Encryption in the Amateur Radio Service

[ab0wr]

Minutes of the Executive Committee, Number 478

MINUTES OF EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
Number 478
Fort Worth, Texas -- October 22, 2005


5. At Minute 29 of its July 2004 meeting the Board had ordered the filing of a petition with the Federal Communications Commission permitting security of data for computer-to-computer communications on domestic transmissions above 50 MHz. A related issue is the requirement to maintain the privacy of certain client information that may be sent on behalf of served agencies during emergencies. It was agreed that preparation of the petition should occur after there has been an opportunity to review the experience gained during Hurricane Katrina.


This is an item that every amateur should be *VERY* concerned about. This issue cuts to the heart of what the Amateur Radio Service is today and what a few people perceive the ARS should be instead.

A primary tenet of the ARS is that of self-policing. Self-policing carries with it the need for at least some part of the amateur community to be able to monitor communications being carried on in the amateur bands to ensure that they meet the very few restrictions the FCC has placed on the ARS, especially if the communications involve third parties. Some of these restrictions are that the communications should not have any pecuniary interest for either the stations relaying the traffic or for the parties involved in the communication content itself, that the communications should not include lewd or obscene content, and that they should not be in furtherance of criminal activity.

If this self-policing policy is gutted by the removing the restriction against encrypting communications for the purpose of obscuring the content, it will likely be replaced by something the ARS community may not like. Rest assured that there are people in government today who are charged with national security responsibility that will NOT allow secure, encrypted communications links to be set up in the amateur bands without some means being provided for monitoring those communications and without some means of verifying who is involved in providing the links and in sending/receiving the content being transmitted.

This could have huge consequences on how we are licensed, how we are regulated, and in how we operate.

Once again, the ARRL seems to be determined to head off in a direction it is sure the ARS wants and needs without vetting the proposal among the ARS community as a whole. Part of the reasoning behind this proposal is based on a flawed HSSM working group document that confuses securing access to network nodes with securing data content being sent over the inter-nodal links.

Securing access to nodes using encryption is a laudable goal. It is something we should be pushing the FCC to allow.

Securing content is a different matter, especially when it involves third party traffic. It is a subject that needs to be discussed and vetted in detail before developing any proposal that is likely to change the face of the ARS as we know it. For once we start down the path of providing secure communication links for third party clients, we skirt very close to becoming recognized as a commercial venture. That carries with it a whole other set of possible changes in regulation, licensing, and operation separate from those that might occur because of the loss of self-policing.

My perception of the ARRL at this point in time is that it has become an ISP wanna-be organization. I ask that you discuss this with your friends and acquaintenances on the air and on the internet. I ask that you let your feelings on the subject be known to your ARRL Directors. I ask that you even discuss this with your non-ham friends to see how their perception of the Amateur Radio Service would change if they knew that the ARS was involved in encrypted communcations in the amateur bands, especially for third party clients.

tim ab0wr

[K3TJ]

The ARRL has lost touch with its membership and reality.

[n7okl]

The main thrust, I think, is in working with patients in the medical field.....and other 'clasified' information as required, or being proposed, by Homeland Security.

Some current, and almost all proposed, requirements are rendering the ARS useless for many of the current roles being filled in EMCOMM.

That being said....

I do agree that the ARRL is opening a can of worms with the current proposal to just trow the doors open for 'secure' data......

I really do not expect this to fly at the FCC....

Mel
N7OKL

[kc0nyk]

As seldom as it ocourrs, I have to agree with Tim ab0wr on this subject. The ARRL is rapidly attempting to make us into government agents, which is not something I would care to participate in personally. I believe it may be time for the membership to regain control over the organization for the good of the hobby as well as the service. Perhaps, like politicians, we expect our elected represenatives in ARRL to serve for much too long. That being said, I think I will cast my vote for someone other than an incumbent next time around.

jim kc0nyk

[W5HTW]

I think it is already too late for amateur radio. It has been converted into various things, almost none of which resemble the intent of amateur radio as described in the FCC rules, and in the general publications on how to be a ham.

As those in the hobby continue to push it toward becoming an extension of government services, many things occur. One which has already occured is the transition from a technical hobby to a "police dispatcher" type of hobby, in which the primary use is to push the PTT switch and say "ten-four." That is a bit over simplified, but what IS true is too many get into the hobby with zero, absolutely zero, interest in amateur radio, instead having an interest only in quasi-police/public safety communications. For those people, they see this as a short cut to a police or medical or fire certification, as well as a short cut to personal importance.

However, it is, as I noted, probably too late to preserve the hobby. We are being drafted into Homeland Security, with all its attendant restrictions, rules, security concepts, and non-amateur operations. It is a bit like someone who owns a horse and loves to ride, being drafted into the Dept of Homeland Security so they can ride and deliver important government messages. And do ONLY that. The hobby aspect of amateur is being removed, in the interest of pleasing those who want to play "important" to satisfy their egos, and, those who want a commercial version of ham radio, such as Winlink, encrypted email, and, down the road, full business operations.

The hobby is going away. It is being broken up, and maybe some aspects of the "old ham radio" will remain, for the few technical enthusiasts, but in general it is being turned into the modern day version of the 1970s REACT, with the light bar and vest/helmet crowd.

Certainly the ARRL has pushed this new direction for what used to be amateur radio. I am not sure of their reasons, and am not even sure they have reasons. It may be that the ARRL no longer has anyone around who remembers what ham radio should be, so they, too, are stuck in the paracop mentality. Or it may be that by converting ham radio into Public Service Radio Auxilliary, they can make more money. I don't know their reasons, and as I said, they may actually not even have any, except lack of understanding.

The more I hear of the new directions, and they are plural, that ham radio is taking, the more I am proud and glad to have lived and operated in the true heyday of amateur radio. And the more I see it slipping away, like an old friend dying, in fact, being poisoned, by those who once upon a time would have worked so hard to save his life.

One can still tune across 20 meters today, and hear things that resemble the real ham radio. But the ones there are probably less than one-third of the active hams of today. The rest are out playing cop, and with the sanction and encouragement of the ARRL and Homeland Security.

When we become a branch of the government, we will disappear entirely. That is, though, where we are headed.

Ed

[ad4mg]

Absolutely not needed nor wanted. #Compression schemes (legal) currently used above 50 Mhz provide ample security for "sensitive" communications (those which shouldn't be monitored by the press, for example ... death notices, etc.). #What type of information would require additional security provided by encryption? #Anything that damn sensitive should be handled by the military, on real encrypted and secured frequencies.

Another stupid, ill-conceived product of the ARRL "brain trust", the HSMM Committee. #Don't they let these guys out in the sunshine every now and then? #I think they have totally "vapor-locked" up there in Newington. #Stupid, stupid, stupid, and very, very dangerous.

[n4zou]

There is a saying in the Middle East that if you allow a camel to stick his head in the tent the rest of the camel will quickly follow. In our case the camel's head is in the form of Winlink2000 and for all intended purposes the "encryption" of signals as a normal consequence of the protocol. We need to beat the camel's head out of the tent or make room for the eventual entering of the entire camel with little or no room for us!

[VE7TKO]

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Nov. 10 2005,17:27)]My perception of the ARRL at this point in time is that it has become an ISP wanna-be organization. I ask that you discuss this with your friends and acquaintenances on the air and on the internet. I ask that you let your feelings on the subject be known to your ARRL Directors. I ask that you even discuss this with your non-ham friends to see how their perception of the Amateur Radio Service would change if they knew that the ARS was involved in encrypted communcations in the amateur bands, especially for third party clients.

tim ab0wr
I get the feeling that there is a lot of paranoia out there. Is everybody upset because the AARL is supporting WinLink 2000 for use on VHF, UHF and SHF? Email capabilities on more bands are a natural extension of ham radio. No business is going to use ham radio to send their emails. The ability of ham radio to send emails for welfare communications in times of emergency is a big benefit to the welfare of our countries. Remember, it is a licensed ham that transmits that email and receives that email. He is the one that controls the content and he is the one that is ultimately responsible for assuring that we follow the rules and regulations. I see no difference in this situation or packet radio, other than the Internet could be involved.

<span style='color:red'>Oops, IP is a dirty word in some ham radio circles.</span> (IP: Internet Protocol, the protocol that controls how data packets are exchanged on the Internet.)

Quote: from <span style='color:blue'>D-STAR for the Second Century of Amateur Radio.</span>
See: http://www.icomamerica.com/amateur/dstar/ .
<span style='color:red'>Myth #5</span> “D-STAR is a replacement for broadband home Internet”
Truly a fantasy! D-STAR can connect a user to the Internet, true, but all of the amateur radio restrictions on commercial activity still remain in place. D-STAR will provide the tools for a lot of great amateur innovation, but it's not intended to replace Internet providers.

At 1.2 GHz it is only 1 1/2 times the speed of regular dial up. That would be too slow and too expensive for today's Internet user, but very useful for emergency communications.

[ae4fa]

I have previously posted here on QRZ some portions of the ARRL HSMM committee's reports. Those folks live in the twilight zone.

It's all available on the ARRL site. You really should go have a look.

It's obvious the 15 member brain trust simply rubber stamps just about anything Sumner puts in front of them. That's much easiear than actually reading and understanding the proposals.

[ab0wr]

Quote[/b] (VE7TKO @ Nov. 13 2005,17:06)]Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Nov. 10 2005,17:27)]My perception of the ARRL at this point in time is that it has become an ISP wanna-be organization. I ask that you discuss this with your friends and acquaintenances on the air and on the internet. I ask that you let your feelings on the subject be known to your ARRL Directors. I ask that you even discuss this with your non-ham friends to see how their perception of the Amateur Radio Service would change if they knew that the ARS was involved in encrypted communcations in the amateur bands, especially for third party clients.

tim ab0wr
I get the feeling that there is a lot of paranoia out there. Is everybody upset because the AARL is supporting WinLink 2000 for use on VHF, UHF and SHF? Email capabilities on more bands are a natural extension of ham radio. No business is going to use ham radio to send their emails. The ability of ham radio to send emails for welfare communications in times of emergency is a big benefit to the welfare of our countries. Remember, it is a licensed ham that transmits that email and receives that email. He is the one that controls the content and he is the one that is ultimately responsible for assuring that we follow the rules and regulations. I see no difference in this situation or packet radio, other than the Internet could be involved.

<span style='color:red'>Oops, IP is a dirty word in some ham radio circles.</span> (IP: Internet Protocol, the protocol that controls how data packets are exchanged on the Internet.)

Quote: from <span style='color:blue'>D-STAR for the Second Century of Amateur Radio.</span>
See: http://www.icomamerica.com/amateur/dstar/dstar8.asp.

<span style='color:red'>Myth #5</span> “D-STAR is a replacement for broadband home Internet”
Truly a fantasy! D-STAR can connect a user to the Internet, true, but all of the amateur radio restrictions on commercial activity still remain in place. D-STAR will provide the tools for a lot of great amateur innovation, but it's not intended to replace Internet providers.

At 1.2 GHz it is only 1 1/2 times the speed of regular dial up. That would be too slow and too expensive for today's Internet user, but very useful for emergency communications.
*********************************************
ve7tko:

I get the feeling that there is a lot of paranoia out there. Is everybody upset because the AARL is supporting WinLink 2000 for use on VHF, UHF and SHF? Email capabilities on more bands are a natural extension of ham radio. No business is going to use ham radio to send their emails. The ability of ham radio to send emails for welfare communications in times of emergency is a big benefit to the welfare of our countries. Remember, it is a licensed ham that transmits that email and receives that email. He is the one that controls the content and he is the one that is ultimately responsible for assuring that we follow the rules and regulations. I see no difference in this situation or packet radio, other than the Internet could be involved."
************************************************

Email for personal use is one thing. Carrying email for third parties is another thing entirely.

Question: Who would do the encryption of the email? The third party or the amateur control operator for the link?

Think carefully about your answer!


tim ab0wr

[ab0wr]

**********************************************
ve7tko:

"I see no difference in this situation or packet radio, other than the Internet could be involved."

*********************************************

You really see no difference between encrypted transmissions and unencrypted transmissions in the amateur radio bands?

Remember, while you are trying to deflect the discussion into amateur-to-internet gateways, the disscussion is actually about whether we, as a service, want to start carrying encrypted third party traffic over RADIO amateur radio links, not over internet links.

BTW, does the acronym CALEA mean anything to you?

tim ab0wr

[ad4mg]

Pardon me, but I reiterate that anything that damn sensitive needs to be handled by trained military operators, running secure protocol, on secured communications medium, not 2 meter vhf digital.

Ladies and gentlemen, we do not have to lick the boots of every agency that we serve. #We accommodate those who can utilize what we have. #The other agencies with this type of requirement should just continue sucking wind. #The amateur radio service is not structured to handle "top secret" communications. #Part 97 regulations make this very clear.

Don't you people understand that if you change part 97 regs to allow this that we are no longer the amateur radio service described in Part 97? #Will we allow some more back-door manuvering by the ARRL to choke this down our throats, like the proprietary Pactor III protocol that nobody can monitor, being used every day by the Winlink network? #What are they sending over the HF airwaves? #You can't possibly know, because you cannot decode that protocol. #Isn't that convenient!

If government agencies really depend this heavily on the amateur service (and they don't ... it's a matter of convenience for them ... no risk, and potential gain), this country is in a s***pile of trouble. #This is stupid. #Just plain stupid.

And Jan, take it back to your 3rd rendition of D-Star you recently started, if you please. #In case it isn't apparent to you, this pertains to FCC regulations. #I refrained from comment there in your thread, at your request, in your second post in that thread. #Common courtesy OM.

Edit for typo.

[na4ar]

Part 97.1(a) of the rules that govern the Amateur Radio Service establishes "emergency communications" as a prime reason for this radio service to exist. So, whart does that really mean?

These last two hurricane seasons have demonstrated the need for Amateur Radio operators to step up to the plate when commercial and public safety communications systems have been rendered inoperative. Such was the case last year during Hurricanes Charley and Ivan that devastated parts of Florida. This need was again repeated this year as Dennis, Katrina, Rita and most recently, Wilma caused catastrophic losses in Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas.

I have read several of the comments posted to this Forum that take issue with the proposed legalization of encryption within Part 97. Some of these comments appear to be just another attempt at "League bashing".
But just so we can all be clear about why encryption is needed, let me point out a couple REAL issues Amateur Radio operators, including those working under the RACES banner, face when called on to assist with disaster-related communications.

First, the Amateur Radio Service shares many of its frequency allocations with other users, many of whom operated under Part 15 with no license whatsoever. This is particularly true in the 420-450 MHz, 902-928 MHz, 2417-2450 MHz and 5650-5925 MHz allocations. Part 97.313(e) specifically PROHIBITS Amateur radio licensees from communicating with others not licensed under Part 97. This includes allowing non-Hams from accessing and using 802.11 Wireless Access Points being operated under Part 97 rules.

Second, the information landscape has changed dramatically during the last few years as new laws like HIPAA and new Privacy Policies have been adopted. HIPAA specifically prohibits the transmission of a person's health information in such a manner that it can be easily intercepted and accessed. Further, privacy policies adopted by the American Red Cross and other non-governmental relief organizations further prohibit the transmission of client information in the clear.

Third, those of us who have ever been involved in a disaster-response effort know many Amateur Radio transmissions are monitored. Security by obscurity does not work! And if the News Media is wise to Amateur Radio, so, too, are those who would repeat the terror of 9/11 if given the opportunity. I would not want to be responsible for the loss of life that would be incurred because a terrorist intercepted a non-encrypted message that pointed to a shelter housing five hundred or a thousand disaster victims.

Many of the businesses and individuals operating Part 15 broadband transceviers on Amateur Radio Service frequencies routinely utilize strong encryption to protect access to their systems and to their data. It is considered a "good engineering and operating practice". Amateur Radio operators, too, are suppose to use "good engineering and operating practices". In this case, however, Part 97 prevents it, a deficiency the ARRL's HSMM Working Group is trying to rectify.

I am proud of the work the HSMM Working Group is doing. I and many of my colleagues are Information Technology professionals. We work with commercial wireless systems and the Internet daily. Still others are RF Engineers. We know the potential Amateur Radio operators can realize, if allowed to do so. We recognize our responsibility to protect the privacy rights of our fellow citizens when they need our help the most.

The effort to legalize encryption and strong security under Part 97 is NOT some conspiracy to relinguish Amateur Radio frequencies to the government. Rather, it is recognition of a need by all Amateur Radio operators to embrace new technologies and to operate legally when doing so.

73 de Paul-NA4AR
ARRL HSMM Working Group
2005 NOAA Environmental Award recipient

[ad4mg]

Here's something to consider. #Write your elected representatives. #Explain to them what amateur radio is, and what a small minority of misguided folks intend for it to be. #Tell them what Part 97 says, in a brief statement. #To make SURE your letter carries the biggest effect possible, send a small donation to your elected representitive. Send $20. If money is tight, cancel your ARRL membership and send the money to your representitive. I GUARANTEE that even a small money donation to your elected representitive will go MUCH further then in the hands of ARRL!

[ad4mg]

Quote[/b] ]HIPAA specifically prohibits the transmission of a person's health information in such a manner that it can be easily intercepted and accessed. #Further, privacy policies adopted by the American Red Cross and other non-governmental relief organizations further prohibit the transmission of client information in the clear.
Everyday, already legal compression schemes fit both requirements nicely. #Compressed data cannot be easily intercepted and accessed, and it does not constitute a transmission "in the clear". #You people aren't going to be happy until you have the amateur radio internet service, and that's just the plain truth.

Here it is for the mentally challenged:

AMATEUR RADIO <> INTERNET

INTERNET <> AMATEUR RADIO

Two entirely different services. #Very simple. #No need to change anything in Part 97 to operate in this manner. #In case it hasn't occured to you, Part 97 defines what the amateur radio service is. #Again, very simple. #It should literally take an act of Congress to change the very definition of the amateur radio service, and that is what you propose. #Leave it alone already!

[ad4mg]

Quote[/b] ]We know the potential Amateur Radio operators can realize, if allowed to do so.
Well, since you opened this can of worms ...

I have read every recommendation your committee has produced, and that is posted on the ARRL web site. #It seems to me that all of your suggestions point to great potential ... all at the expense of what 90% of the amateur community is currently involved in. #Rather arrogant of you, isn't it? #Just forget the "little people" in an effort to "reach our potential". #I don't think so.

You guys need some fresh air.

[VE7TKO]

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Nov. 13 2005,17:28)]Email for personal use is one thing. Carrying email for third parties is another thing entirely.

Question: Who would do the encryption of the email? The third party or the amateur control operator for the link?

Think carefully about your answer!


tim ab0wr
What is the difference between email for personal use and email for a third party? They both use the same format. A ham in an area devastated by an earthquake could be notifying a relative in another part of the world that their loved ones survived. Likewise, the EOC might be sending an email message to the workers in an area that has no other means of communication. Email allows a field worker to conserve battery power by turning the equipment off between uses.

A message that starts with RF signal from an antenna is picked up by another ham who has his radio connected to a computer which in turn is connected to the Internet. His computer forwards the message to its final destination. This is all legal as long as the rules are followed. Licensed hams control both ends of the RF link.

The government can already track our email. They can also listen into our ham radio conversations. There is no privacy in ham radio. It is up to the ham radio operator to use his discretion and common sense.

[N2PVP]

HIPPA During Emergencies (http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/hipaa/KATRINAnHIPAA.pdf)

[ad4mg]

Quote[/b] (VE7TKO @ Nov. 13 2005,21:40)]Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Nov. 13 2005,17:28)]Email for personal use is one thing. Carrying email for third parties is another thing entirely.

Question: Who would do the encryption of the email? The third party or the amateur control operator for the link?

Think carefully about your answer!


tim ab0wr
What is the difference between email for personal use and email for a third party? They both use the same format. A ham in an area devastated by an earthquake could be notifying a relative in another part of the world that their loved ones survived. Likewise, the EOC might be sending an email message to the workers in an area that has no other means of communication. Email allows a field worker to conserve battery power by turning the equipment off between uses.

A message that starts with RF signal from an antenna is picked up by another ham who has his radio connected to a computer which in turn is connected to the Internet. His computer forwards the message to its final destination. This is all legal as long as the rules are followed. Licensed hams control both ends of the RF link.

The government can already track our email. They can also listen into our ham radio conversations. There is no privacy in ham radio. It is up to the ham radio operator to use his discretion and common sense.
And this is relevant to the discussion of encrypted communications in the Amareur Radio Service at 50 mHz and above in the United States?

You are 100% correct on one thing though. #There is no expectation of privacy in amateur radio communications in the United States. #That is part of the very definition of the service as outlined in Part 97, and it does require an act of Congress to change that.

[na4ar]

What is at issue is the relevance of Amateur Radio during a 21st century emergency. You may not have any expectation of privacy. But the agency you are providing communications support to may. That includes local, State and Federal agencies.

It should not come as a surprise that a number of Federal agencies operating in the Hurricane Katrina disaster area sought the help of Part15.org members because they could not get the support they needed from Amateur Radio, including RACES. Be careful what you wish for. Extinction is just around the corner!

[WD8OQX]

Where I can see the point about encrypting, I have to question just who is going to do the decrypting to make sure that no "bad" traffic is being passed. What would there be to keep the "baddies" from taking advantage of this?

I see this as a two edge sward that can "cut out throats" either way. So for now I still have to sit on the fence on this one until further info is at my disposal. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif

[ad4mg]

Quote[/b] (na4ar @ Nov. 13 2005,22:28)]What is at issue is the relevance of Amateur Radio during a 21st century emergency. #You may not have any expectation of privacy. #But the agency you are providing communications support to may. #That includes local, State and Federal agencies. #

It should not come as a surprise that a number of Federal agencies operating in the Hurricane Katrina disaster area sought the help of Part15.org members because they could not get the support they needed from Amateur Radio, including RACES. #Be careful what you wish for. #Extinction is just around the corner!

And tell us why these agencies could not get the support from Amateur Radio. #I know without a doubt that it had nothing whatsoever to do with data encryption. #I believe it was a matter of logistics. #Nice try OM.

If encryption is allowed, the service is changed forever. #No more "self-policing". #The amateur radio service becomes some bastardized version of the internet.

I would just as soon see it become extinct. #But I think what you suggest is over-dramatization, designed to scare amateurs into agreeing with a very foolish suggestion.

It was suggested not long ago in a consipracy theory that amateur radio could be bought by Homeland Security dollars. #This latest proposal by the ARRL goes a long ways towards supporting that theory.

Part 97 prohibits encrypted transmissions by amateurs on the amateur radio bands, by Congressional directive. #Talk about an elitist mindset!

That about clears things up for the sane persons among us. #Please continue explaining how you over-educated IT guys are so smart that you know what's best for the entire amateur community. #It fits perfectly the ARRL agenda, at least from my point of view.

What dimension of time and space is the ARRL in this week?

[na4ar]

The FCC has great latitude to amend Part 97, adopt new rules and make Amateur Radio relevant in our information-driven society. We saw this in 2000 with changes to the Morse Code proficiency requirement. And now that the treaty provision requiring Morse Code proficiency has been relaxed, I believe we will see this section of Part 97 change again without an Act of Congress. This same rulemaking authority can also be used to legalize encryption for domestic transmissions.

It is arrogant to believe you can still operate the same way you did fifty years ago and survive extinction.

[na4ar]

Quote[/b] (WD8OQX @ Nov. 13 2005,19:38)]Where I can see the point about encrypting, I have to question just who is going to do the decrypting to make sure that no "bad" traffic is being passed. What would there be to keep the "baddies" from taking advantage of this?
What makes you think the "baddies" are not already using 802.11 gear under Part 15 to accomplish their end?

[ad4mg]

Quote[/b] (na4ar @ Nov. 13 2005,22:46)]The FCC has great latitude to amend Part 97, adopt new rules and make Amateur Radio relevant in our information-driven society. #We saw this in 2000 with changes to the Morse Code proficiency requirement. #And now that the treaty provision requiring Morse Code proficiency has been relaxed, I believe we will see this section of Part 97 change again without an Act of Congress. #This same rulemaking authority can also be used to legalize encryption for domestic transmissions.

It is arrogant to believe you can still operate the same way you did fifty years ago and survive extinction.
It is equally arrogant of you to suggest what you believe is the absolute truth. #We shall test your theory if this garbage is proposed. #I don't think it is up to the ARRL HSMM Committee to decide what authority is granted the Federal Communications Commission by Congress.

That's the major problem with most IT guys. #Unadulterated arrogance in the belief that they always know better than anyone else. #It's no surprise that so little of what you people cook up in the dusty old closet in Newington ever amounts to anything of significant impact to the average amateur radio operator.

I see no need to continue this. #I don't believe you know what's best for the amateur radio service any more than the other 599,999 licensed amateurs in this country. #Maybe you could give that a little thought.

[K0RGR]

It comes down to this: if we are going to play by the rules that the 'served agencies' are putting out there for us, then encryption is a must.

We can tell the Red Cross to go to hell. There's no law that says we have to serve the Red Cross. But if the Red Cross insists that health and welfare communications must be encrypted, then we must encrypt it or not carry any. I don't think we want to tell the Red Cross to go to hell. ARRL has signed letters committing us to serve the Red Cross. Maybe that was a bad idea, but that's where our committments lie.

Also, we need some decent way to keep John Q. Public out of our 802.11 networks. If it's OK for John Q. Public to use one of the common network encryption schemes for their networks, why is it such a problem for hams to use it there?

Finally, if its' use is restricted to relief efforts in bonafide emergencies, I don't see any problem.

[KD5NCO]

Simple fact is that the ARS can not exist solely as a old fart hobby. The spectrum we consume is much too valuable strategically and monetarily. To survive we must adapt to the 21st century and gain relevance and provide value to Homeland defense and disaster relief.

None of this is about CW and HF it is every thing to do with effective use of our equipment and skills in a maner that adds value to those that can use our trained expertise.

You would be wise to at least think very seriously about what NA4AR is explaining.

Don't get all hyped up in some knee jerk anti ARRL frenzy over a logical and easy to administer proposal to the FCC.

In the very long view, this, like the elimination of Element 1 testing is inevitable.... standard comms will be in the clear and legitimate Em Com traffic will be secured.

The FCC will never amend Part 97 to allow normal traffic outside of emergency and disaster relief to be encrypted. You are not going to be able to talk dirty to your Russian girlfriend on a secure ARS frequency. #For that you must get on 75 meters and just talk your smut in the clear.

[kc0lql]

Quote[/b] (K0RGR @ Nov. 13 2005,20:47)]Finally, if its' use is restricted to relief efforts in bonafide emergencies, I don't see any problem.
Never count on using anything in emergencies that you cannot use during normal conditions.

People will simply not be familiar enough with the technology if they can never actually use it. If encryption is to be of any use to anyone, it would have to be allowed all the time.

That said, if there is any rational reason to keep the encryption ban in place, I haven't read it here. The cold war is over. Anyone can contact anyone else world-wide using dozens of ways at any time. We have an over-inflated sense of self worth if we honestly believe "bad guys" need us to send encrypted messages back and forth for them.

But this is QRZ, let the emotional arguments begin...

[kb3mng]

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Nov. 10 2005,17:27)]Securing access to nodes using encryption is a laudable goal. It is something we should be pushing the FCC to allow.
To "secure access to a node", you do not need to encrypt the message. All you need to do is generate a digital signature to append to the message. The recipient can compute the same digital signature to verify that it came from you.

By my reading of part 97, this is already allowed. If you use public key signatures, any random observer can check the signature. If you use a private key signature (like md5 shared secret), only your trusted partner can check the signature, but it is still just a complex checksum that does not contain any encrypted information itself.

Of course, if you want to use commercially produced WiFi equipment, you are restricted to what the designers intended. If you want the crypto authentication, you have to have the encrypted messages too.

Or you can build your own stuff...

[VE7NOT]

You know if the general public had acces to 1Mhz of spectrum on hf say 12Mhz or something for long diostance coms and it was licenced. People would be more interested in ametuer radio.

In my mind to ecrypt an ametuer radio station should be illegal. You send cw you send your call. You use phone you send your call ATV you show your call etc. Now is not ecrypting your call along with the rest illegal... http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

[NL7W]

Quote[/b] (na4ar @ Nov. 13 2005,19:28)]What is at issue is the relevance of Amateur Radio during a 21st century emergency. You may not have any expectation of privacy. But the agency you are providing communications support to may. That includes local, State and Federal agencies.

It should not come as a surprise that a number of Federal agencies operating in the Hurricane Katrina disaster area sought the help of Part15.org members because they could not get the support they needed from Amateur Radio, including RACES. Be careful what you wish for. Extinction is just around the corner!
As a federally contracted program manager serving local, state, and federal public safety telecommunications needs, I am quite aware of public safety technology and telecommunications issues - nationwide. And as a 25-year ham, I also understand the contrary points of view conveyed here. Therefore, I make the the following general proposal - preserving the integrity of open and intercepted communications during routine amateur communications.

1. All coded or ciphered (encrypted) communications intended to obscure their meaning shall remain prohibited, unless:

(a) Licensed amateur stations participate in federally designated disaster related communications - directly aiding the communications capabilities of public safety local, state, or federal agencies while encrypted.

(b) Licensed amateur stations participate in federally recognized exercises testing communications capabilities in a simulated environment.

This rules exception during times of need, but only during federally recognized times of need, should be allowed. It would greatly enhance amateur radio's ability to provide quality and trusted communications for public safety agencies during times when their own communications systems are degraded or destroyed.

Today's technology is not a barrier to effective and trusted communications. The barrier is the human factor, or the organizational issues amongst us and between others. The same applies with the "interoperability" dilemma between disparate public safety agencies across the Nation. Let's allow trusted digital communications when its needed.

Regards,

Steve, NL7W


References:

97.113(a) (4) Prohibited Transmissions
97.111(a) (2) and (4) - Authorized Transmissions

[ab0wr]

Quote[/b] (VE7TKO @ Nov. 13 2005,18:40)]Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Nov. 13 2005,17:28)]Email for personal use is one thing. Carrying email for third parties is another thing entirely.

Question: Who would do the encryption of the email? The third party or the amateur control operator for the link?

Think carefully about your answer!


tim ab0wr
What is the difference between email for personal use and email for a third party? They both use the same format. A ham in an area devastated by an earthquake could be notifying a relative in another part of the world that their loved ones survived. Likewise, the EOC might be sending an email message to the workers in an area that has no other means of communication. Email allows a field worker to conserve battery power by turning the equipment off between uses.

A message that starts with RF signal from an antenna is picked up by another ham who has his radio connected to a computer which in turn is connected to the Internet. His computer forwards the message to its final destination. This is all legal as long as the rules are followed. Licensed hams control both ends of the RF link.

The government can already track our email. They can also listen into our ham radio conversations. There is no privacy in ham radio. It is up to the ham radio operator to use his discretion and common sense.
Since you didn't see fit to answer the question I'll ask again.

Who would do the encryption of the email? The third party or the amateur control operator for the link?

Think carefully about your answer!

tim ab0wr

[ab0wr]

Quote[/b] (NL7W @ Nov. 14 2005,01:50)]Quote[/b] (na4ar @ Nov. 13 2005,19:28)]What is at issue is the relevance of Amateur Radio during a 21st century emergency. #You may not have any expectation of privacy. #But the agency you are providing communications support to may. #That includes local, State and Federal agencies. #

It should not come as a surprise that a number of Federal agencies operating in the Hurricane Katrina disaster area sought the help of Part15.org members because they could not get the support they needed from Amateur Radio, including RACES. #Be careful what you wish for. #Extinction is just around the corner!
As a federally contracted program manager serving local, state, and federal public safety telecommunications needs, I am quite aware of public safety technology and telecommunications issues - nationwide. #And as a 25-year ham, I also understand the contrary points of view conveyed here. #Therefore, I make the the following general proposal - preserving the integrity of open and intercepted communications during routine amateur communications.

1. #All coded or ciphered (encrypted) communications intended to obscure their meaning shall remain prohibited, unless:

# # (a) #Licensed amateur stations participate in federally designated disaster related communications - directly aiding the communications capabilities of public safety local, state, or federal agencies while encrypted. #

# # (b) #Licensed amateur stations participate in federally recognized exercises testing communications capabilities in a simulated environment.

This rules exception during times of need, but only during federally recognized times of need, should be allowed. #It would greatly enhance amateur radio's ability to provide quality and trusted communications for public safety agencies during times when their own communications systems are degraded or destroyed. #

Today's technology is not a barrier to effective and trusted communications. #The barrier is the human factor, or the organizational issues amongst us and between others. #The same applies with the "interoperability" dilemma between disparate public safety agencies across the Nation. #Let's allow trusted digital communications when its needed.

Regards,

Steve, NL7W


References:

97.113(a) (4) Prohibited Transmissions
97.111(a) (2) and (4) - Authorized Transmissions
The FCC already has an expedited process for obtaining Special Temporary Authorities during national disasters.

There is no reason why this process could not be used to set up specific links between specific endpoints that are encrypted.

Once the STA expires, the link would have to be taken down (or at least have the encryption removed).

tim ab0wr

[ab0wr]

>
na4ar>Part 97.1(a) of the rules that govern the Amateur Radio Service establishes "emergency communications" as a prime reason for this radio service to exist. So, whart does that really mean?"
>

The rules actually say "value to the public" and not value to "public agencies", so let's be clear about that from the beginning.

That isn't to say that helping with emergency agency communications doesn't provide value to the public, but it is the PUBLIC that should be in the forefront, not the public agencies.

>
na4ar:
These last two hurricane seasons have demonstrated the need for Amateur Radio operators to step up to the plate when commercial and public safety communications systems have been rendered inoperative.
>

That is your opinion. I have read others that said amateur radio was only peripheral to satellite links.

>
na4ar:
I have read several of the comments posted to this Forum that take issue with the proposed legalization of encryption within Part 97. Some of these comments appear to be just another attempt at "League bashing".
>

If the ARRL is the one making the proposal, who do you suggest be criticized? The KKK perhaps?


>
na4ar:
But just so we can all be clear about why encryption is needed, let me point out a couple REAL issues Amateur Radio operators, including those working under the RACES banner, face when called on to assist with disaster-related communications. "

And let the rest of us point out why encryption is NOT needed.


>
na4ar:
This includes allowing non-Hams from accessing and using 802.11 Wireless Access Points being operated under Part 97 rules.
>

I have read a number of your papers. They too, confuse the issues between secure access and secure data transmission. It would appear you are still trying to do so.

>>
na4ar:

Second, the information landscape has changed dramatically during the last few years as new laws like HIPAA and new Privacy Policies have been adopted. HIPAA specifically prohibits the transmission of a person's health information in such a manner that it can be easily intercepted and accessed. Further, privacy policies adopted by the American Red Cross and other non-governmental relief organizations further prohibit the transmission of client information in the clear.
>
>

This is perhaps the LEAST rational argument you have.

Does everyone reading this thread understand that WEP encryption on 802.11 ***** IS NOT SECURE ****?

There are at least three programs available freely on the internet that will break the WEP encryption once enough samples have been collected.

WPA protection is being broken as we speak. There have already been proof-of-concept papers written on how to do this. Actual implementations won't be far behind.

The point here is this: sending ANYTHING over the radio is subject to interception and decryption. The more interesting the contained data is, the more people will work on doing so.

DON"T trust radio communcation using a fixed encryption key!!!!


>
na4ar:
Third, those of us who have ever been involved in a disaster-response effort know many Amateur Radio transmissions are monitored. Security by obscurity does not work! And if the News Media is wise to Amateur Radio, so, too, are those who would repeat the terror of 9/11 if given the opportunity. I would not want to be responsible for the loss of life that would be incurred because a terrorist intercepted a non-encrypted message that pointed to a shelter housing five hundred or a thousand disaster victims.
>

And those of us familar with the subject know that encryption using fixed keys are just as unsecure.


>
na4ar
Many of the businesses and individuals operating Part 15 broadband transceviers on Amateur Radio Service frequencies routinely utilize strong encryption to protect access to their systems and to their data. It is considered a "good engineering and operating practice". Amateur Radio operators, too, are suppose to use "good engineering and operating practices". In this case, however, Part 97 prevents it, a deficiency the ARRL's HSMM Working Group is trying to rectify.
>
>

And now you are suggesting that we carry traffic encrypted BY the third party so that even the control operator won't know what is being sent.

THAT IS THE DEFINITION OF A COMMON CARRIER!!!

You are suggesting that the ARS be classified as a common carrier where the media provider is no longer responsible for the content.

Does anyone else have a problem with this?

>
I am proud of the work the HSMM Working Group is doing. I and many of my colleagues are Information Technology professionals. We work with commercial wireless systems and the Internet daily. Still others are RF Engineers. We know the potential Amateur Radio operators can realize, if allowed to do so. We recognize our responsibility to protect the privacy rights of our fellow citizens when they need our help the most.
>
>

But you obviously don't understand the rules and such of common carriage.

Will you also design wiretap capabilities into your common carriage links? The CALEA laws could certainly be invoked by the FBI to require you to do so.


>
na4ar:
The effort to legalize encryption and strong security under Part 97 is NOT some conspiracy to relinguish Amateur Radio frequencies to the government. Rather, it is recognition of a need by all Amateur Radio operators to embrace new technologies and to operate legally when doing so.
>
>

Strawman argument. No one ever suggested this.

You have yet to make a coherent, rational argument for encryption over the amateur bands.

1. Fixed keys are not secure. You need to look elsewhere for security.

2. Defining amateur radio as a common carrier carrying traffic encrypted by third parties will have ramifications far beyond protecting the privacy of information.

3. IF you are REALLY interested in providing secure links during disasters, the FCC has an expedited STA process that you can use to license links established just for the disaster. That doesn't require changing the Part 97 rules with all of the possible impacts that could result.

tim ab0wr

[WD8OQX]

Quote[/b] (na4ar @ Nov. 12 2005,20:53)]Quote[/b] (WD8OQX @ Nov. 13 2005,19:38)]Where I can see the point about encrypting, I have to question just who is going to do the decrypting to make sure that no "bad" traffic is being passed. What would there be to keep the "baddies" from taking advantage of this?
What makes you think the "baddies" are not already using 802.11 gear under Part 15 to accomplish their end?
Case in point - someone needs to regulate - but just who is that going to be? HHHMMMM? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif

[WD8OQX]

Quote[/b] (ad4mg @ Nov. 12 2005,20:55)]Quote[/b] (na4ar @ Nov. 13 2005,22:46)]The FCC has great latitude to amend Part 97, adopt new rules and make Amateur Radio relevant in our information-driven society. We saw this in 2000 with changes to the Morse Code proficiency requirement. And now that the treaty provision requiring Morse Code proficiency has been relaxed, I believe we will see this section of Part 97 change again without an Act of Congress. This same rulemaking authority can also be used to legalize encryption for domestic transmissions.

It is arrogant to believe you can still operate the same way you did fifty years ago and survive extinction.
It is equally arrogant of you to suggest what you believe is the absolute truth. We shall test your theory if this garbage is proposed. I don't think it is up to the ARRL HSMM Committee to decide what authority is granted the Federal Communications Commission by Congress.

That's the major problem with most IT guys. Unadulterated arrogance in the belief that they always know better than anyone else. It's no surprise that so little of what you people cook up in the dusty old closet in Newington ever amounts to anything of significant impact to the average amateur radio operator.

I see no need to continue this. I don't believe you know what's best for the amateur radio service any more than the other 599,999 licensed amateurs in this country. Maybe you could give that a little thought.
I wouldn't say ALL IT guys, as I happen to be one and I'm NOT totally convinced that this is a good idea. Just willing to hear both sided. (as I said earlier - I'm still sitting on the fence)

[w4dlh]

It is job to police the rules. Not create them. If we don't like the rules then we rally to get them changed.

[WD8OQX]

Another question comes to mind; who are we trying to keep this encrypted info from - really? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif

[WA0LYK]

I'll throw my two cents in here.

Several posts ask that if Part 15 devices can use encryption why can't hams do the same.

I guess I have to ask why hams can't use part 15 devices in their plans for emergency communications instead of changing part 97 rules. What is the down to earth answer why part 15 devices aren't good enough for hams?

It seems to me part of the answer is that hams have to be "special". More power, more gain, more of whatever! As Tim the Toolman would say -- ruuuhhh, ruuuhhhh.

If I was an EOC or Red Cross manager, and a ham came to me with a proposal using highly modified equipment on ham frequencies only to provide an encrypted link, and a part15.org person did the same only using off the shelf equipment that you can get at any Walmart store, which proposal do you think I would accept? Which link do you think would be more reliable over the long term?

Maybe folks advocating removing the part 97 encryption limitations should simply swallow their pride and use existing part 15 equipment as it was intended to be used. The served agencies won't care that you're not using "ham" equipment, only that you can provide them what they need!

Jim
WA0LYK

[k5co]

I have seen ARRl representatives take a "show of hands" and mis-report that showing by just about 100% They sure as hell do NOT represent me.
It seems clear that the ARRL management is running the operation to see how many members they can get (By reducing the requirements to become a ham) and collect as much money as possible. What they do not seem to realize is that very few CB'ers will join ARRL; those that do will diminish the organization.

[W5HTW]

Quote[/b] (ad4mg @ Nov. 13 2005,19:42)]It should not come as a surprise that a number of Federal agencies operating in the Hurricane Katrina disaster area sought the help of Part15.org members because they could not get the support they needed from Amateur Radio, including RACES. Be careful what you wish for. Extinction is just around the corner!

And tell us why these agencies could not get the support from Amateur Radio. I know without a doubt that it had nothing whatsoever to do with data encryption. I believe it was a matter of logistics. Nice try OM.

If encryption is allowed, the service is changed forever. No more "self-policing". The amateur radio service becomes some bastardized version of the internet.

I would just as soon see it become extinct. But I think what you suggest is over-dramatization, designed to scare amateurs into agreeing with a very foolish suggestion.

It was suggested not long ago in a consipracy theory that amateur radio could be bought by Homeland Security dollars. This latest proposal by the ARRL goes a long ways towards supporting that theory.

Part 97 prohibits encrypted transmissions by amateurs on the amateur radio bands, by Congressional directive. Talk about an elitist mindset!

That about clears things up for the sane persons among us. Please continue explaining how you over-educated IT guys are so smart that you know what's best for the entire amateur community. It fits perfectly the ARRL agenda, at least from my point of view.

What dimension of time and space is the ARRL in this week?[/QUOTE]
I agree. Let it become extinct. And before it becomes "another government agency" and the hobbyists are forced to switch to photography or model railroading, I say "the sooner the better."

I think people who insist they want to be part of the government (and I have nothing at all against working for the government) should fill out the employment application and compete for the jobs. Then they will get paid, if they are hired.

If you want to do government communications, go to work for the government. I did, and loved it. And, interestingly, I was able to actually tell the difference between the hobby of amateur radio and the profession of government communications. I did both, but kept them separate, by choice as well as by law.

Somehow we have got to get away from this idea that ham radio is THE communications media of the future (or the present) for all agencies. This was an erroneous promotion by the ARRL in the 1980s to try to recruit more people who really weren't interested in ham radio.

We are amateurs. And the name fits, as well it should. When we become professionals, nothing at all will resemble what we now have for fun. It will all be gone, will no longer operate under a Part 97, and in fact, there won't even BE a Part 97.

You want to be an important communications guru? Get yourself a job doing that, and leave ham radio alone!

Ed

[WA0LYK]

The simple removal of the encryption restrictions in part 97 will have consequences that have not really been discussed in detail.

Simple example. Let's say NA4AR sets up an encrypted link on 144.305 for use in an emergency. Because of access protection not even the station id's are transmitted unencrypted. All of a sudden, another signal pops up that is also encrypted on the same frequency! Who is going to police the ham bands to insure the interfering signal is not a "baddie" as someone called them. Since the intefering signal is encrypted no one will be able to self-police the frequency, not even NA4AR!

I wanted to use an example that points out that self-policing will disappear if the total encryption is allowed for both access and content. Consequently, the FCC will not be able to simply drop the restriction. Therefore, what other restrictions will be required by the FCC? Will they apply to all hams? Will they only apply to those hams using encryption?

I suspect the FCC will implement many, many restrictions for those stations wanting to encrypt their signals. Just some of them will be:

Control operator (with detailed contact info)
Station locations (exactly by GPS coordinates)
Frequency of operation (not just anywhere in the ham bands)
Equipment used
Type of encryption
Contact for encryption keys (for monitoring purposes)
Times of operation
etc., etc.

Sounds a lot like commercial or STA info to me.

If anyone thinks the FCC won't require at least some of these and probably more, you are living in another dimension. Without self-policing, the FCC will want to know what signals should be expected and where at any given time, so they can start investigating "unknown" signals.

Makes plain old part 15 equipment sound beter and better!

Jim
WA0LYK

[k7ov]

Quote[/b] (n7okl @ Nov. 13 2005,13:55)]The main thrust, I think, is in working with patients in the medical field.....and other 'clasified' information as required, or being proposed, by Homeland Security.

Some current, and almost all proposed, requirements are rendering the ARS useless for many of the current roles being filled in EMCOMM.

That being said....

I do agree that the ARRL is opening a can of worms with the current proposal to just trow the doors open for 'secure' data......

I really do not expect this to fly at the FCC....

Mel
N7OKL
More likely it is an attempt to remove one of the problems with digital email systems that ARRL would like to see take over the ham spectrum. This would allow anyone who wanted to create a digital standard to keep secrete the standard thus removing the possibility of any amateur to see when improper messages are being sent over ham frequenicies.

Best,

K7OV

[WD8OQX]

PART 15 - I think I'm falling off the fence. Guess which side.... http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif


(But I could climb back on...)http://unclejoes.com/images/sitting_on_the_fence_lg_wht.gif

[K4JF]

Quote[/b] (na4ar @ Nov. 13 2005,19:28)]What is at issue is the relevance of Amateur Radio during a 21st century emergency. #You may not have any expectation of privacy. #But the agency you are providing communications support to may. #That includes local, State and Federal agencies. #
Wrong. No knowledgable person in ANY "Federal", state or local agency will expect any degree of privacy in electronic communications. To do so is hopelessly inept. That is simply not the nature of the beast.

I am completely opposed to ARRL on this one.

[WA0LYK]

Quote[/b] ]K0RGR
It comes down to this: if we are going to play by the rules that the 'served agencies' are putting out there for us, then encryption is a must.

We can tell the Red Cross to go to hell. There's no law that says we have to serve the Red Cross. But if the Red Cross insists that health and welfare communications must be encrypted, then we must encrypt it or not carry any. I don't think we want to tell the Red Cross to go to hell. ARRL has signed letters committing us to serve the Red Cross. Maybe that was a bad idea, but that's where our committments lie.

Herein, lies part of the problem! Why don't we have MOU's that allow hams to solicit and pass H&W traffic ON THEIR OWN? Why do H&W messages have to be solicited only by the Red Cross? Why can't we set up a communications center outside of a shelter and perform this function on our own? We could do this with a proper MOU with FEMA that would grant access for hams.

The real problem lies with those that have blinders on and can only see serving Public Agencies as the goal. What ever happened to serving the PUBLIC directly? Perhaps there is no money in it from Homeland Security consequently it is no longer a priority!

Jim
WA0LYK

[WD8OQX]

Just a side note observation...

This is the way I like to see a discussion go. Well done guys!

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[WA0LYK]

Quote[/b] ]na4ar
Second, the information landscape has changed dramatically during the last few years as new laws like HIPAA and new Privacy Policies have been adopted. HIPAA specifically prohibits the transmission of a person's health information in such a manner that it can be easily intercepted and accessed. Further, privacy policies adopted by the American Red Cross and other non-governmental relief organizations further prohibit the transmission of client information in the clear.

None of this really matters if an H&W message is solicted directly by a ham with the understanding of the client that there will be no expectation of privacy. At that point, it is up to the client to decide if a simple "I'm alive and well" to a loved one is ok to send knowing it may be monitored.

It all depends on who is soliciting the message and from who. Your attitude is that hams can only serve government agencies and NGO's. That isn't really the case.

Jim
WA0LYK

[k7ov]

Quote[/b] (K0RGR @ Nov. 13 2005,20:47)]It comes down to this: if we are going to play by the rules that the 'served agencies' are putting out there for us, then encryption is a must.

We can tell the Red Cross to go to hell. There's no law that says we have to serve the Red Cross. But if the Red Cross insists that health and welfare communications must be encrypted, then we must encrypt it or not carry any. I don't think we want to tell the Red Cross to go to hell. ARRL has signed letters committing us to serve the Red Cross. Maybe that was a bad idea, but that's where our committments lie.

Also, we need some decent way to keep John Q. Public out of our 802.11 networks. If it's OK for John Q. Public to use one of the common network encryption schemes for their networks, why is it such a problem for hams to use it there?

Finally, if its' use is restricted to relief efforts in bonafide emergencies, I don't see any problem.
Look, fellows! If we are the only game in town during an emergency, all agencies will continue to use us as needed, with or without encryption.

If not, then trying to be all things to all agencies is just madness! If they have access to a competing technology, then let them use it. Public service is much more than emergency situations, and does not require us to be able to encrypt any communication. The reason they turn to us in the first place is that they have no place else to turn to. If they need us, they will use us regardless of whether or not we can offer encryption.

73,

Mike - K7OV

[k7ov]

Quote[/b] (ad4mg @ Nov. 13 2005,17:54)]Pardon me, but I reiterate that anything that damn sensitive needs to be handled by trained military operators, running secure protocol, on secured communications medium, not 2 meter vhf digital.

Ladies and gentlemen, we do not have to lick the boots of every agency that we serve. We accommodate those who can utilize what we have. The other agencies with this type of requirement should just continue sucking wind. The amateur radio service is not structured to handle "top secret" communications. Part 97 regulations make this very clear.

Don't you people understand that if you change part 97 regs to allow this that we are no longer the amateur radio service described in Part 97? Will we allow some more back-door manuvering by the ARRL to choke this down our throats, like the proprietary Pactor III protocol that nobody can monitor, being used every day by the Winlink network? What are they sending over the HF airwaves? You can't possibly know, because you cannot decode that protocol. Isn't that convenient!

If government agencies really depend this heavily on the amateur service (and they don't ... it's a matter of convenience for them ... no risk, and potential gain), this country is in a s***pile of trouble. This is stupid. Just plain stupid.

And Jan, take it back to your 3rd rendition of D-Star you recently started, if you please. In case it isn't apparent to you, this pertains to FCC regulations. I refrained from comment there in your thread, at your request, in your second post in that thread. Common courtesy OM.

Edit for typo.
Amen brother! I believe this to be another attempt by the ARRL to make Winlink legal, which I believe it to not be because of the proprietary codes used in the service. I wonder how much "commercial" email is being sent by this "service"?

Best,

Mike - K7OV

[kb2vxa]

What the HECK are you guys blathering on about and what does it whatever "it" is have to do with Amateur Radio? The ARRL is in Blewington, not Fart Worthless, and a nondescript clip culled from some mysterious and unknown document says absolutely nothing.

[k7ov]

Quote[/b] (na4ar @ Nov. 13 2005,18:08)]Part 97.1(a) of the rules that govern the Amateur Radio Service establishes "emergency communications" as a prime reason for this radio service to exist. So, whart does that really mean?

These last two hurricane seasons have demonstrated the need for Amateur Radio operators to step up to the plate when commercial and public safety communications systems have been rendered inoperative. Such was the case last year during Hurricanes Charley and Ivan that devastated parts of Florida. This need was again repeated this year as Dennis, Katrina, Rita and most recently, Wilma caused catastrophic losses in Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas.

I have read several of the comments posted to this Forum that take issue with the proposed legalization of encryption within Part 97. Some of these comments appear to be just another attempt at "League bashing".
But just so we can all be clear about why encryption is needed, let me point out a couple REAL issues Amateur Radio operators, including those working under the RACES banner, face when called on to assist with disaster-related communications.

First, the Amateur Radio Service shares many of its frequency allocations with other users, many of whom operated under Part 15 with no license whatsoever. This is particularly true in the 420-450 MHz, 902-928 MHz, 2417-2450 MHz and 5650-5925 MHz allocations. Part 97.313(e) specifically PROHIBITS Amateur radio licensees from communicating with others not licensed under Part 97. This includes allowing non-Hams from accessing and using 802.11 Wireless Access Points being operated under Part 97 rules.

Second, the information landscape has changed dramatically during the last few years as new laws like HIPAA and new Privacy Policies have been adopted. HIPAA specifically prohibits the transmission of a person's health information in such a manner that it can be easily intercepted and accessed. Further, privacy policies adopted by the American Red Cross and other non-governmental relief organizations further prohibit the transmission of client information in the clear.

Third, those of us who have ever been involved in a disaster-response effort know many Amateur Radio transmissions are monitored. Security by obscurity does not work! And if the News Media is wise to Amateur Radio, so, too, are those who would repeat the terror of 9/11 if given the opportunity. I would not want to be responsible for the loss of life that would be incurred because a terrorist intercepted a non-encrypted message that pointed to a shelter housing five hundred or a thousand disaster victims.

Many of the businesses and individuals operating Part 15 broadband transceviers on Amateur Radio Service frequencies routinely utilize strong encryption to protect access to their systems and to their data. It is considered a "good engineering and operating practice". Amateur Radio operators, too, are suppose to use "good engineering and operating practices". In this case, however, Part 97 prevents it, a deficiency the ARRL's HSMM Working Group is trying to rectify.

I am proud of the work the HSMM Working Group is doing. I and many of my colleagues are Information Technology professionals. We work with commercial wireless systems and the Internet daily. Still others are RF Engineers. We know the potential Amateur Radio operators can realize, if allowed to do so. We recognize our responsibility to protect the privacy rights of our fellow citizens when they need our help the most.

The effort to legalize encryption and strong security under Part 97 is NOT some conspiracy to relinguish Amateur Radio frequencies to the government. Rather, it is recognition of a need by all Amateur Radio operators to embrace new technologies and to operate legally when doing so.

73 de Paul-NA4AR
ARRL HSMM Working Group
2005 NOAA Environmental Award recipient
Hi,

First See the copy of the the preample or general provisions of Part 97: (as copied from the ARRL web page)

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.

&copy; 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.

MY COMMENT: You will note that emergency communications is mentioned in part (a) and is only one aspect of 5 other reasons for the the Amateur Service and has no more or less weight in our reason for being a service.


QUOTE: HIPAA specifically prohibits the transmission of a person's health information in such a manner that it can be easily intercepted and accessed. Further, privacy policies adopted by the American Red Cross and other non-governmental relief organizations further prohibit the transmission of client information in the clear. :UNQUOTE

If health agencies can't send this information uprotected, they they will have to change the law to allow unprotected transmissions during times of national or regional emergency or distress. I believe this to be short sited on thier part. I really don't believe they require this during an emergency because I know for a fact that the Coast Guard transmits this type of information during emergencies all the time.

While agencies such as American Red Cross have created "Policies", those policies have no weight on what we are legally able to provide. I followed the latest emergencies such as Katrina quite closely and the majority of traffic they wanted us to handle were logistics, ie; handling of materials. We did handle some health and welfare traffic, but most of that type of traffic was handled by satellite and cell phones and there is no legitimate reason for encrypting communications by us except by the desire of the agency asking for our help. Thus, there is no real need for us to be able to encrypt our communications, except that you want that ability to support Winlink and other currently "illegal" protocols. This also answers your "Third" reason for encryption.

ARRL would not be vulnerable to "Bashing" if they were really representing the best interests of Amateur Radio or at least the majority opinion of their members. Arrogance is trying to say that ARRL represents most hams when most hams do not belong to this organization. That is one of the reasons they are always begging for money. If ARRL had even half of the licensed ham operators in the U.S. as members, money would not be a problem. It is not reasonanable for you to build a house of cards and then cry "Fowl" when people take exception to your antics. Clean up your act first, then come to us with reasonable requests for support.

Since I am a member of ARRL, I feel that my opinions and disappointments with the League are in order and do not qualify as "League Bashing" but are my right as a member to voice my disappointments and represent many other League Members opinions as well. The problem is that the League is not listening to its own membership. I wonder why it seems to be dying out?

73,

Mike - K7OV

[k7ov]

Quote[/b] (N2PVP @ Nov. 13 2005,18:49)]HIPPA During Emergencies (http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/hipaa/KATRINAnHIPAA.pdf)
I think it is interesting that those wanting encryption for Amateur Radio quote HIPPA as saying that we need it for that reason, yet the HIPPA policy and laws allow exception during times of legitimate emergencies. I guess that explains why the Coast Guard can do it.

What bothers me most, is the lie by omission these people are using to browbeat us into accepting standards that would make Winlink legal! These people continually show by their actions that they will use any lie or method to push this on us at our expense.

And they say they represent all hams? Bull Pucky!

73,

Mike - K7OV

(Thanks for providing the link to this information!)

[k7ov]

Quote[/b] (na4ar @ Nov. 13 2005,19:46)]The FCC has great latitude to amend Part 97, adopt new rules and make Amateur Radio relevant in our information-driven society. We saw this in 2000 with changes to the Morse Code proficiency requirement. And now that the treaty provision requiring Morse Code proficiency has been relaxed, I believe we will see this section of Part 97 change again without an Act of Congress. This same rulemaking authority can also be used to legalize encryption for domestic transmissions.

It is arrogant to believe you can still operate the same way you did fifty years ago and survive extinction.
May be, but not allowing encryption does not hold us back 50 years. That statment is just another attempt to push this on us with mindless blather! We are using advanced digital technology now and continue to do so with things like D-Star (which I don't see the need for but so be it) which is not encrypted.

This is just another attempt by pro Winlink forces to "legalize" their project. Just publish the codes and join the legal world of ham radio! Encryption is not needed to promote digital technologies, it is just that simple.

73,

Mike - K7OV

[WD8OQX]

This is just an observation but if my life (or that of my kid) depended on any of this, I wouldn't give a rats behind if it were encrypted or not. I'd be more concerned that the info got through. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif

[kl7aj]

In part 97, encryption of amateur communications is explicitly forbidden. It would require an entire rewrite of the rules to allow this to happen.

eric

[ad4mg]

Quote[/b] (kl7aj @ Nov. 14 2005,13:45)]In part 97, encryption of amateur communications is explicitly forbidden. #It would require an entire rewrite of the rules to allow this to happen.

eric
Yep, an act of Congress.

I'm pleased that most amateurs see through the smoke on this one. #I doubt it will gain any popular support, but we had better watch for the filing of the proposal. #It just fits so nicely in the ARRL playbook as of late.

[K2WH]

MINUTES OF EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Number 478
Fort Worth, Texas -- October 22, 2005

Who the hell is the executive Committee Number 478? I got your minutes right here!

This is a bull_ _ _ _ story. #The FCC (and myself I might add), will never allow encryption of Amateur transmissions. #Get a life.

<FONT FACE="Times New Roman" size="+2.5" color=blue>"HALLICRAFTERS, THE RADIO MANS RADIO, K2WH"<FONT>

[W2CZ]

While I might think this is a problem I think the real issue is that certain information must be protected due to privacy laws.

I suggest that an email or call to your ARRL Divison chairperson might be in order. That way you can get an explaination as why this was proposed.

After you have gotten your answer maybe you'll be satified but if not then try to influence the "masses".

Maybe having ideas is your thing.....then consider running for an ARRL leadership position.

[n7spy]

*sigh*

A petition might be filled by the League with the FCC.

The FCC is going to see that Part 97 states that Amateur Communications can not be encrypted.

The FCC will tell The Universe™ that the League filed this thing.

The Universe™ will have a chance to say something.

At that point is when everyone here who has a beef/issue/problem with the League's petition should tell the FCC... who will ultimately grant or deny the League's petition.

And, judging by how long it has taken the FCC to act on the whole Morse Code matter, this will take a looooooooooooooooooooooong time.

So get those responses ready, folks.

[K0RGR]

Quote[/b] (WA0LYK @ Nov. 14 2005,08:19)]Quote[/b] ]K0RGR
It comes down to this: if we are going to play by the rules that the 'served agencies' are putting out there for us, then encryption is a must.

We can tell the Red Cross to go to hell. There's no law that says we have to serve the Red Cross. But if the Red Cross insists that health and welfare communications must be encrypted, then we must encrypt it or not carry any. I don't think we want to tell the Red Cross to go to hell. ARRL has signed letters committing us to serve the Red Cross. Maybe that was a bad idea, but that's where our committments lie.

Herein, lies part of the problem! Why don't we have MOU's that allow hams to solicit and pass H&W traffic ON THEIR OWN? Why do H&W messages have to be solicited only by the Red Cross? Why can't we set up a communications center outside of a shelter and perform this function on our own? We could do this with a proper MOU with FEMA that would grant access for hams.

The real problem lies with those that have blinders on and can only see serving Public Agencies as the goal. What ever happened to serving the PUBLIC directly? Perhaps there is no money in it from Homeland Security consequently it is no longer a priority!

Jim
WA0LYK
Hams have enough trouble coming up with operators and equipment - now we have to come up withour own shelters, food, and transportation, too? It's not a real bad idea, and in many cases it would be a good one, but we also need to be where the people are, which is the shelters, and those are owned by other agencies.

[kb1msk]

I think it is time to split the Amateur Radio service into two separate entities. One for people who like to experiment with radio technology, and another one for people who want to do volunteer emergency services.

Radio technology has gotten so advanced that there is no need for people to understand the electronics anymore. Just give them a VHF radio and vertical mag mount antenna, and let them do emergency stuff all they want.

It would probably mean sharing our precious band space with people who don't know what a radio wave is, but we have to change with the times here guys.

[ad4mg]

Quote[/b] (W2CZ @ Nov. 14 2005,14:43)]While I might think this is a problem I think the real issue is that certain information must be protected due to privacy laws.

I suggest that an email or call to your ARRL Divison chairperson might be in order. #That way you can get an explaination as why this was proposed.

After you have gotten your answer maybe you'll be satified but if not then try to influence the "masses".

Maybe having ideas is your thing.....then consider running for an ARRL leadership position.
Efrem,

Sadly, the ARRL has been a lot less than responsive on recent ideas. #You seem to be very reasonable, and seeing as you are a life member, and I'm not currently a member, would you consider looking into this and sharing what you find?

Good, factual information could prevent this from becoming another bashing session for Newington. #It may be that a reasonable explanation is available.

Having only an announcement that a proposal is to be submitted by orders of the BOD following review of Katrina data without any valid explanation as to how this decision was made is a sure-fire way to incite ARRL bashing. #The ARRL must understand that it's claim to represent all 600,000 amateurs in this country, members or not, brings with it accountability to each and every amateur. #If they stated that they only represent the 118,000 ARRL members, that would be a different story.

As much as I have despised the direction and recent actions of the ARRL, I too feel that it would be very bad for the service should the ARRL fold up it's tent and go away. #On the other hand, I absolutely refuse to join an organization that I disagree with so much. #The path to change is through the firmly rooted incumbents there, who will be most difficult to "root out". #I recently gave serious thought to rejoining, but thought better of it. #I feel that I would be supporting their misguided policies of late if I sent my money to them. #And I feel that they pay no more attention to members than non-members. #It is their responsibility to convince myself and the other 480,000 amateurs who are non-members otherwise should they desire their ranks to grow.

Given no additional information to consider, I will do my very best to influence as many folks as possible that this is a very bad idea.

And, to address the invitation to consider running for a position, I would likely consider such a challenge if and when the day arrives when I can feel good about sending my money to Newington. #Today is not such a day.

73,
Luke

[NL7W]

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Nov. 14 2005,06:03)]Quote[/b] (NL7W @ Nov. 14 2005,01:50)]Quote[/b] (na4ar @ Nov. 13 2005,19:28)]What is at issue is the relevance of Amateur Radio during a 21st century emergency. You may not have any expectation of privacy. But the agency you are providing communications support to may. That includes local, State and Federal agencies.

It should not come as a surprise that a number of Federal agencies operating in the Hurricane Katrina disaster area sought the help of Part15.org members because they could not get the support they needed from Amateur Radio, including RACES. Be careful what you wish for. Extinction is just around the corner!
As a federally contracted program manager serving local, state, and federal public safety telecommunications needs, I am quite aware of public safety technology and telecommunications issues - nationwide. And as a 25-year ham, I also understand the contrary points of view conveyed here. Therefore, I make the the following general proposal - preserving the integrity of open and intercepted communications during routine amateur communications.

1. All coded or ciphered (encrypted) communications intended to obscure their meaning shall remain prohibited, unless:

(a) Licensed amateur stations participate in federally designated disaster related communications - directly aiding the communications capabilities of public safety local, state, or federal agencies while encrypted.

(b) Licensed amateur stations participate in federally recognized exercises testing communications capabilities in a simulated environment.

This rules exception during times of need, but only during federally recognized times of need, should be allowed. It would greatly enhance amateur radio's ability to provide quality and trusted communications for public safety agencies during times when their own communications systems are degraded or destroyed.

Today's technology is not a barrier to effective and trusted communications. The barrier is the human factor, or the organizational issues amongst us and between others. The same applies with the "interoperability" dilemma between disparate public safety agencies across the Nation. Let's allow trusted digital communications when its needed.

Regards,

Steve, NL7W


References:

97.113(a) (4) Prohibited Transmissions
97.111(a) (2) and (4) - Authorized Transmissions
The FCC already has an expedited process for obtaining Special Temporary Authorities during national disasters.

There is no reason why this process could not be used to set up specific links between specific endpoints that are encrypted.

Once the STA expires, the link would have to be taken down (or at least have the encryption removed).

tim ab0wr
Agreed.

I sincerely hope others within the amateur radio community don't extend encryption permissions beyond what is stated in this line of reasoning. That would be wrong and against the spirit of the ham radio.

73.

[W7TUX]

Didnt the ARRL push the Winlink 2000 program with out the backing of the ham community, do you really think they care if you object to this proposal? #Be afraid, it shows no sign of stopping. Im begining to wonder if I should upgrade, dont know if there well be anything left when I get there.
mike http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif

[ab0wr]

Quote[/b] (K0RGR @ Nov. 14 2005,12:41)]Quote[/b] (WA0LYK @ Nov. 14 2005,08:19)]Quote[/b] ]K0RGR
It comes down to this: if we are going to play by the rules that the 'served agencies' are putting out there for us, then encryption is a must.

We can tell the Red Cross to go to hell. There's no law that says we have to serve the Red Cross. But if the Red Cross insists that health and welfare communications must be encrypted, then we must encrypt it or not carry any. I don't think we want to tell the Red Cross to go to hell. ARRL has signed letters committing us to serve the Red Cross. Maybe that was a bad idea, but that's where our committments lie.

Herein, lies part of the problem! #Why don't we have MOU's that allow hams to solicit and pass H&W traffic ON THEIR OWN? #Why do H&W messages have to be solicited only by the Red Cross? #Why can't we set up a communications center outside of a shelter and perform this function on our own? #We could do this with a proper MOU with FEMA that would grant access for hams.

The real problem lies with those that have blinders on and can only see serving Public Agencies as the goal. #What ever happened to serving the PUBLIC directly? #Perhaps there is no money in it from Homeland Security consequently it is no longer a priority!

Jim
WA0LYK
Hams have enough trouble coming up with operators and equipment - now we have to come up withour own shelters, food, and transportation, too? It's not a real bad idea, and in many cases it would be a good one, but we also need to be where the people are, which is the shelters, and those are owned by other agencies.
When we were preparing for entry into the disaster area in LA as part of SATERN (we were never activated) we were told to take our own shelter, food, and transportation. (after 13 years as a Scout leader, that wasn't a problem)

As WA0LYK noted, the ARS communication tent would be near the ARC, SA, or FEMA shelters. So it *would* be where the people are.

tim ab0wr

[ab0wr]

Quote[/b] (K0RGR @ Nov. 14 2005,12:41)]Quote[/b] (WA0LYK @ Nov. 14 2005,08:19)]Quote[/b] ]K0RGR
It comes down to this: if we are going to play by the rules that the 'served agencies' are putting out there for us, then encryption is a must.

We can tell the Red Cross to go to hell. There's no law that says we have to serve the Red Cross. But if the Red Cross insists that health and welfare communications must be encrypted, then we must encrypt it or not carry any. I don't think we want to tell the Red Cross to go to hell. ARRL has signed letters committing us to serve the Red Cross. Maybe that was a bad idea, but that's where our committments lie.

Herein, lies part of the problem! #Why don't we have MOU's that allow hams to solicit and pass H&W traffic ON THEIR OWN? #Why do H&W messages have to be solicited only by the Red Cross? #Why can't we set up a communications center outside of a shelter and perform this function on our own? #We could do this with a proper MOU with FEMA that would grant access for hams.

The real problem lies with those that have blinders on and can only see serving Public Agencies as the goal. #What ever happened to serving the PUBLIC directly? #Perhaps there is no money in it from Homeland Security consequently it is no longer a priority!

Jim
WA0LYK
Hams have enough trouble coming up with operators and equipment - now we have to come up withour own shelters, food, and transportation, too? It's not a real bad idea, and in many cases it would be a good one, but we also need to be where the people are, which is the shelters, and those are owned by other agencies.
If the American Red Cross is saying that Health and Welfare information has to be encrypted, then that is an INTERNAL POLICY DECISION, and they will have to live with it.

Here is a statement from the federal government that shows that the American Red Cross is NOT subject to HIPAA restrictions.

***********************************************

an excerpt from a memo from HHS:

Department of Health and Human Services
Offie of the Secretary

Director
Office for Civil Rights

September 2, 2005

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office for Civil Rights

HURRICAN KATRINA BULLITN:

........................

Of course, the HIPAA Privacy Rule does not apply to disclosures if they are not made by entities covered by the Privacy Rule. Thus, for instance, the HIPAA Privacy Rule does not restrict the American Red Cross from sharing patient information.

......................

***********************************************


Folks, if the ARC wants to use Amateur Radio to carry their traffic then they should make their traffic fit the Part 97 rules.

If they don't want Amateur Radio to carry their traffic then they can find other ways to get it carried.

Changing Part 97 rules against encryption in order to meet the policies of the American Red Cross, especially when those policies are NOT required by law, is a recipe for disaster.

Where would the changes end?

tim ab0wr

[ab0wr]

So far I have seen the following justifications for pushing for the removal of the restriction against encryption in the amateur bands:

1. Served agencies want us to be able to carry messages with the content encrypted.

2. Part 15 can do it so why can't Part 97 licensees?

3. We need to join the 21st century.

4. We need to be able to secure access into our radio nodes so we need to be able to encrypt all of the traffic our channels carry.


Not a single answer to any of the following questions has been provided by a single proponent:

1. What will the impacts under CALEA be?

2. Who will do the encryption? The third party or the control operator?

3. Why can't this be done under an expedited STA should a disaster occur? The STA will expire upon restoration of normal communication channels.

4. Why, since all the proponents speak of doing this using 802.11 equipment, are 6m, 2m, 70cm, and other VHF bands included?

5. What will the impacts be of further blurring of the lines between Amateur Radio and Common Carriers such as telecom providers, internet service providers, and cable service providers?


The justifications given are weak and illogical. The answers to the real questions are non-existant.

Why is this? Come on proponents! Is this the best you can do? If so, you are going to have a hard time pushing this through the FCC against the opposition you will surely see.

tim ab0wr

[nf0a]

Quote[/b] (K3TJ @ Nov. 13 2005,13:54)]The ARRL has lost touch with its membership and reality.
It`s getting to the point that why bother being a ham? One reason I have contempt with the ARRL is for losing touch with it`s " Membership" it purports to serve....
Having fun and serving the public seems to be fading away.... http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif

[K4JF]

Quote[/b] (ad4mg @ Nov. 14 2005,10:58)]Quote[/b] (kl7aj @ Nov. 14 2005,13:45)]In part 97, encryption of amateur communications is explicitly forbidden. #It would require an entire rewrite of the rules to allow this to happen.

eric
Yep, an act of Congress.
Actually, no, it would not require an act of Congress, as the rule in question is just that. A rule, not a law. All that would be required is the standard FCC rule-making process.

Don't get me wrong. I am against the proposal. But let's use facts in opposing it.

[WA5BEN]

Quote[/b] (kb1msk @ Nov. 14 2005,12:46)]I think it is time to split the Amateur Radio service into two separate entities. One for people who like to experiment with radio technology, and another one for people who want to do volunteer emergency services.

Radio technology has gotten so advanced that there is no need for people to understand the electronics anymore. Just give them a VHF radio and vertical mag mount antenna, and let them do emergency stuff all they want.

It would probably mean sharing our precious band space with people who don't know what a radio wave is, but we have to change with the times here guys.
Have you ever deployed in a disaster? I doubt it! If you had, you would know how utterly ridiculous your statement is.

Nothing has changed the physics of propogation. Line of sight is still line of sight.

For almost two weeks after Katrina, ham radio was the ONLY communication to the outside world for people in Bogolusa, LA. That story was repeated all across LA, MS, and AL. Then came Rita, and it waas repeated in TX and LA.

A VHF radio and a mag mount will get you about 5 - 7 miles -- if you are lucky.

In Bogolusa, we had a direct VHF link to the state EOC in Baton Rouge, Franklinton (parish HQ and Sheriff's office), Covington (shelter/EOC), and lots of other agencies. On HF, we had the "world" -- state EOC, parishes, Coast Guard Rescue, Baptist Men, Salvation Army, and Red Cross.

Our VHF link required a 45 foot pole, a gain antenna, and a hill top. We could cross-band repeat to extend the range of our handhelds and mobiles. NONE of that would have been possible without our knowlegde and abilities. (And then there was the Armadillo Link that gave us UHF comms all the way across Texas...) Knowledge also dictated that the HF antenna be at 25 feet -- not all the way up the pole at 45 feet!

The person who "experiments with radio technology" is the PRIMARY person who volunteers his/her time, energy, equipment, and EXPERIENCE when disaster strikes. I am an engineer and a writer. I have personally developed some innovative concepts specifically for EMCOMM and SAR.

I created the concept for and designed the State of Texas Operation S.E.C.U.R,E. HF Emergency Communication System. That system uses my proprietary firmware for the Kantronics KAM. (I donated the right to copy to the State of Texas.) I also designed a portable solar-powered repeater package that operates for 3 - 5 days without sunlight, and weighs less than 15 pounds -- including the battery, solar panel, and antenna.

When disaster strikes, the REQUIREMENT for our unique set of skills and experience is most vital. I would remind you that the ONLY reasons we have our bands are: 1) to provide a emergency communications, and 2) to provide education in the sciences.

And, just to steer back on topic, I can also steer you to a truly unbreakable encryption technique. (It's been around since 1918.)

[ad4mg]

Larry, good to see you join the discussion. #In spite of our differences in other areas, I value your expertise. #I do find it odd, however, that you report success in amateurs assisting in the Katrina disaster, while just a few pages ago, the HSMM guy was touting the failure of amateur radio's ability to render assistance. #The statement he made was a weak attempt to tie encryption requirements by served agencies into the apparent failure.

I followed events there, and your rendition seems far more accurate. #I think this push to rewrite Part 97 will discourage volunteers by creating more animosity towards the ARRL, which is being seen as not being in touch with it's members, or the reality of amateur radio needs.

I would wager that you will be in favor of allowing encrypted transmissions by amateurs, but I hope I am wrong. #Special allowances for genuine emergencies and genuine needs for encryption can be made on a case by case basis, and I see no need to steer this service towards making encrypted transmissions commonplace.

Your statement regarding our reasons for having spectrum is fundamentally true, and certainly applies to the VHF, UHF, and higher spectrum, but I see no push for any entity to want our MF & HF bands, with the possible exception of BPL service providers, in itself a very controversial effort.

I also want to express my gratitude to you for not bringing us another Winlink commercial. #I think that one has truly worn itself out. #Without the banter here about Winlink, it is now being given an opportunity to prove it's value based on it's merits, and not who can holler the loudest. #I personally see no direct connection between this issue regarding encrypted transmissions and Winlink HF/Internet operations at this time.

Regards,
Luke

[WA5BEN]

Quote[/b] (k7ov @ Nov. 14 2005,10:00)]Quote[/b] (N2PVP @ Nov. 13 2005,18:49)]HIPPA During Emergencies (http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/hipaa/KATRINAnHIPAA.pdf)
I think it is interesting that those wanting encryption for Amateur Radio quote HIPPA as saying that we need it for that reason, yet the HIPPA policy and laws allow exception during times of legitimate emergencies. I guess that explains why the Coast Guard can do it.

What bothers me most, is the lie by omission these people are using to browbeat us into accepting standards that would make Winlink legal! These people continually show by their actions that they will use any lie or method to push this on us at our expense.

And they say they represent all hams? Bull Pucky!

73,

Mike - K7OV

(Thanks for providing the link to this information!)
Just what portion of Winlink is NOT legal under the rules as they exist today? Answer: There is no part of Winlink that is not fully and completely legal under today's rules.

Your premise is flawed, and your argument is baseless. (And how the heck did Winlink get into this discussion, anyway? The only tenuous connection to Winlink is that it could be used to handle messages...)

[WA5BEN]

Quote[/b] (ad4mg @ Nov. 14 2005,17:14)]Larry, good to see you join the discussion. In spite of our differences in other areas, I value your expertise. I do find it odd, however, that you report success in amateurs assisting in the Katrina disaster, while just a few pages ago, the HSMM guy was touting the failure of amateur radio's ability to render assistance. The statement he made was a weak attempt to tie encryption requirements by served agencies into the apparent failure.

I followed events there, and your rendition seems far more accurate. I think this push to rewrite Part 97 will discourage volunteers by creating more animosity towards the ARRL, which is being seen as not being in touch with it's members, or the reality of amateur radio needs.

I would wager that you will be in favor of allowing encrypted transmissions by amateurs, but I hope I am wrong. Special allowances for genuine emergencies and genuine needs for encryption can be made on a case by case basis, and I see no need to steer this service towards making encrypted transmissions commonplace.

Your statement regarding our reasons for having spectrum is fundamentally true, and certainly applies to the VHF, UHF, and higher spectrum, but I see no push for any entity to want our MF & HF bands, with the possible exception of BPL service providers, in itself a very controversial effort.

I also want to express my gratitude to you for not bringing us another Winlink commercial. I think that one has truly worn itself out. Without the banter here about Winlink, it is now being given an opportunity to prove it's value based on it's merits, and not who can holler the loudest. I personally see no direct connection between this issue regarding encrypted transmissions and Winlink HF/Internet operations at this time.

Regards,
Luke
Hi, Luke,

You and I tend to agree and disagree as gentlemen, and you likewise have my respect.

I believe that a case can be made that encrypted messages (not the same as encryption) might be legally carried under the existing rules.

Consider the case of a RACES station who is

[WA5BEN]

Quote[/b] (WA5BEN @ Nov. 14 2005,17:19)]Quote[/b] (ad4mg @ Nov. 14 2005,17:14)]Larry, good to see you join the discussion. In spite of our differences in other areas, I value your expertise. I do find it odd, however, that you report success in amateurs assisting in the Katrina disaster, while just a few pages ago, the HSMM guy was touting the failure of amateur radio's ability to render assistance. The statement he made was a weak attempt to tie encryption requirements by served agencies into the apparent failure.

I followed events there, and your rendition seems far more accurate. I think this push to rewrite Part 97 will discourage volunteers by creating more animosity towards the ARRL, which is being seen as not being in touch with it's members, or the reality of amateur radio needs.

I would wager that you will be in favor of allowing encrypted transmissions by amateurs, but I hope I am wrong. Special allowances for genuine emergencies and genuine needs for encryption can be made on a case by case basis, and I see no need to steer this service towards making encrypted transmissions commonplace.

Your statement regarding our reasons for having spectrum is fundamentally true, and certainly applies to the VHF, UHF, and higher spectrum, but I see no push for any entity to want our MF & HF bands, with the possible exception of BPL service providers, in itself a very controversial effort.

I also want to express my gratitude to you for not bringing us another Winlink commercial. I think that one has truly worn itself out. Without the banter here about Winlink, it is now being given an opportunity to prove it's value based on it's merits, and not who can holler the loudest. I personally see no direct connection between this issue regarding encrypted transmissions and Winlink HF/Internet operations at this time.

Regards,
Luke
Hi, Luke,

You and I tend to agree and disagree as gentlemen, and you likewise have my respect.

I believe that a case can be made that encrypted messages (not the same as encryption) might be legally carried under the existing rules.

Consider the case of a RACES station who is
Well, THAT wasn't supposed to happen! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

Consider the case of a RACES station who is operating under 97.407(e) "

(e) All communications transmitted in RACES must be specifically authorized by the civil defense organization for the area served. Only civil defense communications of the following types may be transmitted:

(1) Messages concerning impending or actual conditions jeopardizing the public safety, or affecting the national defense or security during periods of local, regional, or national civil emergencies;

(2) Messages directly concerning the immediate safety of life of individuals, the immediate protection of property, maintenance of law and order, alleviation of human suffering and need, and the combating of armed attack or sabotage;

(3) Messages directly concerning the accumulation and dissemination of public information or instructions to the civilian population essential to the activities of the civil defense organization or other authorized governmental or relief agencies; and

(4) Communications for RACES training drills and tests necessary to ensure the establishment and maintenance of orderly and efficient operation of the RACES as ordered by the responsible civil defense organizations served. Such drills and tests may not exceed a total time of 1 hour per week. With the approval of the chief officer for emergency planning the applicable State, Commonwealth, District or territory, however, such tests and drills may be conducted for a period not to exceed 72 hours no more than twice in any calendar year. "

If a government official handed me a coded message, I would be inclined to verify that it fell into one of those categories, and transmit it. I would also prepare a letter to the FCC (as soon as practical) stating who sent the mesage (and stated the content was "in bounds"), to whom it was sent, and the date and time. I believe that I would be correct in sending the traffic.

If an ARC person tried the same, I would not be inclined to take a chance, even though even though 97.407(e)(3) indicates that I could make the same argument. (I have worked with too many ARC field staff whose judgement was -- to put it kindly -- somewhat lacking.)

Salient points:

1. I would not be encrypting or decrypting the message.

2. I would be transmitting an official message, which I am authorized to do under 97.407(e).

3. RACES is the only sanctioned conduit for official government messages

4. 97.407(e)(1) speaks of "Messages concerning impending or actual conditions jeopardizing the public safety, or affecting the national defense or security during periods of local, regional, or national civil emergencies ;"

5. 97.407(e)(2) speaks of "Messages directly concerning the immediate safety of life of individuals, the immediate protection of property, maintenance of law and order, alleviation of human suffering and need, and the combating of armed attack or sabotage ;"

As a person with a good amount of experience in EMCOMM, I believe that there is justification for regulatory change to permit VERY LIMITED use of encryption in VERY SPECIFIC situations. I believe the first choice should be OFF-LINE encryption by the served agency or entity, so that they would provide an encrypted message to the amateur. (That keeps our hands "clean".) The second choice would be for the amateur to use keying materials supplied by the served agency or entity for on-line encryption. (That also keeps our hands "clean".) In both cases, the responsibility for the CONTENT of the message would rest with the served agency or entity. The list of permitted non-government entities would be SHORT.

[ab0wr]

***********************************************
wa5ben:

"If a government official handed me a coded message, I would be inclined to verify that it fell into one of those categories, and transmit it. I would also prepare a letter to the FCC (as soon as practical) stating who sent the mesage (and stated the content was "in bounds"), to whom it was sent, and the date and time. I believe that I would be correct in sending the traffic."
**********************************************

I agree with what you've said, but since you probably couldn't verify the content of a coded message as being "in-bounds", it would may only be possible to verify the sender, the destination, and the date/time if it is conveyed by a courier. Like you said, that's when trust in the judgement of the originator is important.

My guess is that most government agencies utilizing RACES stations would only use amateur radio to send messages meeting your classifications under the most dire of circumstances. That's not going to happen often enough to worry about establishment of any new rules and regulations beyond the ones you quote. I suspect that a memo-of-intent or something from the FCC with basically the same thing you just said as a clarification of regulatory intent would be more than sufficient to cover the situations that might occur.

tim ab0wr

[WA5BEN]

Quote[/b] (K4JF @ Nov. 14 2005,08:16)]No knowledgable person in ANY "Federal", state or local agency will expect any degree of privacy in electronic communications. To do so is hopelessly inept. That is simply not the nature of the beast.
I'm sorry, but you are 100% incorrect. Virtually all diplomatic communications are transmitted electronically, as are virtually all strategic-level military communications.

Those are the highest cryptographic classifications for message content. (Diplomatic is a "super-set" of strategic.)

I would also point out that a 100% unbreakable -- in theory and in practice -- encryption method is available.

I have worked with the highest levels of military and civilian government cryptographic organizations in a large number of countries. We know that "break times" are in the tens of millions of years for a state-of-the-art stragtegic or