit: July 16, 2013, 05:04:26 AM by K1CJS » Logged
KF5AFN
Member

Posts: 6




Ignore
« Reply #101 on: July 16, 2013, 06:05:28 PM »

I'm not sure that a whacker isn't better than a wanker, and you sure qualify as that, you need to remember that this is a nation based on Constitutional law, not international law , no international court means anything on US soil. The Constitution clearly states that the government and it's institutions only exist with the permission of the people, You denegrade when you have the ability to improve. If your not willing to make the FCC better, please move a few miles North.
KF5AFN
Logged
K1CJS
Member

Posts: 5879




Ignore
« Reply #102 on: July 17, 2013, 09:22:59 AM »

Now down to namecalling, eh?  Well I'm not going to go down to your level.  If you want to play, you're by yourself.
Logged
W6EM
Member

Posts: 727




Ignore
« Reply #103 on: July 17, 2013, 06:25:07 PM »

.......it's institutions only exist with the permission of the people, You denegrade when you have the ability to improve. If your not willing to make the FCC better, please move a few miles North.
  Interesting spiel.  How many Petitions, Comments, Replies, Objections or Complaints have you filed before the Commission?  Or before Congressional Committees, etc?  Attack or support the issue or its perspective, not people.

Logged
W9FIB
Member

Posts: 579




Ignore
« Reply #104 on: July 18, 2013, 12:44:11 PM »

Why all the fuss now. A poster said the FCC does what the ARRL wants them to do. They came out against it. So the FCC will deny it, right?

So if the conspiracy theorists are correct, its a dead issue. And if it is not dead, then the conspiracy does not exist. Let's see what happens.
Logged
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... 16 Next   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!