Bruce Perens K6BP leaves Open Research Institute (ORI)

From his Twitter post: https://twitter.com/BrucePerens/status/1496937475796701184

"Folks, this is hard to say, but I have moved on from working with Open Research Institute. The reasons are that the organization has rendered itself incapable of receiving further grants from ARDC, and has curtailed further presentations at Amatuer Radio venues in favor of venues like DEFCON (I like DEFCON, I just don't need to do my ham radio work there). This is all due to sensitive personnel issues that should not be publicly discussed, but have hobbled the organization.

I distanced myself from ORI more than a year ago when these issues were not as severe, but my work in founding ORI was mainly to have an organization that _could_ take advantage of ARDC funding when AMSAT was unwilling to do their work in Open Source as ARDC required. So, with the main purpose of the organization in my eyes gone, time to move on.

Obviously I feel very bad about this, but see no choice at this time. My policy and technical work will continue, and I will find another non-profit to host ARDC-funded projects that I help."

 

>??<

 

I guess Bruce will be going back to [edit] No Code International, to continue his work there.

The beauty of creating cardboard façade organizations is that there is no one to disagree with. His error was actually allowing others to do work under the ORI masthead.

p.s. His crusades aside, don't miss any opportunity to hear Bruce speak. He is the funniest key note speaker I've ever heard! A genuine raconteur.

 

Wow.

Maybe Phil, KA9Q, as the main guy in ARDC, can clarify. I though ORI was being pushed as the future of ham radio, at least to some. Does this mean the objective of pushing 'open source' hardware as a path is dead for ham radio?

Frankly, that's not the path I took, but it would be fatuous to deny that path as an option to others.

IOW there may be second side to this story...

BTW, DEFCON (see the OP) has given, at least on some occasions, voice to illegal initiative(s), and there is at least a case where RF is being cited as an ( illegal) means to thwart and stop computers, with home made RF jamming devices. See on, the DEFCON web page:

Disrupting Robotic Homeostasis And Artificial Intelligent Systems With Electromagnetic Pulse

Any radio amateur using such devices for the intent and action of jamming is operating illegally and outside of Part 97 privileges. Not opinion, fact.

73
Chip W1YW

 

Indeed jamming is illegal, viz Part 97. The fact that a computer can be rendered inop because of external RF attack can be done at all, is of great interest, however. It's predatory. And experimentation about the defenses against predation is what hacking is about.

As an example, fuzzing attacks use random sequences, plenty of them, to test the viability of input parsers. A fuzzing attack on your own stuff is legal, no harm no foul. But wouldn't you like to know that a specific sequence, if unintended, blows something to smithereens or worse? That your smartphone can be hacked, just by receiving a message? Yes-- it's possible. Do we need to defend against such nonsense? I believe so. Doesn't mean I'm going to become a predator, rather, my past two decades were in systems research, which has a subdiscipline of investigating novel hacks. That's what DEF CON generally seeks to do. The ugly stuff has to be said and defended against. This is why open code is so important.

There are groups that can figure out what you're typing from keyclicks. Others can sense nano-changes in power consumption to detect what a CPU is doing. Some use Hall Effect sensors to listen to unshielded twisted pairs. There's lots of spookware in the world, and understanding novel attacks is what saves us from them.

That Bruce left is a sad day for the project, IMHO.

73 Tom W9YW

 

Disappointed, nothing in his blog on http://perens.com/

In fact, nothing posted for nearly a year.

 

That would be nice, there's plenty of nations that still require Morse code knowledge for full access to Amateur radio. There is no means to demonstrate Morse code knowledge on one's FCC license unless one passed a Morse code test prior to 2007. For people licensed in the last 15 years that leaves them with no option for a reciprocal license with all privileges in other nations. That's likely not been a big deal recently with COVID-19, and Russia starting what might end up as World War Three, international travel hasn't been all that popular.

No Code International pretty much folded up after the FCC ended their Morse code testing requirement. Not so "international" were they? Perens did appear to make an aborted attempt to revive the website about three years ago. http://nocode.org

If we can't remove Morse code testing everywhere then maybe we can get a Morse code endorsement on licenses from the FCC? That puts some meaning back into reciprocal licensing. Getting rid of Morse code knowledge requirements would be preferred, a Morse code endorsement would be a second best resolution.

Perhaps I have Perens confused with someone else but didn't Perens do some advocacy for use of cryptographic signatures on Amateur radio? A means to digitally verify who was saying what on Amateur radio would be nice. It's not obscuring the meaning of anything so it's not encryption in a way that should upset the FCC. I do see people get upset at any mention of cryptographic anything with Amateur radio but this should not be anything to be upset about. This should get more discussion.

 

I'm glad you like my speeches.

I still hold the no-code domain, but in truth the job is done, we won, and there is little to do with it. About all I've thought of is to run a contest for no-code operators. As far as I know three countries might have a code requirement but I have no confirmation, just net hearsay - and if it's true people in Thailand, India, and Russia would have to fix the problem - they're not going to listen to us. Almost every country dropped the code requirement when the International Telecommunications Union changed their rules.

You still have the option of taking a radiotelegraph test in the US from one of the Commercial Operator License Examination Managers (COLEMs). But when I have gone to the International DX Convention (the last time they ran it) not one person has walked up and complained about this, so I kind of doubt it's a big deal. And everyone knew I was there last time, because of the then ARRL transparency vs. confidentiality issue. We fixed that, by the way.

I did make the technical point that you can use a zero-knowledge proof or a cryptographic ID on the air without obscuring information, and that it's legal. Real encryption would be a problem because it would harm the self-policing nature of Amateur Radio.

 

No. ORI may eventually untangle their issues. One is an IRS one that I have no idea how to exit - I just know, from ORI's experience, not to get into it. Another is that they didn't want to show at Hamvention, and I felt that was not acceptable. I had no problem getting a table in Building 2 for HamOpen.org.

HamOpen.org will be at Hamvention to show the M17 digital voice project, Applied Ion's electric satellite thrusters, my $14 remote rig controller, and other projects.

We have our California corporate registration as of yesterday, and are applying for our 501(c)3.

 

Brazil does require Morse proficiency (87 minimum correct TX and RX of 125 characters) to ascend to Technician (B-Class), which is is a obligatory waypoint (1 yr of B-Class) to promote to Extra (A-Class) level. B to A Class requires no code. The bar lies on B-class.

Regulations: https://www.gov.br/anatel/pt-br/regulado/outorga/radioamador

 

OK, I do plan to visit Brazil again, and will try to meet with some ham clubs when I'm there. The "International" part of No-Code International was getting rid of the ITU requirement, which we did. It really takes people in the affected countries to lobby their own governments.

 

If nobody wants to run a global ant-Morse code testing effort for Amateur radio any more then I can completely understand that. There's just some nations that want to keep Morse code testing for some reason. That still leaves the problem for young travelers that wish to take advantage of reciprocal licensing agreements when traveling for business or recreation. With no Morse code testing for an Amateur radio There is no easy resolution for this as the FCC rules currently stand. Anyone that didn't plan ahead 15 years ago is left without options.

I'll have people mention that someone could get a FCC commercial radiotelegraph license as an alternative by how well does that theory work in practice? Has anyone ever been able to use a commercial radio license to be allowed Amateur radio operating privileges in any other nations? I believe Canada will do this but they are the exception, not the rule.

I've found out that organizations worked out a systems of what might be called affidavits that the person holding the affidavit has met that nations's Morse code proficiency requirement. Once such system is part of a set of pan-American treaties that allow national Amateur radio clubs, the ARRL in the USA, to issue temporary operation permits in another nation bound by this treaty. This treaty covers the Americans and a hand full of other nations. There's a similar treaty for some other nations but I don't recall all the requirements and countries that recognize it.

Even with all these options available for reciprocal licensing agreements it stilll leaves many nations off limits becasue the FCC has no Morse code endorsement like Canada and other nations. It would cost the FCC nearly nothing to implement, and there's already a pool of people willing to perform the testing and complete the paperwork to FCC specifications.

Even if people end up going to s commercial radio testing site they'd end up with a endorsement from the FCC, as opposed to some third party that a foreign licensing agency my refuse to recognize.

Someone can argue that all of the English speaking world did away with Morse code tests, as have most of Europe, an any first world nations, that still leaves dozens of nations Americans will likely visit. We can lobby to have that requirement removed but how long will that take compared to getting the FCC to issue a Morse code endorsement? There's different levels of Morse code knowledge requirements so we ca set up proficiency endorsements to match. Popular Morse code proficiency match the proficiency of our own in the past, so having proficiency exams at 5 WPM, 13 WPM, and 20 WPM should not be difficult to recreate.

 

A press release needs to be issued. Post it to the Amateur Radio News, and other destinations. I believe Dayton will be huge this year, and you don't want to be caught below the noise shelf, which will be considerable.

73 Tom W9YW

 

The longer nations maintain a Morse code knowledge requirement for any Amateur radio license the further they fall behind technologically. Learning Morse code to talk on the radio or use a digital mode is like having a test on having to ride a bicycle before getting access to a race track to test one's new running shoes or electric cars. If there's nonsense rules to access the public race track then they'll just do their testing someplace else, someplace that is illegal and/or a hazard to others.

Why have a test for a Morse code endorsement then if a required test could be encouraging unsafe behaviors? Because if someone does choose to operate CW on the air we can encourage they operate CW to the Morse code standard. That way they are giving proper ID, and not communicating in some made up code to obfuscate the code. They can prove they know the standard by taking the optional test.

 

Sorry to hear it, Bruce. Hoping for the best for the future of amateur radio.