FCC Rules threaten the future of ham innovation

[kc0lql]

FCC Rules threaten the future of innovation in Digital Ham Radio

It is past time for ham radio to acknowledge than encryption and freedom are required for the future of innovation in our hobby.

Take a look sometime on an internet search engine for "wireless". What you will find is literally thousands of websites on 802.11 wireless ethernet, for any one page of packet or other Ham Radio based network technology.

The reason for this is that innovation is being driven out of Ham Radio by restrictions on the Ham bands which are not present in other parts of the spectrum. Surely, having frequencies available to hams is important, but what can or cannot be done on those frequencies is probably at least as important, yet receives far less attention. None of the existing organizations seem to see these restrictions as a threat, but they have already done serious damage.

Some examples of our "freedom-challenged" restrictions that are most damaging follow.

1. Prohibitation of Encryption -

Nearly any modern computer protocol uses encryption - at least for password authentication. Hams are not permitted to encrypt data, so it immediately follows that hams cannot use modern protocols on the air. Sure, we can invent our own, or use antiquated substitutes if available, but is soon as we wish to exchange useful data with the rest of the encrypted world, we are forbidden from doing so by FCC rules. Living without encryption was normal life ten years ago, but is not practical any more.

2. Prohibition of offensive content or lack of free speech -

Can anyone else appreciate the irony of telling a foreign station, "Well, I would like to dicuss the freedom of speech we enjoy in America with you, but unfortunately I am prohibited from doing so. I can only talk about unimportant things as per FCC rules part 97.117". Too many good men and woman have died for our freedoms, for us to say, in effect, "It's OK for us not to have these freedoms on the air." It's NOT ok. If foreign governments want to limit what is acceptable for their citizens, that is fine. But not our government.

"Why should it matter?", you might think. Some of the limitations - such as profanity, etc. in the FCC rule list that for the most part, people support.

The problem arises that in other freedom-enable venus, such as the internet, have no such restrictions. If we wish to innovate with solutions that marry Ham Radio and internet technology, we must be able to pass traffic between the networks without reading through all traffic to determine if it is OK per FCC rules. It is not that swearing would be common on internet to ham radio links (being as hams are still likely on both sides of the link). It's just that once a link is made someone could send something that would violate FCC rules. This deters hams from making these links in the first place, because their license may be lost if someone abuses their trust.

Most people currently ignore the content-limitation rules, except those for profanity. Ham radio is not the only place that obsurd rules are ignored. There are many rules, regulations, and laws that would not stand, if they were actually enforced. But the rules are not harmless. Why risk your Ham license setting up a high-bandwidth 802.11 network on the ham bands, when you can rest easy knowing "anything goes" on the unlicensed spectrum?

The result is that innovation on high-speed internet linked networks is being driven into the 802.11 unlicensed wireless spectrum. The internet - quite possibly the best system available for emergency communications, due to its original fault tolerant design and universal availability - remains underutilized in Ham Radio emergency planning.

For hams to innovate with high-speed wireless technology, rule changes would be required for both encryption and content limitations.

At a minimum, an exemption to the encryption prohibition for the following three situations would be necessary.
1. Traffic being automatically passed between other networks and ham radio, or necessary for compatibility purposes.
2. Authentication of passwords
3. Handling of emergency situations (codes for times/places/frequencies are frequently used by Ham Radio emergency service organizations, despite their dubious legality)

Better yet, eliminate the encryption prohibition entirely.

For content limitations, at a minimum there must be an excemption for traffic automatically passed between networks. More ideal would be for content-related restrictions to be removed entirely. A rule stating, in effect: "hams must honor restrictions imposed on citizens of foreign countries" would address the situation of extraterritorial contacts without burdening US citizens unnecessarily.

In summary, a large part of the digital future of ham radio depends not on the frequencies we use, but how we are allowed to use them. It is time for our ham radio related organizations make these rule changes a priority.

73s
Tim Neu
KC0LQL

[AE4TM]

ITU Article S25 (http://www.aca.gov.au/publications/info/amatexam_ITURefs.htm#Article_s25)

International Telecommunication Union (ITU) Regulation s25.2 states:

"When transmissions between amateur stations of different countries are permitted, they shall be made in plain language and shall be limited to messages of a technical nature relating to tests and to remarks of a personal character for which, by reason of their unimportance, recourse to the public telecommunications service is not justified."

Therefore, the FCC Rules prohibiting encryption and secret codes are simply International Agreements.

Finally, during an Era of Terrorism, encryption over short wave radio by terrorists would seriously destroy our bands forever. I sincerely hope that international law continues to prohibit amateur radio encryption.

Ed AE4TM

[radio123us]

So you think that amateurs should not be restricted
on the content of their transmissions ? How about
business communications ? Should we allow that too ?
The FCC rules were put in place for a purpose, not to restrict our first ammendment rights, but to make the service what it is..."Amateur" Radio.

[n5zvp]

Maybe a reading of Part 97 should remind you what the purpose of the amateur service is?

Part 97 (http://www.arrl.org/files/infoserv/rib/part97.txt)

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">97.1 Basis and purpose.
The rules and regulations in this Part are designed to
provide an amateur radio service having a fundamental
purpose as expressed in the following principles:
(a) Recognition and enhancement of the value of the amateur
service to the public as a voluntary noncommercial
communication service, particularly with respect to
providing emergency communications.
(b) Continuation and extension of the amateur's proven
ability to contribute to the advancement of the radio art.
© Encouragement and improvement of the amateur service
through rules which provide for advancing skills in both the
communications and technical phases of the art.
(d) Expansion of the existing reservoir within the amateur
radio service of trained operators, technicians, and
electronics experts.
(e) Continuation and extension of the amateur's unique
ability to enhance international goodwill.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Encryption has nothing to do with the mission of the amateur service. Only control signals to repeaters, spacecraft and stuff of that ilk is permitted to be "obscured".

As far as freedom of speech, you obviously are mistaking the amateur service for the commercial broadcast bands, the Internet, the telephone service or CB.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The reason for this is that innovation is being driven out of Ham Radio by restrictions on the Ham bands which are not present in other parts of the spectrum. [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

You obviously haven't seen the thousands of ham web pages I've seen. Hams aren't restricted to the limited equipment offered to the public. They are free to homebrew and use spectrum that others are not able to.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The internet - quite possibly the best system available for emergency communications, due to its original fault tolerant design and universal availability - remains underutilized in Ham Radio emergency planning. [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

The Internet is of limited use when the phonelines are down. 9/11 and the floods in Houston proved that.

The only thing limiting amateur radio operators is themselves.

Chris
N5ZVP

[wc4rav]

Why is it that you think you need to encrypt your data..sent over amateur radio what do you have to hide that you need to broadcst.Amateur radio is a much diffent animalthan the internet, Amateur radio is a communication forum, ment and regulated to encurage open communications between other amateurs it is not meant to to support broadcasting or other radio utllites excepting R/C by nature amateur radio is open and available to all, the rules only require that the openess of amatreur radio is maintained,, you do however have the right , and duty to restrict access to your station ,therfore to use a password protection method would be perfectly legal and you could even encrypt that password under current FCC rules, you however could not employ encrypted communications.they would have to remain in the clear a nationally or globaly accepted encoding scheme would be .acceptable...
her's one for you
build and maintain a high power 900mhz 802.11a/b networki n your community and provide an internet gate-way. under currnet regulations , such a set up is perfectly legal,but you would be required to restrict access to only duly licinesed amateurs...how would you propose to accpolmish the task of insuring that only amateurs used your network, and only used it with out pecurnary interest..


we have these rules for a reason,, wif you permit an activity , in one mode then it is also permissible in other modes,,

ther goes the local taxi company using yo local 2m repeayer to dispach cabs

[ke4pjw]

Two points.

1)
The use of encryption via HAM radio has only one legitimate use that I can see, authentication. Other than that, there as absolutely no reason to encrypt your transmissions. If you are conducting yourself in a way that you don't want other Amateurs to see what you are doing, don't do it on the air.

2)
As far as Free Speech is concerned, you have the right to say anything you like. You do NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE HEARD.

I really do think more Amateurs (including myself) should take into account the people that are monitoring their transmission. Do they really want to hear me piss and moan about how bad traffic is? Keep it fun, positive and interesting. If you want a political platform, use the Internet, buy some T.V. time, print a newsletter.

[n3xp]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (AE4TM @ Jan. 12 2003,16:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Finally, during an Era of Terrorism, encryption over short wave radio by terrorists would seriously destroy our bands forever. I sincerely hope that international law continues to prohibit amateur radio encryption.

Ed AE4TM[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
This is troublesome. The kneejerk reaction tells us to hunt terrorist at all cost. When you give up freedom for promised security you gain a country without freedom and lacking security.

"Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death"
Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775.

And, I 'm sure the terrorist follow all international communication rules.

[K2WH]

The fact that amateur radio is open to anyone, very simple to hear or listen to and unencrypted, ensures it's very survival.

Start transmitting cloak and dagger messages and watch how fast more stringent rules and regs make it impossible to operate at all.

Do you really believe the stuff your wrote? If you do, then possibly you are seriously misinformed as to the nature and purpose of the Amateur Radio Service.

I don't think you will get any support here.

K2WH

[k3xc]

There is no need for encryption on the bands. We aren't using cell phones, we're using ham radio. There is also a band which allows all the free speech you want. They call it CB!!!

[N9TTX]

I don't think you really have done your homework on the encryption bit. We as hams do not need it other than the already mentioned "allowed" command codes and such. As someone above mentioned, if one needs to have something they are doing "hidden" from the rest of everyone out there, then don't do it on the ham bands. There are plenty of other venues of doing so within your rights. As far as someone else mentioned about CB use, might I also remind everyone, that even though the Citizen Band service has essentially been deregulated and enforcement of rulebreakers is almost nonexistant (yes there is a set of rules for the C.B service), it also says in there that profanity and obscenity for example are NOT permitted there also. Just pointing a fact out. Also as far as business bands, I do believe they are not permitted to use vulgarity and such either. All services have their rules tho they differ in certain respects from each other. I digress though. I do not think as one said above, that you will not get any support on your views in this case. Why would we need encryption? Isn't Amateur Radio about helping people out and sharing information...that means worldwide my friend. If someone from a foriegn country has a problem with something, is't it part of our generous nature as a "Ham Family" to help out, not to encrypt something to one and effectively give others a nose and say to the rest out there "only me and another know this and who cares about everyone else." I think not. What one in our "family" knows should be shared to help out the rest of the uninformed "family." As I do believe it was "The Thing" from the Fantastic Four was wont to say..."..'Nuff said!"

Dave.....N9TTX

[ab0lz]

It seems to me that people are too hung up on their rights, and not too worried about their responsibilities. We are part of the AMATEUR Radio fraternity, not the PROFESSIONAL radio fraternity. "...Me thinks he does protest too much... what does he have to hide?

Denis

[wb6bcn]

As was pointed out: With encription on the amatuer bands, it is going to be nearly impossible to tell if a ham or non ham is using the service. Using Des and partial keys being on both the sending and transmitting ends you can end up with a situation that only those that know the keys can receive each other. Des is only one of hundreds of encription methods. Like others, I can see the opening of a pandora's box. Ok, to use secure transmission to control a satellite or a repeater, that is one thing, but to use encription as a means of keeping ones transmission private, there is no reason on amatuer radio. As for keeping someone off a node, there are ways to insure that only those that are permitted to utilize a system are the only ones.

[K6UEY]

I read the lengthy both pages of this topic and all I see is a question as to why we should not change the rules to allow interchange of internet data over Ham Radio. Nowhere do I read as to why one would want to do that in the first place. The #Internet has nothing to do with the reason or purpose of Ham radio. It is a handy tool to use occasionally but has no bearing on Ham Radio. The Internet requires no technical expertise or even qualifications to operate,you might even look at it as a step below Citizen Band when it comes to operational requirements.
I for one am in full support of changing the FCC rules,but I'm for increasing the restrictions to limit the Licensees to those who are genuinely interested in HAM RADIO.
BTW that includes bring back CW testing to at least 10 WPM......... # # ENJOY!!! # # # #73, # ORV

[kc0jez]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (n5zvp @ Jan. 12 2003,16:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The internet - quite possibly the best system available for emergency communications, due to its original fault tolerant design and universal availability - remains underutilized in Ham Radio emergency planning. #[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
The internet? Reliable? You gotta be kidding! It's a miracle the darn 'net works at all. Talk about your rickety hook ups. I'm relying on phone lines and commercial power to post this message. As well as power being OK at the building where the modems are located (12 miles away) to have power and phone service. On down the line to the next interconnection, and on to the next etc. I've had my service go down because the power was out 300 miles away where a bunch of internet junk all comes together. Ever try to maintain a decent connection on the phone lines during a raging thunderstorm? The noise and crackle drive you off line in a hurry. What? Internet gateway on the repeater? Sure. Using another phone line up the remote hill where the repeater is located. Sure, that's gonna be good. Oh, yeah, the repeater has back up generator that runs it for DAYS, but I don't know of ANY isp who will keep the 'net working when power or phone lines go to heck.

As an unrelated aside....nice to see the cell phone industry and FCC continue to provide encrypted, guranteed private communications for terrorists....all because of a member of the government got caught having an affair 'cause someone overheard his cell phone calls! Terrorist? Need safe communications? Just pop into the mall and pick up a few cell phones. Yeesh.

[N0PU]

My vote, for what it is worth, is for NO encryption of Ham Radio signals ever.

1. It keeps everything out in the open and we cannot be suspect of anything.

2. The terrorist that you folks seem to be worried about are not gonna follow ANY rules... come on get real... use your heads folks... With todays technology a terrorist could set up a frequency hopping encrypted system where the last transmission would tell you where the next would be at, the data would be in such short bursts it would sound like a shot of static, so wide it would act like a shot of static and 99% of us would never know it was there... and they would be using the entire HF spectrum...

My bet is they could do this for years before anyone got wise...

Nope, lets keep the bands open and honest... then WE won't get blamed for anything... We got a fuzzy rep as it is... lets not add to it....

[aa7jc]

On one hand, it makes sense that amateur data systems truly would be easily "hacked" due to the plain text passwords sent over the air. And I can understand the investment of both time and equipment that is at stake.

On the other hand,
I agree with the established guidelines of our hobby.

Encrypted communications and private "closed" frequencies are not the best breeding grounds for a hobby such as ours. To illustrate this, I sold all my FM gear years ago when a large closed repeater system between California and Arizona (& other states) essentially dictated who could and who could not use their repeaters and or even belong to their association. Never mind that we are all hams... Hmmm... yeah, I can imagine what a great hobby this is...

You want encryption... any more, you should be able to use 5 wpm CW
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif


Ken aa7jc

[KC2JCA]

{paraphrase} Type "wireless" into a search engine and you find very few pages on Amateur Radio{/paraphrase}


No, really? Gee, could it be that for the last 7 decades we've called it "Radio"? Here's an even better one for you. Type "Cheerleading" into a search engine and see how many websites come up about cheerleading.


Someone pass the popcorn, they're showing this movie over.


73, Jim - kc2jca

[WB2QQZ]

In a world so tenuous as ours, it is wise to give up an ounce of freedom to gain a ton of security. There should be nothing transmitted on the Amateur Radio Bands that requirers Encrypted Security. We do not handle business, World Banking or any other communications of this nature. With hams communicating world wide and operating powers in the KW range, it would be foolish to allow encryption of any form, standard or non standard on the ham bands. Those of us who remember the stories of W.W.II know how ham bands were used ... for good and evil.
# #Quite simply, if you have something so secret to communicate ... something so private that No One, including our government should be able to eves drop on it ... then perhaps you should admit ... this does not belong on an open channel ham band.

[W5KRM]

This "free speech" thing keeps coming up over and over. I have to wonder just exactly what some individuals feel they need to talk about that is being restricted via the FCC's rules/regulations regarding "free speech"?

If you mean using every foul word known to man, sexually and racially offensive discussions, etc., then I am happy there is a check and balance to keep that tripe off the air waves, amateur or otherwise.

If one feels so inclined that those discussions should take place, do it via e-mail or something.

This is one dead horse that needs to remain buried for the betterment of the hobby.


Been there, read that, posted that, debated that, lived with it.

[K2WH]

Check out this guys website and form your own opinion. #

Enter his calls in QRZ.com and then go to his website.

K2WH

[K0RFD]

Let me see if I understand what you are saying. You want to use 802.11 and you want to curse.

No problem. Get yourself a wireless modem and an AOL account.

[kb1flr]

I'm not sure that any of your points make sense, let alone serve to improve amateur radio.

With regard to encryption, you mention use of protocols that require encrypted userid/password combinations. You have protocol mixed up with the software that uses it. We can probably emulate any protocol you like, but it sound like you want to be able to login to nodes that are restricted to people with the proper credentials. Not very much in keeping with the goodwill purpose of ham radio.

You also say that this slows down coupling radio with the internet which you say is ubiquitous. You mistake the rest of the world for the US. The industrialized world is pretty wired, but rest of the world is not.

With regard to freedom of speech, I don't see your point. Profanity on the ham bands? To what purpose? You seem to want privileges without responsibilties. Anyone can hear us on the ham bands including children. Therefore, I'm all for civility.

With regard to your 802.11 concerns, hams are beginning to experiment with these device. I believe we have legal allocations on portions of these devices' spectrum. Do a search on the internet and you will find some info.

Ham radio is a nice place to be, and we should take great care to keep it that way.

KB1FLR, Rick

[K8AG]

I disagree in one regard. #Encryption emplies that there is something to gain contained in a communication. #It is the nature of any amateur pastime that it not be done for any sort of profit. #I know that there are a lot of ways that the bands could be used, but not as amateur radio bands. #If there is business being done, do it on the business bands.

As for encoding modes, I think we should have a bit more freedom. #We need to be involved in various ways to increase data and information throughput by experimentation. #If a method of signal modification does not interfere with other ongoing communications, and does not have artifacts that leave the alotted band then it should be allowed for experimentation.

Throwing out the rules will change the bands. #I believe that they will be turned into an extension of the internet and that would be a mistake.

[KB3FYD]

I am going to have to agree with Tim on much of what he had to say. #I think what he is talking about with respect to encryption is interopability with existing systems, the internet being one of those systems.

Ham radio will never step into the present in wireless networking (paket radio) without the use of at least SOME encryption to protect passwords, or maybe financial data. Encryption is everywhere now - the internet, DVD's, cell phones, etc., and keeping it completely out of ham radio is not the answer.

Now, I know many of you will say that "Ham radio is not the internet!!" which I happen to agree with, but I am also willing to open my eyes to the possibilities. #The internet is the most valuable communications tool in the history of mankind, and for amatuer radio to fail to integrate would truly be a crime. #True integration can never happen without at least some encryption, period.

And as far as the argument that terrorists will start using ham radio for plotting evil, please, get a grip. #There are far too many other, more easily utilized methods of secure communications available for ham radio to be a smart choice (email, phone, cell phone, satellite phone, pagers, postal mail, UPS, FedEx, etc). #The fact is, the rule completely banning encryption was born of the cold war days, when encrypted RTTY and 5 letter groups of CW was the standard fare, and your average citizen had never even heard of encryption. #Nowdays, the average citizen uses encryption nearly every day. #

Let's have rules that make sense, and that don't stifle true innovation.

73's
Scott

[kc0lql]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I don't think you really have done your homework on the encryption bit. We as hams do not need it other than the already mentioned "allowed" command codes and such. As someone above mentioned, if one needs to have something they are doing "hidden" from the rest of everyone out there, then don't do it on the ham bands[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Precicely my point. You think hams have no need whatsoever of making their emergency service networks tamper-resistant? I hope you would get a second opinion on that. I would consider that a very valid need.

I am not proposing that everyone should run out and encrypt all of their communications. I am only saying that without the legal ability to transmit and receive encryped information, applications that need encrption will be driven off the ham bands.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I do not think as one said above, that you will not get any support on your views in this case. Why would we need encryption?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Many reasons:

1. Tamper resistance.
2. Authentication.
3. Ability to serve the public using internet technology. (like Red Cross being able to query a ham-created database in real-time - yet prevent the information from being disclosed prematurely to those not authorized).

We could get into much more detail, but rest assured there are valid reasons out there.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> Isn't Amateur Radio about helping people out and sharing information...that means worldwide my friend. If someone from a foriegn country has a problem with something, is't it part of our generous nature as a "Ham Family" to help out, not to encrypt something to one and effectively give others a nose and say to the rest out there "only me and another know this and who cares about everyone else."[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

When the "something" is a password, is that something you really want to share? How exactly, would allowing encryption to legally be transmitted cause hams to forfeit their self-helping nature and encrypt everything?

Encryption makes sense in some of these circumstances, and (most, anyway :-)) hams are grown-ups, and can do a pretty good job deciding when it is appropriate. If you disagree, we can specify exactly when it is appropriate. But, by outlawing it entirely, we are harming innovation and limiting ways in which we can serve the community.

[kc0lql]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (n5zvp @ Jan. 12 2003,16:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Maybe a reading of Part 97 should remind you what the purpose of the amateur service is?

Part 97 (http://www.arrl.org/files/infoserv/rib/part97.txt)

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">97.1 Basis and purpose.
The rules and regulations in this Part are designed to
provide an amateur radio service having a fundamental
purpose as expressed in the following principles:
(a) Recognition and enhancement of the value of the amateur
service to the public as a voluntary noncommercial
communication service, particularly with respect to
providing emergency communications.
(b) Continuation and extension of the amateur's proven
ability to contribute to the advancement of the radio art.
© Encouragement and improvement of the amateur service
through rules which provide for advancing skills in both the
communications and technical phases of the art.
(d) Expansion of the existing reservoir within the amateur
radio service of trained operators, technicians, and
electronics experts.
(e) Continuation and extension of the amateur's unique
ability to enhance international goodwill.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Encryption has nothing to do with the mission of the amateur service. Only control signals to repeaters, spacecraft and stuff of that ilk is permitted to be "obscured".

As far as freedom of speech, you obviously are mistaking the amateur service for the commercial broadcast bands, the Internet, the telephone service or CB.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The reason for this is that innovation is being driven out of Ham Radio by restrictions on the Ham bands which are not present in other parts of the spectrum. [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

You obviously haven't seen the thousands of ham web pages I've seen. Hams aren't restricted to the limited equipment offered to the public. They are free to homebrew and use spectrum that others are not able to.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The internet - quite possibly the best system available for emergency communications, due to its original fault tolerant design and universal availability - remains underutilized in Ham Radio emergency planning. [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

The Internet is of limited use when the phonelines are down. 9/11 and the floods in Houston proved that.

The only thing limiting amateur radio operators is themselves.

Chris
N5ZVP[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Maybe a reading of Part 97 should remind you what the purpose of the amateur service is?
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
That's not very nice.

Did you read sections (b) and ©? They talk about improving technology. Encryption can be used to improve technology in a number of ways that are not possible (or at least far more difficult) without it.

Specifically, they allow secure authentication and tamper resistance: two applications that should be on the top of our list for disaster preparedness.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Encryption has nothing to do with the mission of the amateur service. Only control signals to repeaters, spacecraft and stuff of that ilk is permitted to be "obscured".[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Given your reply, I am curious why you find no offense to allowing the existing exemptions. It seems that the FCC has already recognized several reasons some messages should be obscured. The only difference between those excemptions and mine are that I propose allowing hams to decide if the application they are using requires encryption. Unless you want to update the FCC rules each time hams find a new situation where encryption is needed...

Doesn't sound all that productive to me.

If you don't trust hams to make that distinction themselves, then we can agree on valid circumstances and codify them into any rule changes. I think that is a bit juvenile, but at least that would allow progress to continue.

[kc0lql]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K2WH @ Jan. 12 2003,19:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The fact that amateur radio is open to anyone, very simple to hear or listen to and unencrypted, ensures it's very survival.



Do you really believe the stuff your wrote? If you do, then possibly you are seriously misinformed as to the nature and purpose of the Amateur Radio Service.

I don't think you will get any support here.

K2WH[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The fact that amateur radio is open to anyone, very simple to hear or listen to and unencrypted, ensures it's very survival.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

In general, I agree with you. But, when it comes to passwords and authentication I think most people would agree that there is no reason other people need to hear your password.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Start transmitting cloak and dagger messages and watch how fast more stringent rules and regs make it impossible to operate at all.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

That is not what I suggested. I am only attempting to acknowledge a valuable tool that hams should be able to use when situations warrant. Why should it be illegal for ARES to say "Meet at Staging area 12" or "Go to frequency 11 kilo"?


</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Do you really believe the stuff your wrote? If you do, then possibly you are seriously misinformed as to the nature and purpose of the Amateur Radio Service.

I don't think you will get any support here.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

That is unfortunate. I think if you truely spend some time thinking about this, you will come to see that this is not the end of the world, that encryption has valid uses (the FCC already recognises several), and that it should not be ignored as a technology when it makes sense to use it.

All I am saying is that there are other purposes that make sense too, and that Hams, not FCC beuracracy, are in the best position to make that choice.

If hams can't do it, other non-restricted venus will.

[kb1flr]

Several recent posts indicate a lack of understanding of how the internet works. Packets of data running around the internet are ENCODED not ECRYPTED. Hams do the same thing with all of our digital modes. Encryption is only used to hide data. What do we have to hide? Nothing, I hope.

The original poster wants to make ham radio tamper proof by using userid/passwords and authentication. Great. Then we will have levels of access and "you can't access that info, but I can". No thanks. You know what happens in systems like that? The guy who has master access drops his radio in a puddle, a user needs access to something critical to save someone's life, but has insufficient rights to do so, and someone dies.

We are not the military. In times of need we do not communicate tactical data. Our efforts are humanitarian. We help people in need by directing the proper resources to the right places.

KB1FLR, Rick

[kc0lql]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
With regard to encryption, you mention use of protocols that require encrypted userid/password combinations. You have protocol mixed up with the software that uses it. We can probably emulate any protocol you like, but it sound like you want to be able to login to nodes that are restricted to people with the proper credentials. Not very much in keeping with the goodwill purpose of ham radio. [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Can you directly connect to an SSL enabled website? No?
You can emulate any protocol you want, but if you cannot connect to the outside world, you loose. Just hope you never have to visit the SSL version of the FEMA website through ham radio then! We are likely to have more security, not less in the days to come, and that means encryption. As hams, we are dead in the water unless we can encrypt at least as much as needed to talk to the outside world.


</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
With regard to freedom of speech, I don't see your point. Profanity on the ham bands? To what purpose? You seem to want privileges without responsibilties. Anyone can hear us on the ham bands including children. Therefore, I'm all for civility.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

To the purpose of allowing interconnections between ham radio and other networks. An affirmative defense against license revokation for traffic automatically passed between networks would be all that is required. Without this, the linking of the networks will not occur because someone always COULD send profanity though and jeprodize the license of the person running the link.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">With regard to your 802.11 concerns, hams are beginning to experiment with these device. I believe we have legal allocations on portions of these devices' spectrum. Do a search on the internet and you will find some info.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

True, but are they legally? If they simply log in to their windows machine with a wireless card tuned to the ham bands, their system will broadcast a DES (95/98) or MD5 (NT/2000) encrypted version of their password. This is because windows treats the card as a network card, and knows nothing about restrictions on encryption.

Personally, I think messing with 802.11 on the ham bands should be legal, don't you? If so, you either need to relax rules or re-write windows. (a registry key will disable encrypted passwords - but not all encryption built-in to modern OSs).

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Ham radio is a nice place to be, and we should take great care to keep it that way.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

On that we agree. On the other hand, keeping a "cold-war" mentality is just crazy. We can make the service better.
Lets.

[kc0lql]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It seems to me that people are too hung up on their rights, and not too worried about their responsibilities. We are part of the AMATEUR Radio fraternity, not the PROFESSIONAL radio fraternity. "...Me thinks he does protest too much... what does he have to hide?
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

That is the oldest and poorest argument in the book against free speech. Why would anybody need free speech? Do they have something to hide? You do the math.

Also, as a whole I would say hams have proven very responsible in handling the privileges we have. Why do you think we would become irresponsible given new freedoms?

I have nothing to hide. Just trying to make the world (both ham and otherwise) a better place.

[kc0lql]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (n5zvp @ Jan. 12 2003,16:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The internet - quite possibly the best system available for emergency communications, due to its original fault tolerant design and universal availability - remains underutilized in Ham Radio emergency planning. [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
The internet? Reliable? You gotta be kidding! It's a miracle the darn 'net works at all. Talk about your rickety hook ups.
I'm relying on phone lines and commercial power to post this message. As well as power being OK at the building where the modems are located (12 miles away) to have power and phone service. On down the line to the next interconnection, and on to the next etc. I've had my service go down because the power was out 300 miles away where a bunch of internet junk all comes together. Ever try to maintain a decent connection on the phone lines during a raging thunderstorm? The noise and crackle drive you off line in a hurry. What? Internet gateway on the repeater? Sure. Using another phone line up the remote hill where the repeater is located. Sure, that's gonna be good. Oh, yeah, the repeater has back up generator that runs it for DAYS, but I don't know of ANY isp who will keep the 'net working when power or phone lines go to heck.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Can you name any other system in our country that was designed from the start to be resiliant to a nuclear strike?
Or, any system you believe is "up" more than the internet?
If your area is severed, the rest of the net continued working just fine, and internet sites on your side of the breakpoint remained accessible.

That's the point. Obviously if you loose an area you loose it. But the network as a whole survives. Plus, the likelyhood should be very good (at least with planning) that an internet gateway will be up & running within hopping distance of ax25.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

As an unrelated aside....nice to see the cell phone industry and FCC continue to provide encrypted, guranteed private communications for terrorists....all because of a member of the government got caught having an affair 'cause someone overheard his cell phone calls! Terrorist? Need safe communications? Just pop into the mall and pick up a few cell phones. Yeesh.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Terrrorists are not concerned with breaking laws... All cell phone encryption currently used is laughable, and doesn't do much but keep casual listeners out. I would think they would be doing something a little more sophisticated. (or at least they would be if they were smart).

[kc0lql]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Several recent posts indicate a lack of understanding of how the internet works. Packets of data running around the internet are ENCODED not ECRYPTED. Hams do the same thing with all of our digital modes. Encryption is only used to hide data. What do we have to hide? Nothing, I hope.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Passwords, Names of Casualties (until family is notified), the location of the meeting point for people helping in an emergency (to keep it from becoming a media circus), things needed for compatibility (like accessing an SSL enabled website)

And, as the FCC has already acknowleged, telecommand, and remote repeater operation.

There are valid needs that are not covered by existing rules, and the rules are not likely to keep pace with technology. So, let hams decide when stuff should be encrypted.

As always KISS (keep it simple, stuipid) is the best policy to avoid the puddle-radio-dropping effect. How would you recommend solving the above problems without encryption?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
We are not the military. In times of need we do not communicate tactical data. Our efforts are humanitarian. We help people in need by directing the proper resources to the right places[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

And the time will come when the security consious world will choose not to utilize our services if we cannot ensure that our "direction of proper resources" remains undisclosed to the public (aka "terrorist suspects").

So, you want to encrypt?
The FCC is to blame?
Lad, if you wish to encrypt, join one of the Military Services, don't bring this into the Amateur Radio Service.
Its holding back? Develope your marvel service of encryption, not on Amateur Radio.

[kb1flr]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Can you directly connect to an SSL enabled website? #
Just hope you never have to visit the SSL version of the FEMA website through ham radio then! #
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Actually, since IP over packet should let one connect to any internet site, and since SSL is implemented at both the browser and web server, this should work just fine. I do not know if it would be considered illegal because of the SSL encryption scheme, but I cannot think of a technical reason that it would not work.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
To the purpose of allowing interconnections between ham radio and other networks. #An affirmative defense against license revokation for traffic automatically passed between networks would be all that is required. # #Without this, the linking of the networks will not occur because someone always COULD send profanity though and jeprodize the license of the person running the link.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Umm, we have lots of interconnectivity, but with accountability built in. That is how a repeater works. And packet, and APRS messaging. Once again, you want privilege without responsibility. I am not just a node, I am Amateur station KB1FLR and it is my responsibility to make sure my station is operated according to the rules my license requires of me.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
True, but are they legally? #If they simply log in to their windows machine with a wireless card tuned to the ham bands, their system will broadcast a DES (95/98) or MD5 (NT/2000) encrypted version of their password. #This is because windows treats the card as a network card, and knows nothing about restrictions on encryption. #
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

You assume that the only software used to operate these cards is the software you already have. I am a programmer, so I can write a device driver to use that card as I want. I don't need to use DES or MD5 at all. Since we are amateurs and we have allocations in this area of spectrum, this is a viable way to legally experiment. And we will.

KB1FLR, Rick

[W5HTW]

I'm laughing through my tears. #Amateur radio has already been bent so far out of its intent, with the ability to call up Domino's on your local repeater and order pizza, and with the spouse-cell phone crowd, that there is probably not much more we can do to help kill it. #But this is definitely one thing. #We can bend it some more, until it is so stretched out of shape no-one knows what the heck it is, or what is is meant to be.

If the object is to communicate, there are dozens of ways better than ham radio. #If that is your intent, whether encrypted or not, ham radio is not the answer. #That's right. #If the object is to communicate, ham radio is not the answer. #If the object is to have a hobby, and have fun, and make communication into a pastime, where "communication" is only a by product of the overall hobby itself, then ham radio is (was) the place to be. #When ham radio becomes a tool, a means to an end, such as the cell phone usage of it today, then it ceases to be ham radio, and becomes a shortwave telephone. #When it becomes a direct accessory to the internet, it again ceases to be ham radio and becomes a utility, a "means" to connect two or more computers. #In this hobby, radio IS the end goal. #We use radio to contact our friends in Des Moines or Timbuctu, or Springfield, because we like radio. #We can call our friends, or get them on the internet, or mail them a letter, or send them a fax. #But we do it this way because radio IS the hobby. #We do it this way because we enjoy using the radio, not the internet or the cell phone or the fax machine. #

Sadly, something like this may actually be in the future of this hobby (which does indeed RARELY, in terms of overall percentage of hams, perform a public service.) # If, though, we put our links into the internet instead of into radio, we do two things. #We eliminate the hobby, and we place our faith in the web. #Neither will inject any lifeblood into ham radio, but will instead suck it out. #

The proposal is laughable, in the sense it really has zilch to do with amateur radio, as the hobby has long been perceived. #Granted, the times they are a-changin'. # The proposal is sad and depressing, in that it shows a total lack of comprehension concering the intent of this hobby and the spirit that built it. #

Ed

[wb2sri]

I must say I agree completely with the original post. The restrictions on the use of codes and ciphers have discouraged me from developing a number of experimental application that could have used amateur radio in precisely the "advancement of the radio art" way envisioned by the rules. The arguments against any use of encryption in ham radio simply do not hold up anymore.

Most of the arguments against the use of cryptography center around the difficulty of enforcing content and use restrictions, particularly with regard to commercial communication. But such rules could still be meaningfully enforced; there are other ways to detect commercial use besides passive monitoring. Context, for example - a commercial enterprise using amateur equipment in its ordinary operation would seem to be quite detectable, especially if it were causing interference. No one is proposing that stations not be required to identify, nor that the FCC not retain its authority to inspect stations and enforce the rules.

The argument that allowing encryption in ham radio would aid criminals and terrorists is just strange. Similar arguments were made throughout the 1990's about encryption generally and were debunked well enough that even law enforcement and national security agencies like the FBI and the NSA have come around to realizing that the security benefits of encryption outweigh the increased difficulty of surveillance. And, given that strong end-to-end data encryption software is generally available, why would rules against the use of encryption in amateur radio discourage someone who's already a criminal from using it in spite of the rules? For that matter, why should these criminals especially want to use amateur frequencies when it would seem much easier to hide somewhere in the rest of the spectrum, perhaps alongside the number stations and other clandestine traffic already on the HF bands.

The benefits of allowing encryption, on the other hand, seem quite attractive. Amateurs could build interesting and innovative applications that interoperate with other networks, such as the Internet, without fear of making those other networks vulnerable to attack by exposing passwords and other information. And others have already pointed out that not all private information represents commercial traffic; personal data is often transmitted as part of amateur emergency traffic, and yet because we are forbidden to use encryption, we have no infrastructure for protecting it. And I can't help but wonder what new and exciting applications and technologies over-the-air encryption might enable but that have been quietly abandoned because there would be no way to experiment with them under the rules. We can look to the 802.11 world for a hint of this; we'll never know what we might have been able to do given our greater frequency range, power levels, and technical focus.

The thing that bothers me most about the current rules is that they purport to encourage innovation and experimentation and yet they tend to disallow almost anything that hasn't been done before. Yes, if we allow encryption we run the risk that a few bad guys might be able to hide some commercial traffic or say some dirty words on the radio without being caught. But so what? It seems a small price to pay in exchange for bright people being allowed to use their talents to do the kind of new and amazing things that early ham radio history is so full of, and that attracted many of us to the hobby in the first place.

[W9WHE]

1) ENCRIPTION IS A HOT POTATO.
Radio Encryption keeps anyone from overhearing what you are saying. i.e. very personal, very private stuff. Law enforcement/millitary kind of stuff. I thought the whole purpouse of ham radio was to encourage communications with people you don't know. People you would not share such intimate information with anyway. Hey, if its THAT PERSONAL, use a telephone! Ham radio is a party line. Its NOT a place where you have "a reasonable expectation" of privacy.

2) OFFENSIVE CONTENT.
Let me get this straight. On one hand, we all want to encourage young people (i.e. kids) fto get into ham radio. On the other hand, you want total freedom to discuss anything, including X-rated isues? Come on!

3) HAM RADIO IS NOT A RIGHT.
Time you understood this. A PRIVELEGE is what the government gives you, on terms it can dictate. A RIGHT, on the other hand, is something the government cannot take away. Ham radio is a privelege, not a right.

4) If you want/need encription or to discuss details of your favorite porn movie, use E mail or telephone. I, for one, don't want to hear it.

5) Allowing encryption on ham frequencies makes it IMPOSSIBLE to track if used by those that mean us harm. At least with e mail or phone, you can track who communications eminate from and go to. No so with RF.

[W9WHE]

Besides, Encryption IS PERMISSIBE, if used to control a system, as already is the case in the context of satelites!

[kc0lql]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm laughing through my tears. Amateur radio has already been bent so far out of its intent, with the ability to call up Domino's on your local repeater and order pizza, and with the spouse-cell phone crowd, that there is probably not much more we can do to help kill it. But this is definitely one thing. We can bend it some more, until it is so stretched out of shape no-one knows what the heck it is, or what is is meant to be.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Well, most places I look consider at least the following two goals to be essential to Ham Radio:
1. Improving technology
2. Community service

I'm sorry that you disagree, as I consider both to be very important, and I think both of these goals can improved with access to encryption.

The same rule-changes you mention which allow people to order pizzas also enabled schools to show ham radio to kids. So, if you want to be that negative there is probably not much hope for you.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
If the object is to communicate, there are dozens of ways better than ham radio. If that is your intent, whether encrypted or not, ham radio is not the answer. That's right. If the object is to communicate, ham radio is not the answer. If the object is to have a hobby, and have fun, and make communication into a pastime, where "communication" is only a by product of the overall hobby itself, then ham radio is (was) the place to be. [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Shooting the breeze surely is a part of ham radio, but I would say that emergency communication is at least as important, and in an emergency there may not be "dozens of other ways" to communicate.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
When ham radio becomes a tool, a means to an end, such as the cell phone usage of it today, then it ceases to be ham radio, and becomes a shortwave telephone. When it becomes a direct accessory to the internet, it again ceases to be ham radio and becomes a utility, a "means" to connect two or more computers. In this hobby, radio IS the end goal. We use radio to contact our friends in Des Moines or Timbuctu, or Springfield, because we like radio. We can call our friends, or get them on the internet, or mail them a letter, or send them a fax. But we do it this way because radio IS the hobby. We do it this way because we enjoy using the radio, not the internet or the cell phone or the fax machine.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
If this were truely the case, then you would have nothing to talk to your friends in Des Moines about - you would exchange callsigns and sign off! Clearly communication has something to do with ham radio!

You also illustrate the very problem I am attemping to solve. I want emergency service in the ham bands! If it moves to the internet, that aspect of the hobby is lost. I want hams to continue to be effective in emergencies, and that is going to need encryption sometimes. (in addition to the accepted FCC exceptions now for telecommand and repeater ops)


</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Sadly, something like this may actually be in the future of this hobby (which does indeed RARELY, in terms of overall percentage of hams, perform a public service.) If, though, we put our links into the internet instead of into radio, we do two things. We eliminate the hobby, and we place our faith in the web. Neither will inject any lifeblood into ham radio, but will instead suck it out.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

I'm not talking about hams setting up internet access points so they can check their email from park benches. (although I'm sure some people would!http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif I'm talking about using internet technology in ham radio. Do you honestly believe any new technology will be developed on the internet today that does NOT have encrypted passwords? Or maybe you're one of those folks who see no need for new technology, no matter how useful!
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
The proposal is laughable, in the sense it really has zilch to do with amateur radio, as the hobby has long been perceived.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I think many people would disagree with that statement. Public service and improving technology are essential to ham radio for most hams I've met
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Granted, the times they are a-changin'. The proposal is sad and depressing, in that it shows a total lack of comprehension concering the intent of this hobby and the spirit that built it.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Perhaps you would like to elaborate on that? If rag-chewing is more important than public service in "the hobby" then you are absolutely right. In that case I don't understand.

If you honestly don't see any reason for encryption, read some of my other replies. There are lots of reasons out there, and the FCC has already "blessed" some of them. The sky has not fallen, and it's not likely to with these rule changes either!

[kc5aee]

It seems that encryption is used to keep someone from monitoring or intercepting radio transmissions. That doesnt seem to meet with the purpose of HAM radio. I could see it possibly used in a disaster situation (RACES)where classified info (deceased names, personal information) was need to be sent to another location. But for day to day use I don't see it necessary in the normal HAM enviroment. I do see digital radio expanding and HAMS should be experimenting with this mode.

Fowler

[kc0lql]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (W9WHE @ Jan. 13 2003,13:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">1) ENCRIPTION IS A HOT POTATO.
Radio Encryption keeps anyone from overhearing what you are saying. i.e. very personal, very private stuff. Law enforcement/millitary kind of stuff. I thought the whole purpouse of ham radio was to encourage communications with people you don't know. People you would not share such intimate information with anyway. Hey, if its THAT PERSONAL, use a telephone! Ham radio is a party line. Its NOT a place where you have "a reasonable expectation" of privacy.

2) OFFENSIVE CONTENT.
Let me get this straight. On one hand, we all want to encourage young people (i.e. kids) fto get into ham radio. On the other hand, you want total freedom to discuss anything, including X-rated isues? Come on!

3) HAM RADIO IS NOT A RIGHT.
Time you understood this. A PRIVELEGE is what the government gives you, on terms it can dictate. A RIGHT, on the other hand, is something the government cannot take away. Ham radio is a privelege, not a right.

4) If you want/need encription or to discuss details of your favorite porn movie, use E mail or telephone. I, for one, don't want to hear it.

5) Allowing encryption on ham frequencies makes it IMPOSSIBLE to track if used by those that mean us harm. At least with e mail or phone, you can track who communications eminate from and go to. No so with RF.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">1) ENCRIPTION IS A HOT POTATO.
Radio Encryption keeps anyone from overhearing what you are saying. i.e. very personal, very private stuff. Law enforcement/millitary kind of stuff. I thought the whole purpouse of ham radio was to encourage communications with people you don't know. People you would not share such intimate information with anyway. Hey, if its THAT PERSONAL, use a telephone! Ham radio is a party line. Its NOT a place where you have "a reasonable expectation" of privacy.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

You're right that Encryption is a hot potato. Many hams think encryption=encrypt everything=no more ham radio=bad without even carefully considering the problem, or apparently even the reasons why we _need_ encryption.

A password _should be_ "very private". If it's not, then you're not doing it right! :-)

I suggest opening up encryption within guidelines that allow innovation to continue. Not that all hams should encrypt their love-letters over the air.

It used to be that encryption was only used by military and other, more regulated organisations. Now, encryption is required for any https:// link in a web browser. Encryption is here to stay, and if we want to be in the digital future, we need it in certain cases. (those listed in the article)


</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">2) OFFENSIVE CONTENT.
Let me get this straight. On one hand, we all want to encourage young people (i.e. kids) fto get into ham radio. On the other hand, you want total freedom to discuss anything, including X-rated isues? Come on!
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

No, I just want a minimum amount of protection to prevent a sysop from people who are outside of their control. The reason for this is to allow Ham Radio and other systems to connect together in an automatic way, without having someone babysit them. An affirmative defense against loosing one's license for traffic that is automatically forwarded from other networks to Ham Radio would be sufficient.

#3 is irrelevant to the discussion.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
4) If you want/need encription or to discuss details of your favorite porn movie, use E mail or telephone. I, for one, don't want to hear it.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

That is not what I'm suggesting here, and I suspect you know that very well.

There are real reasons why encryption can be a useful technology. See some of my other replies for examples.

Then we can have a productive discussion about how we could possibly remain current in technology and ability without encryption.

[W9WHE]

Encryption would be BAD for Amateur Radio.

#1 It would make enforcement (already difficult) impossible. How the heck can you send a Notice of Violation if you can't tell what the heck his call sign is? With encryption, your favorite rude ham can step all over your QSO with complete impunity! No thanks! #Even if he doesn't use a callsign, his voice is sure an identifier!

#2 It would remove all dis-insentive to refrain from unlawful and improper uses. For example, with encryption, one could freely discuss unlawful activities. However, without encryption, you simply are going to watch your toung.

#

[kc0lql]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kb1flr @ Jan. 13 2003,11:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Can you directly connect to an SSL enabled website?
Just hope you never have to visit the SSL version of the FEMA website through ham radio then!
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Actually, since IP over packet should let one connect to any internet site, and since SSL is implemented at both the browser and web server, this should work just fine. I do not know if it would be considered illegal because of the SSL encryption scheme, but I cannot think of a technical reason that it would not work.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
To the purpose of allowing interconnections between ham radio and other networks. An affirmative defense against license revokation for traffic automatically passed between networks would be all that is required. Without this, the linking of the networks will not occur because someone always COULD send profanity though and jeprodize the license of the person running the link.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Umm, we have lots of interconnectivity, but with accountability built in. That is how a repeater works. And packet, and APRS messaging. Once again, you want privilege without responsibility. I am not just a node, I am Amateur station KB1FLR and it is my responsibility to make sure my station is operated according to the rules my license requires of me.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
True, but are they legally? If they simply log in to their windows machine with a wireless card tuned to the ham bands, their system will broadcast a DES (95/98) or MD5 (NT/2000) encrypted version of their password. This is because windows treats the card as a network card, and knows nothing about restrictions on encryption.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

You assume that the only software used to operate these cards is the software you already have. I am a programmer, so I can write a device driver to use that card as I want. I don't need to use DES or MD5 at all. Since we are amateurs and we have allocations in this area of spectrum, this is a viable way to legally experiment. And we will.

KB1FLR, Rick[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Can you directly connect to an SSL enabled website?
Just hope you never have to visit the SSL version of the FEMA website through ham radio then!
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Actually, since IP over packet should let one connect to any internet site, and since SSL is implemented at both the browser and web server, this should work just fine. I do not know if it would be considered illegal because of the SSL encryption scheme, but I cannot think of a technical reason that it would not work. [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
There is no technical reason - the reason is regulatory. This is an example of a useful thing which is forbidden by FCC rules. That was my point! :-)
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
To the purpose of allowing interconnections between ham radio and other networks. An affirmative defense against license revokation for traffic automatically passed between networks would be all that is required. Without this, the linking of the networks will not occur because someone always COULD send profanity though and jeprodize the license of the person running the link.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Umm, we have lots of interconnectivity, but with accountability built in. That is how a repeater works. And packet, and APRS messaging. Once again, you want privilege without responsibility. I am not just a node, I am Amateur station KB1FLR and it is my responsibility to make sure my station is operated according to the rules my license requires of me.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Which means you cannot create links to networks that you do not trust, or you risk your license. Which means we cannot innovate with network interconnections, or we innovate at our own risk. All of this deters progress.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
True, but are they legally? If they simply log in to their windows machine with a wireless card tuned to the ham bands, their system will broadcast a DES (95/98) or MD5 (NT/2000) encrypted version of their password. This is because windows treats the card as a network card, and knows nothing about restrictions on encryption.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

You assume that the only software used to operate these cards is the software you already have. I am a programmer, so I can write a device driver to use that card as I want. I don't need to use DES or MD5 at all. Since we are amateurs and we have allocations in this area of spectrum, this is a viable way to legally experiment. And we will.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Ok, then write an IPv6 implementation for Ham Radio. It has encryption built in, so any implementation you make will be illegal to use on the air. Good luck! :-)

I strongly support the ability of hams to continue innovating in the future, and a complete ban on encryption is not going to do that!

[W9WHE]

The WHOLE POINT if having control operators is to CONTROL a system's use. Now you want to remove the control OP and make things totally automated. Bad idea. We NEED real, live control OPs, to control real, live hams that would improperly use a system.

I, for one, say KEEP control OPs in control.

The huge problems associated with encryption pose problems to the many. The problems vastly outweigh any meger benifits to the few!

[wb2sri]

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif8--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (W9WHE @ Jan. 13 2003,10http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif8)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Encryption would be BAD for Amateur Radio.

#1 It would make enforcement (already difficult) impossible. How the heck can you send a Notice of Violation if you can't tell what the heck his call sign is? With encryption, your favorite rude ham can step all over your QSO with complete impunity! No thanks! Even if he doesn't use a callsign, his voice is sure an identifier!

#2 It would remove all dis-insentive to refrain from unlawful and improper uses. For example, with encryption, one could freely discuss unlawful activities. However, without encryption, you simply are going to watch your toung.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Huh? No one is proposing removing the requirement for cleartext callsign identification. And besides, someone who wants to deliberately interfere can do so without identifying today; allowing or not allowing encryption has nothing to do with this.

And criminals who want to use secret codes can do so already, legally or not. They don't care about the rules -- they're criminals, after all.

[kc0lql]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Encryption would be BAD for Amateur Radio.

#1 It would make enforcement (already difficult) impossible. How the heck can you send a Notice of Violation if you can't tell what the heck his call sign is? With encryption, your favorite rude ham can step all over your QSO with complete impunity! No thanks! Even if he doesn't use a callsign, his voice is sure an identifier![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Where in my proposal did you see the removal of the requirement to ID?
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
#2 It would remove all dis-insentive to refrain from unlawful and improper uses. For example, with encryption, one could freely discuss unlawful activities. However, without encryption, you simply are going to watch your toung. [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
If someone is doing something unlawful, then obviously rules and laws do not concern them. They would be better off using FRS or CB, because there would be less responsible people around to report them!

Again, you also still have an ID requirement which you could use to track them down. If they ignore that, well, you track them down the old-fasioned RF way, just like you would any person who breaks the current rules and doesn't ID right now!

[W8UR]

There is nothing in FCC rules which prevents passwords from being encrypted for authentication purposes. Likewise, public key encryption of checksums provided for authentication of cleartext messages can be done also using encryption techniques.

The relevent passage is: "data emissions using unspecified digital codes must not be transmitted for the purpose of obscuring the meaning of any communication."

I will point out that a password has no meaning to be obscured, as a matter of fact, the best passwords are random (i.e. meaningless) strings of characters. Likewise checksums, which carry no meaning because they can (and must) be able to be generated from the cleartext in order to be useful (and therefore carry no meaning, but merely redundant information).

So encrypt away! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif There is nothing stopping a system which would allow secure authenticated access to ham facilities.

Note: this applies only to communications within the US. International communications are a different matter.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And, I 'm sure the terrorist follow all international communication rules. [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Sarcasm- I like it. And you're absolutely, positively, right. THEY DON'T FOLLOW ANY RULES! That's why knee-jerk rules and laws are so ridiculous. A guy fell off a ladder where I work and now it really does take 3 electricians to screw in a light bulb- one to hold the ladder, one to sign off on the permit, and one to screw in the light bulb.

[k4vic]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kb1flr @ Jan. 13 2003,08:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">With regard to freedom of speech, I don't see your point. Profanity on the ham bands? To what purpose? You seem to want privileges without responsibilties. Anyone can hear us on the ham bands including children. Therefore, I'm all for civility.





KB1FLR, Rick[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I'm with you on this OM....I may be an ignorant old redneck but as I recall from High School Civics class the concept of Freedom of Speech involves the right to be able to question, disagree with or cirtisize the government without fear of reprisal....not the right to shout "Fire" in a crowded theater or to scream vulgar comments or expression into a microphone on the ham bands.

73

[wb2sri]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (W8UR @ Jan. 13 2003,10:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There is nothing in FCC rules which prevents passwords from being encrypted for authentication purposes. Likewise, public key encryption of checksums provided for authentication of cleartext messages can be done also using encryption techniques.

The relevent passage is: "data emissions using unspecified digital codes must not be transmitted for the purpose of obscuring the meaning of any communication."

I will point out that a password has no meaning to be obscured, as a matter of fact, the best passwords are random (i.e. meaningless) strings of characters. Likewise checksums, which carry no meaning because they can (and must) be able to be generated from the cleartext in order to be useful (and therefore carry no meaning, but merely redundant information).

So encrypt away! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif There is nothing stopping a system which would allow secure authenticated access to ham facilities.

Note: this applies only to communications within the US. International communications are a different matter.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Indeed it is possible within the current rules to use cryptographic techniques for authentication in certain applications. However, other applications might require the use of cryptography for secrecy, and we aren't allowed to explore them.

For example, consider APRS-like geo-location reporting services. Many amateurs might not want to reveal their GPS location to the entire world in real time, but might trust a server to aggregate their data in interesting and useful ways. Hams could transmit, in encrypted form, location data along with beacon or repeater signal strength information to a trusted server, which could create very detailed coverage maps over time. Nothing the least bit nefarious about this, and certainly completely consistent with the sprit and purpose of amateur radio. But there's no legal way to do it.

That's just something I made up on the spot for the purposes of discussion. I'm sure we could think of many other interesting and useful applications of encryption for confidentiality in ham radio, but there's no point -- all of them would be against the rules.

[WB6FTI]

My - what a tempest!<grin>

I find kc0lql's proposals irrelevant, as I believe they push the envelope of ham radio too far. On the other hand, I see a crying need for expanding Internet/Web applications. Just leave ham radio out of it! <grin>

For over fifty years hams around the world, many (if not most) without reliable AC mains or telephone access, have been communicating successfully - even casually - with amateur radio. Many continue to do so today, still without reliable AC mains or telephone access (and certainly without Internet access.) Ham radio is a great leveler - though it would be more so with less-expensive gear. (Ham gear manufacturers, wake up! More IC-718s; fewer IC-779966 Mark XXIII 45000s.)

Remember the "point" about ham radio: literally, the "point-to-point" ability for communications.

BTW, I favor license testing that measures operator competence and compliance, not memorization. On the other hand, hams who cannot use modes other than voice are limiting their venues.

Gene AC7UL

[radio123us]

Tim, looking at your web site I can see that you have
quite a few gripes against our government. Is that why you would like encryption on the ham bands ? Are you afraid the government is spying on you ? Or, maybe
it's the black helecopters you are worried about !!!

[kc0lql]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Tim, looking at your web site I can see that you have
quite a few gripes against our government. Is that why you would like encryption on the ham bands ? Are you afraid the government is spying on you ? Or, maybe it's the black helecopters you are worried about !!![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

I'm hoping that was meant as a joke!

If you have counter arguments, or another way of addresing these issues, you could post them.

I just have this desire to make the world a better place, and it happens to annoy people who think the world is perfect as is, thank you very much.

Our government is the best there is, but that does not mean it cannot be improved. Ignoring its problems certainly isn't going to help. Sticking around and trying to fix what is broken is probably the most patriotic thing a person can do.

So, if you have any other method of addressing these issues, I'll be here. If this is a joke, then you're right. It is the black helicopters! :-)

[wb2sri]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (radio123us @ Jan. 13 2003,12:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Tim, looking at your web site I can see that you have
quite a few gripes against our government. Is that why you would like encryption on the ham bands ? Are you afraid the government is spying on you ? Or, maybe
it's the black helecopters you are worried about !!![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
While your shameful personal attack on Tim doesn't really deserve a response, it seems appropriate to point out that while I don't know Tim, and for all I know he could be a raving lunatic, I found his arguments on encryption in ham radio to be both persuasive and well-reasoned enough to stand on their own. It should be possible to discuss this issue without casting aspersions on the character of those we disagree with.

I should warn you that I have considerable experience in the area of encryption policy, and my position was once considered to be very much at odds with US Government policy. Today, however, those same views are considered pretty mainstream. In fact, US policy over the last few years has largely evolved to reflect the (once radical) realization that the risks of widespread use of encryption are far outweighed by the benefits.. You'll find most of my writings on the subject in the "papers" link on my homepage, http://www.crypto.com.

[radio123us]

Tim, as I said before. The FCC rules were put in place
for a purpose, not to restrict our first ammendment rights, but to make the service what it is..."Amateur" Radio. What you are proposing sounds more like you want to use Amateur Radio for purposes other than what it was intended for.

[ke4pjw]

Can someone give me a good reason to allow encrypted data on the ham bands?
(No, I am _NOT_ talking about authentication. The rules _SHOULD_ be changed to allow strong authentication. Signed Certificates etc)

I could not imagine allowing someone to use encryption on _MY_ node. I would not allow it even if it were legal. If you want to use my toys, you better let me see what you are doing. I would be responsible for YOUR transmissions.

If your using my node to send out kiddie porn via an SSL http session on some clueless dork's box running an exploitable formmail script, there would be _NO WAY_ for me to know. If you don't think it could happen, you underestimate the power of sleezball spammers.

I can't wait to get fast TCP/IP for ham radio, it would be neat to have our own network. I could care less if it were connected to the Internet at large.

Want to access FEMA website via https? Setup an https proxy at the GATEWAY.

Got something to hide? Don't use Ham Radio. (Yes, this directed at you ARES/SAR/EMA/REACT/Wanna Be Cop types that want to cloak and dagger what your doing.)

[n5zvp]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What you will find is literally thousands of websites on 802.11 wireless ethernet, for any one page of packet or other Ham Radio based network technology. [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Wrong. Google says there is a ten to one ratio. Which is greater than that of the general population to ham ratio. And quantity isn't indicative of quality. Try searching for the word "sex". No wonder 802.11 is called "portable porn".

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The reason for this is that innovation is being driven out of Ham Radio by restrictions on the Ham bands which are not present in other parts of the spectrum. Surely, having frequencies available to hams is important, but what can or cannot be done on those frequencies is probably at least as important, yet receives far less attention.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Wrong again. We can do and do more with our spectrum than other folks do.
From CW on HF to ATV to packet to EME. (No one else gets to bounce signals off the moon except the military and the astronomers.) We get to build our own equipment.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hams are not permitted to encrypt data, so it immediately follows that hams cannot use modern protocols on the air.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Wrong. We get to invent protocols. Look at the digital modes spawn by hams in the last ten years that take advantage of computers and DSPs.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> Living without encryption was normal life ten years ago, but is not practical any more.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Wrong. Business transactions and sensitive data may require encryption, but I don't see a need in ham radio.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The problem arises that in other freedom-enable venus, such as the internet, have no such restrictions. If we wish to innovate with solutions that marry Ham Radio and internet technology, we must be able to pass traffic between the networks without reading through all traffic to determine if it is OK per FCC rules.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Good, stay on the internet and say what you want to. Radio has manage to innovate without the internet for years. The internet does serve a purpose as exhibited in sites like QRZ, ARRL.org and email, but not for traffic or radio QSLs.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Most people currently ignore the content-limitation rules, except those for profanity. Ham radio is not the only place that obsurd rules are ignored. [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Many folks don't obey the traffic laws. That doesn't make it right. Most hams are considerate of their actions on air due to the nature of the unencrypted medium.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> But the rules are not harmless. Why risk your Ham license setting up a high-bandwidth 802.11 network on the ham bands, when you can rest easy knowing "anything goes" on the unlicensed spectrum?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Easy. Don't set up a 802.11 network if you can't control it. What folks do and can do on Part 15 has no bearing on what hams should do on their spectrum, short of interference or other conflicts. Hams in Europe manage to run high speed packet networks without part 15 equipment. Maybe US hams aren't interested.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The result is that innovation on high-speed internet linked networks is being driven into the 802.11 unlicensed wireless spectrum. [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

What's so "innovative" about radio and data? You would think that most of the folks think that wireless was invented in the late 1990's.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The internet - quite possibly the best system available for emergency communications, due to its original fault tolerant design and universal availability - remains underutilized in Ham Radio emergency planning.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

How so? So far the internet has allowed hams to exchange ideas on emergence planning and equipment in advance of an emergency. Our job isn't to surf the web in an emergency.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Check out this guys website and form your own opinion.

Enter his calls in QRZ.com and then go to his website.

K2WH [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

kc0lql, that Robert Jordan crud will destory your mind. Better try some Joseph Carr or a copy of the Microwave Update proceedings to understand this hobby.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Just hope you never have to visit the SSL version of the FEMA website through ham radio then! We are likely to have more security, not less in the days to come, and that means encryption.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Why would someone vist the FEMA site over radio??? If the government decides amateur radio needs security in an emergency, they will let us know.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">To the purpose of allowing interconnections between ham radio and other networks.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Why is this needed?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Personally, I think messing with 802.11 on the ham bands should be legal, don't you? If so, you either need to relax rules or re-write windows.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

There are hams working on a amateur radio version of 802.11. Go visit the ARRL web site, it's on the front page.

Most of the ham packet traffic in the US died when the Internet came widely available. Given it's limited range and expense, why would 802.11 become any more popular than ATV among hams?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Can you name any other system in our country that was designed from the start to be resiliant to a nuclear strike? [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

The microwave phone sytem built from the 50's through 70's was distributed and placed in concrete bunkers. A lot of these sites came up on the market recently. The Internet in the US could be disabled by a single EMP attack or a coordinated strike on as few as five to ten critical ground sites.

Grab a copy of the QRZ database and and some decent quality mapping software. Export and geocode the addresses of the hams in the US. Notice that thay are everywhere and not centralized, although many do have to live in cities.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The reason for this is to allow Ham Radio and other systems to connect together in an automatic way, without having someone babysit them.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Without being monitored by a control operator, operation of a station isn't legal. See page 45 in the latest QST for the nitty-gritty.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">For example, consider APRS-like geo-location reporting services. Many amateurs might not want to reveal their GPS location to the entire world in real time, but might trust a server to aggregate their data in interesting and useful ways.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Then it's neither APRS or Ham radio...

Chris
N5ZVP

[wa4bvy]

Authentication encryption sounds OK. #However, if amateurs use encryption, we will assume that commercial content is contained therein and ask for the frequencies to be auctioned. #I couldn't even be sure the traffic is from/to amateurs. #Since our industry paid a few billion for our spectrum, you could as well.

[W8UR]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (wa4bvy @ Jan. 13 2003,19:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Since our industry paid a few billion for our spectrum, you could as well.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
No problem, we'll simply say we can't afford what we bid and be off the hook, just like "your" industry. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[W5HTW]

Taking this a step further, someone writes in this month's QST, in an op-ed article, that maybe we should not be called "Amateurs." Perhaps, he suggests, we need a "professional" image. A nationwise style of uniform we could wear to emergency events, for example. Dispense with the term "Amateur Radio" for the public does not want to see that word when it sees someone allegedly helping them. They don't want to see "Amateur paramedic," or "Amateur ambulance driver," or "Amateur Police Officer." They want professionals, and a professional image.

So shall we disband amateur radio entirely and convert it to professional radio/internet? Or is this a way for the NeoCops among us to gain professional status, with their HTs and hard hats, and their badges and uniforms?

What then, follows? Type accepted radio equipment, linked to the local and regional police via data terminals? Tightly controlled power and emissions? Channelized radios on HF, certified by the FCC as compatible with internet linking? "Professional" licenses that are now called "Public Assistance Radio Operator License?"

And ham radio isn't bent? Do we really want to convert it to professional radio, with high speed internet connections, with SSL, allowing us to accept credit cards on 80 meters for that new type accepted mil spec transceiver? Do we want to link it to Netscape and Internet Explorer and download MP3s via 20 meters?

Maybe that IS where we should head. I'll go along with it, provided we set aside some new frequencies somewhere, and establish a new amateur radio that has no relationship to this modified current amateur radio, and that requires an amateur radio license, and that is a hobby. Take 20 meters and give it to the professional radio operators and assign us hams to 19 meters. Or lets assign this new "Professional Internet Radio" to 19 meters and move the encryption and internet operators there? I have no objection in the slightest to computer users having access to HF communications methods, but it should be outside the ham bands.

To be honest, I doubt this encryption proposal has an ice cube's chance in hell of gaining any momentum with the FCC, but then I never thought we'd have a code-free ham ticket, either. So what the loudest of us want, the loudest of us tend to get.

I should clarify; I love computers. I work with them, have been a systems analyst for many years until I retired, and I continue to do freelance maintenance, repairs, and consulting in general. I use them in business and for pleasure. I am often on the web, sometimes for business, sometimes just for kicks, which would probably make me a web hobbyist.

And I love ham radio. But I see no need to force the two to combine, no more than loving my sports car and flying means I have to put wings on the car. They are separate hobbys, and separate interests. I also love photography, but I have no intention of putting a 3-element beam on my Nikon. Or hanging a camera on my dipole.

The point is ham radio and the internet do not have to marry. Each works well without the other, and each does what it is intended to do. That marriage would indeed result in many millions more hams, but we have already found out (well, we should have) quantity does not make quality.

And finally, I have no secrets I need to transmit via ham radio. No love letters, no porn, no business or financial dealings. It is not a business resource; it is a hobby.

I really hope it manages to stay that way, and that the word "Amateur" remains with us for a long time to come.

73
Ed

[kc0lql]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What you will find is literally thousands of websites on 802.11 wireless ethernet, for any one page of packet or other Ham Radio based network technology. [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Wrong. Google says there is a ten to one ratio. Which is greater than that of the general population to ham ratio. And quantity isn't indicative of quality. Try searching for the word "sex". No wonder 802.11 is called "portable porn".
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Ok, I may be guilty of exadurating, and as many people pointed out, searching different words on google can give you quite unexpected results sometimes.

However, I would say if you factor in the age, and relevance of packet radio sites you would probably agree that:
1. The packet radio sites are frequently old, sometimes _years_ away from their last update.
2. The 802.11 internet web pages are generally quite current.

Again, I risk generalizing, but I think there is a point to be made.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The reason for this is that innovation is being driven out of Ham Radio by restrictions on the Ham bands which are not present in other parts of the spectrum. Surely, having frequencies available to hams is important, but what can or cannot be done on those frequencies is probably at least as important, yet receives far less attention.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Wrong again. We can do and do more with our spectrum than other folks do.
From CW on HF to ATV to packet to EME. (No one else gets to bounce signals off the moon except the military and the astronomers.) We get to build our own equipment
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
But, you can't encrypt. And you can't automatically connect Ham Radio and internet connections without risking your ham license.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hams are not permitted to encrypt data, so it immediately follows that hams cannot use modern protocols on the air.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Wrong. We get to invent protocols. Look at the digital modes spawn by hams in the last ten years that take advantage of computers and DSPs.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Invent a ham version of TCP/IP version 6. Since it contains encryption, presumable there is no legal way for hams to implement this protocol for ham use in the united states. Internet link or no, the technology world is not going to sit and wait for us. Either we have the ability to encrypt, or we cannot use newer systems that have encryption built-in. As time goes on there will be fewer and fewer technologies compatible with "plain-text" authentication. And all the protocols you invent don't mean a hoot unless they can connect to protocols in the real world - which, by the way, have every incentive _to_ encrypt and little or none _not_ to.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> Living without encryption was normal life ten years ago, but is not practical any more.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Wrong. Business transactions and sensitive data may require encryption, but I don't see a need in ham radio.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
The FCC has already determined several needs - telecomand and repeater operation. The same principals apply to other environments where someone should not be able to send unauthorized commands. Perhaps you do not personally have a need for encryption, but that does not mean it is useless for those that do.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The problem arises that in other freedom-enable venus, such as the internet, have no such restrictions. If we wish to innovate with solutions that marry Ham Radio and internet technology, we must be able to pass traffic between the networks without reading through all traffic to determine if it is OK per FCC rules.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Good, stay on the internet and say what you want to. Radio has manage to innovate without the internet for years. The internet does serve a purpose as exhibited in sites like QRZ, ARRL.org and email, but not for traffic or radio QSLs. [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
The internet and Ham Radio are both communications tools - which in most respects happen to complement each other nicely. Why you are against innovation using both tools is beyond me. Do you think echolink is a non-innovative system? Did you object to autopatches on repeaters? The situation is nearly identical.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><t