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

donate to eham
   Home   Help Search  
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Lets encrypt ham radio cause we are special!!  (Read 71637 times)
KB4QAA
Member

Posts: 3257




Ignore
« Reply #45 on: December 17, 2013, 01:08:59 PM »

If the Navajo code talkers of WW11 were to use CW on the ham bands today would it be considered encryption?
-If they were conducting military operations, they would be violating FCC and ITU regulations and international treaties.

-May licensed amateur operators conduct CW QSO's in Navajo?  Certainly.

-May Navajo be used to obscure or hide the content and purpose of transmissions on the amateur bands?   No.
Logged
W6EM
Member

Posts: 1666




Ignore
« Reply #46 on: December 17, 2013, 03:13:17 PM »

Quote
Maybe we should debate whether Pactors 2, 3 and 4 are unspecified codes (and) effectively encrypted.  To bolster the argument, unless you pay SCS big money, you don't get the key.
1.  Cussed and discussed many times.  No issues.  The FCC finds nothing objectionable about these modes.

2. They are not encrypted.  They use a proprietary method, however.  Anyone may listen or participate in QSO's in those modes by purchasing a TNC from SCS.  Nothing is hidden, nothing is intended to hide transmissions.

3.  SCS does not sell any 'key' nor the proprietary methods for Pactor 2, 3, 4.  You can buy the box freely.   Same is true of GTOR, Clover, DStar, and numerous other methods/modes.

Perhaps your reading of 47CFR309(a)(4) is clouded.  PacTOR in the regulation text is Pactor I.  It has been released.  GTOR, Clover are also public.  DSTAR isn't hidden.    PII,III,and IV are unspecified modes and technically illegal on HF.   ARRL tried to sneak in permission for unspecified modes in its RM-11708 Petition, but it changed its mind...... Cool.
« Last Edit: December 17, 2013, 03:31:47 PM by W6EM » Logged
AA4PB
Member

Posts: 14354




Ignore
« Reply #47 on: December 17, 2013, 03:36:09 PM »

I believe the FCC considers Pactor II, III, and IV (as well as PSK31) to be ASCII codes with an enhanced protocol to facilitate transmission. As a result, they are legal on the HF bands provided that the protocol specifications are publicly documented. They do not fall into the category of an "unspecified protocol".

Logged

Bob  AA4PB
Garrisonville, VA
KB4QAA
Member

Posts: 3257




Ignore
« Reply #48 on: December 17, 2013, 04:05:02 PM »

Perhaps your reading of 47CFR309(a)(4) is clouded.  PacTOR in the regulation text is Pactor I.  It has been released.  GTOR, Clover are also public.  DSTAR isn't hidden.    PII,III,and IV are unspecified modes and technically illegal on HF.   ARRL tried to sneak in permission for unspecified modes in its RM-11708 Petition, but it changed its mind...... Cool.
Gotcha!  I haven't read the that reg. in at least a decade, or decade and a half.  Smiley

And no, I was not making any reference to Pactor I.  That protocol was made available for public use.

However, I believe that proprietary protocols/equipment are against the very nature of openess of amateur radio.   I would prefer that they not be allowed on the bands.  Other countries like France have taken this stance.  

Any protocol/equipment manufacturer should be required to fully publish their methods and allow other manufacturers/software developers to produce and sell compatible devices/software.

Nonetheless I understand the logic of the FCC position and don't see any need to throw hissy fits about it (not accusing anyone!).
« Last Edit: December 17, 2013, 04:07:23 PM by KB4QAA » Logged
W6EM
Member

Posts: 1666




Ignore
« Reply #49 on: December 17, 2013, 06:14:32 PM »

I believe the FCC considers Pactor II, III, and IV (as well as PSK31) to be ASCII codes with an enhanced protocol to facilitate transmission. As a result, they are legal on the HF bands provided that the protocol specifications are publicly documented. They do not fall into the category of an "unspecified protocol".


The protocol specifications for P I are publicly documented.  Hence, available widely from others besides SCS.  PSK-31, JT-5, etc, likewise.  However Dr. Peter over there in Deutschland refuses to make the protocols for P II, P III or P IV public.  And his friends in Newington apparently cater to his whim.  Freebie modems?  Donations to the (Spread) Spectrum Fund?  Do you really believe for a  second that their Freudian Slip of adding unspecified modes to 307 (f) (3) in their Petition was an accident?
I've heard all the tales.  Such as "Tech spec means a diagram or a map."  NO, IT MEANS THE WHOLE DARN CODE!!!
Logged
W7HBP
Member

Posts: 177




Ignore
« Reply #50 on: December 17, 2013, 06:29:52 PM »


Slightly on topic:

What about using encryption on the business bands (assuming one has a license of course for the band). On E-Bay they sell radios with sophisticated digital encryption.

 Can one use those radios with the encryption on the business bands or are those radios meant for law enforcement only? I was wondering who buys them and what bands people legally use them on.

And the Baofeng 888, they have a speech inversion scrambler. Where can you use the scrambler on? FRS? The business bands?

I was fishing in Alaska on a charter boat and I heard scrambled radio signals over the boats radio. I inquired and the skipper mentioned other charters, all their boats can hear each other charter member of the same group. But not others charters (competition). I guess they didnt want to give up all the hot fishing spots. This was not on their usual marine radio, but another radio and they could communicate with other fisherman and the base unit on land.
Logged

ARRL Life Member|QRZ Life Member
AA4HA
Member

Posts: 2384




Ignore
« Reply #51 on: December 18, 2013, 05:33:48 AM »

However, I believe that proprietary protocols/equipment are against the very nature of openess of amateur radio.   I would prefer that they not be allowed on the bands.  Other countries like France have taken this stance.  

Any protocol/equipment manufacturer should be required to fully publish their methods and allow other manufacturers/software developers to produce and sell compatible devices/software.
There was a time when the different design approaches to SSB were protected by patent. Only a specific manufacturer held license and would readily sue each other to keep their competitive advantage.
Most of the amateur radio community is very conservative in our view of freedoms and the rights to keep what you have worked so hard to develop. It seems that as soon as there is the idea that someone is going to charge you money for a product that a large number turn into socialists and that work should become open for "the common good".

My 2 pence.

Flames will be ignored, I just do not care. It that hat fits uncomfortably, then check the size of your head.
« Last Edit: December 18, 2013, 05:37:01 AM by AA4HA » Logged

Ms. Tisha Hayes, AA4HA
Lookout Mountain, Alabama
Free space loss (dB) = 32.4 + 20 × log10d + 20 × log10 f
AA4PB
Member

Posts: 14354




Ignore
« Reply #52 on: December 18, 2013, 06:11:13 AM »

"I've heard all the tales.  Such as "Tech spec means a diagram or a map."  NO, IT MEANS THE WHOLE DARN CODE!!!"

Bull!! I've never seen any documented legal requirement that a developer has to release his source code in order for it to be legal on the ham bands and neither have you. Pactor I was never released to the public domain, it remained proprietary. It was licensed to several other companies so that they could legally implement it. SCS was upset because several mfgs took short cuts that made Pactor I not work as well as the original SCS implementation. SCS decided not to license their more advanced protocols.

We might as well get used to it. Companies invest a lot of money in developing new complex protocols and it is only natural that most of them aren't inclined to give it away and watch others reap the financial benefits of their work and investment.
Logged

Bob  AA4PB
Garrisonville, VA
W4KYR
Member

Posts: 1602




Ignore
« Reply #53 on: December 18, 2013, 07:28:00 AM »

I just can't see spending $1,500 on a Pactor modem just to send e-mail .... faster.
For $1,500, one can buy a really good HF rig for that kind of money. The price (new or used) doesn't justify buying one for just one specific application (e-mail).  Someone mentioned that Pactor III is only 20% faster than Winmor (which is free).
Logged

The internet and cellphone networks are great until they go down, what then? Find out here. 
https://www.eham.net/ehamforum/smf/index.php/topic,111948.0.html

Using Windows 98 For Packet...
K1CJS
Member

Posts: 6252




Ignore
« Reply #54 on: December 19, 2013, 03:14:39 PM »

...The code talkers couldn't have been under NTIA because NTIA wasn't founded until 1978. They were however part of the military....

So it wasn't.  The FCC didn't control the military use of the airwaves either.
Logged
KB8VUL
Member

Posts: 200




Ignore
« Reply #55 on: December 23, 2013, 07:16:17 PM »

We gonna beat this horse corpse again? 
Personally I am ALL FOR encryption on ham for one reason only.
I give the key out to the people I WANT to talk to and it becomes a filter.
No more hearing ARES discussions.
No listening to some old fart going on about being on a catheter, colostomy bag or other shit he should keep to his damn self.
No hearing the same old fart discuss his wife's trip to the OB/GYN in detail about her genital warts.

Encryption becomes a dumbass filter.  If the dumbasses don't have my key and I don't have theirs then it's a solid solution.

Personally, with the ruling of closed repeaters being legal, I don't see why we can't encrypt.  It's actually more polite than telling some moose twit to get the hell off my CLOSED repeater, only to have some ignorant discussion about how ham radio is public and they have a right to be playing on my repeater, only to have me turn the damn thing off to prove the point.
 
Logged
W5TTW
Member

Posts: 43




Ignore
« Reply #56 on: December 27, 2013, 12:34:04 PM »

Personally I am ALL FOR encryption on ham for one reason only.
I give the key out to the people I WANT to talk to and it becomes a filter.
I guess this would work both ways.  We wouldn't have to listen to you.  Wink
Logged
KB8VUL
Member

Posts: 200




Ignore
« Reply #57 on: January 03, 2014, 07:55:31 PM »

Personally I am ALL FOR encryption on ham for one reason only.
I give the key out to the people I WANT to talk to and it becomes a filter.
I guess this would work both ways.  We wouldn't have to listen to you.  Wink

I agree 100%.  I am not going to sit here and say that my opinion is the only one that is right across the board.
It's right for me and that's sufficient. Do I think it's for EMCOMM use, no.  Here's why, EMCOMM is an extension of public safety, or at least that's what it's touted as being.  It's also an all hands on deck sort of thing with the idea of volunteering at it's core.
It's hard to volunteer if you don't have a radio that will talk to the EMCOMM folks to begin with.  I look at it like this, if you are gonna encrypt EMCOMM just go to commercial bands and be done with it.  Would be no different than a hand full of weather spotters running encryption, they can only talk to each other and no one else.  And while that does deal with the 'fair weather" reports, it blocks those that actually have a valid report from making it.  Now the idea of encrypting basic rag chewing is a fair idea.  It's really no different than a closed repeater.  You allow those that you want to on it and those that you don't need not apply.  Of course there are other ways of going about it like running DTMF access codes to access the machine.  Running different TX and RX PL /DPL codes, running splinter channels that a standard 25KC channel spaced radio will not tune to.  Running narrow band receivers and transmitters that 25KC channel space radios are too wide for the RX and over modulate the input till the RX drops out, or a combination of the above. 

I do radio as a profession and a hobby.  Hearing about Joes new shipment of catheters, his wife's warts and the like bother me on a number of levels.  And ultimately I feel that if it's on a repeater, be it a personal, or a club machine, and nothing is said about it by a control op, then it's allowed to be talked about and those topics being discussed are a reflection on the repeater owner or club the repeater is affiliated to.  Nothing says tacky like a voice ID'er firing off "This is the so and so repeater now back to the genital warts dude's wife has".  Which is basically the jest of it.  I realize that discussion topics vary on a repeater.  My guess is that guys that are going to go work towards getting the needed hardware to run digital and encryption to boot are gonna have better topics of discussion than those mentioned above. 
Logged
N2HBX
Member

Posts: 169




Ignore
« Reply #58 on: March 01, 2014, 01:42:13 PM »

Actually, if the Navajo talkers wanted to speak Navajo in a QSO, that's fine. Doesn't matter if you speak Navajo, Chinese, or Klingon. Part 97 only requires that the station identification be in English.

73,
Larry, N2HBX
Logged
KB8VUL
Member

Posts: 200




Ignore
« Reply #59 on: March 05, 2014, 02:22:56 PM »

.Doesn't matter if you speak Navajo, Chinese, or Klingon. Part 97 only requires that the station identification be in English.



Damn it Larry did you have to go THERE?!?!?!?

Now I will hear some of these clowns practicing their Klingon on the local repeaters.
Logged
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 [4] 5 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!